GOP Introduces Perhaps Most Absurd Pro-Gun Law Yet

[Alekzander]

The GOP has just risen to a whole new level of crazy. Last week, it introduced the Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act of 2017, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Rep. John Carter (R-TX). The bill removes gun silencers from the scope of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and refunds the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchased them after October 22, 2015.

Yes, we’re talking about gun silencers, or “suppressors” as they are euphemistically known in the industry. You know – those things that assassins snap on the ends of their pistols in action movies to look all slick and cold-blooded. Apparently, the logic is that the world would be a much safer place if silencers were more readily available to the average consumer. Sure.

Entire Article: http://lawnewz.com/opinion/gop-introduces-perhaps-most-absurd-gun-law-yet/

[Historic NY]

1. Good that means I can pop anyone without them hearing...

these people are dangerous.

[Paladin]

2. They could at least give the proposed law an honest name.

Something like the "Your Assault Rifle Will Look A Lot More Badass With This Silencer That Actually Doesn't Silence Much Of Anything Act."

A wide variety of reliable hearing protection devices have been readily available to shooters for decades. As with so much of modern-day shooting activities, this freeing up of silencer/suppressors is strictly about appearances.

[NutmegYankee]

13. Their use on gun club/hunting grounds might be welcomed by neighbors.

I live about 1 mile from a shooting club and some days you can hear the cracks of rifles as people practice or use the grounds for hunting deer/turkeys.

[HoneyBadger]

3. They are legal at the federal level already

The issue is the $200 tax, not whether or not the country is safer with or without them. It is an economic justice issue.

[Tanuki]

4. I hope that Don Trump Jr.'s efforts on behalf of this measure

will be fully investigated. Given the gun lobby's financial support of his Dad's campaign, this is at best unseemly and probably an actionable breech of ethics.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/gun-silencers-are-hard-to-buy-donald-trump-jr-and-silencer-makers-want-to-change-that/2017/01/07/0764ab4c-d2d2-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?client=ms-android-att-us

[derby378]

5. The only thing a silencer does is turn 120dB into 90dB

I've fired using a silencer before. Could actually be a benefit for legitimate hunters, especially when teaching their kids how to shoot for the first time.

That said, I've never seen a cop with a silencer fitted on her duty pistol. Maybe in SWAT, but that's about it.

[HoneyBadger]

9. Tinnitus is a terrible thing

This would reduce the likelihood of getting it. As well as reducing long term treatment for it.

[derby378]

12. This is probably true

I have a little tinnitus, but that's due to old age and loud music, not guns. I'd like to whittle down the stats for tinnitus a tiny bit.

[Tanuki]

19. Ear defenders would accomplish the same thing, no? eom

[HoneyBadger]

21. It is cumulative

For instance if you are NEXT to an anti aircraft gun, ear plugs and ear muffs combined do not do enough. The "silencer" is one more piece of the puzzle, trust me, your doctor will still tell you to wear hearing protection. What many people do not realize is that supersonic (faster than the speed of sound) results in a report that is too loud for your unprotected ears, regardless of there being a "silencer." Many 177 pellet guns makes noise that is too loud for unprotected ears. And "silencers" for pellet guns are taxed the same as any other.

Your doctor will tell you that continued exposure to 85db is harmful. That is the noise level of popping a top on a can or closing a car door.

[Lee-Lee]

25. Ask anyone who works in industrial hygiene or occupational safety

And they will tell you that the preferred and most desirable way to deal with noise that can damage hearing is to eliminate it at the source. Hearing protection worn on the person is a distant second in desirability and only considered an allowable solution when elimination of the noise at the source is either impossible or so expensive or complicated as to be unreasonable.

Right now the only reason that it is not down widely with firearms is a 75 year old law that makes no sense anyway.

[Drahthaardogs]

16. You can handled .45-70 rounds slow enough to be silenced.

All you hear is a primer then a thwump.

[braddy]

6. They are legal in about 42 states here, and in places like France and England.

[derby378]

8. Only with NFA clearance

Without it, they are highly illegal and can get you 10 years in a Federal prison for mere possession.

[braddy]

14. It seems that someone is trying to eliminate the $200.00 federal tax, to match the legality in 42

states.

[Initech]

7. The GOP doesn't need to fight a war on terror when they are the terror!

[50 Shades Of Blue]

10. The ONLY "life" they care about is fetuses' and that's only because they hate women.

[hunter]

11. Ha, ha... gun love is so sweet...

Regardless of what you do next time it will be a silencer to us because we're all deaf!

A Scanner Darkly...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405296

[melm00se]

15. a little information

about suppressors:

1) They don't "silence" a weapon like they do in the movies. They reduce the sound of the report by anywhere from 30-50%. That means the report moves from being really loud to just loud.

2) They aren't exactly small. They range from 3 to 9 inches in length. That effectively increases the length of a handgun from 33% - 100%. They moves a handgun from being concealable to completely unconcealable.

3) They alter the balance of the weapon by quite a bit which can definitely impact their overall accuracy unless one practices with them...a lot.

[jmowreader]

20. AND you must use subsonic ammunition with them

Most of the sound a supersonic ammunition cartridge (most of them are) makes is the sonic boom produced by the bullet as it accelerates through the sound barrier. A suppressor owner has to stick to slow, heavy bullets if he wants his toy to work.

[sweetapogee]

17. a friend

has several suppressors on his pistols, I'm told it's legal in our state you just need to buy a stamp that costs a couple hundred dollars. I shot one last summer, it is still fairly loud but not ear shattering.

[Lee-Lee]

18. In some countries in Europe that are mandated for hunting

And in others it's considered rude to hung without one.

It's really a non-issue from a crime perspective to change this law. Any criminal who wants one can make one easy enough- if you simply get a thread adapter and screw an oil filter on the end of a barrel you can get a 30-35db drop for 100 rounds or so and after the first round punches a hole in the end it's just as accurate. So quite literally anyone who wants to get one to use illegally needs only to spend about $20 at Home Depot and Autozone and spend about 5 minutes putting it together.

The keeping of them on the NFA is pretty ridiculous. The whole point of the NFA tax at $200 when passed in 1934 was to tax them and full auto weapons and others out of the hands of private citizens but keep them accesablr for the elite and big corporations- that is why the Pinkertons and other strike breakers in the 1920s and 1930's always had the strikers outgunned.

The $200 tax at this point has outlived its bad intended life anyway, and given the amount of time the government spends processing the paperwork it's sure to be a net loss for the government. And they spend all that time to do manually the exact same background check that a gun dealer accomplishes with a phone call, because the law is still following 1934 guidelines.

So at this point they are collecting $200 in tax revenue and making people wait for momths while they manually process paperwork that does nothing more than the exact same thing a NICS check at a gun dealer does now. There is no way that the $200 covers the manpower and infrastructure it takes to manage this, so not only are they keeping a bad, out of date system they are losing money in the process.

There is no rational arguement for keeping suppressors on the NFA. The only one that even approaches one is that the penalties to untaxed possession discourage criminals, but that doesn't pass the common sense test. It's already illegal for a felon to have a firearm and the law change would treat them in the same class as a firearm so a felon caught with one on a gun would face double charges, and anyone who plans to use a firearm to kill someone already is willing to violate many much more serious laws so the small difference between penalties for an NFA weapon and a suppressor regulated like a regular firearm used illegally are small potatoes compared to murder and attempted murder.

[madville]

23. Sounds like a good idea

It could potentially reduce noise pollution in areas near firearms ranges. In some countries they are required for target practice.

If one is using regular ammunition there is still a significant "crack" or noise due to the bullet breaking the sound barrier, how they are portrayed in movies is mostly fiction. One would need to use slow subsonic ammunition to get substantial sound reductions, which would significantly reduce the energy and effectiveness of the projectile.

They are readily available now in most states, one mainly just needs to pay the $200 federal tax. The same with short barreled rifles and "sawed off" shotguns, they are legal in most places as long as you pay the $200 federal tax.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

24. If the Europeans don't mind, why should we?

[Turbineguy]

26. Well, it least we wouldn't be kept awake

by gunfire and shootouts.

Having created a future, we must embrace it.