Hearing Protection Act

Started by Ranb, October 07, 2018, 01:33:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ranb

H.R.367 - Hearing Protection Act of 2017
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367
This bill would ease restrictions on silencers, control them more like long guns.  But it seems every time some lunatic kills someone with a semi-auto rifle people get all "but this will allow mass shooters to kill more people".

I had hoped that with a GOP controlled Congress and White House the HPA might get some traction, but Representative Sensenbrener is not taking any action on the bill at all it seems.   As far as I know the only gun regulations relaxed by the Trump administration so far is one that required the Social Security Administration to report people who any one of a broad range of mental conditions which could be used to deny the RKBA.  Even the ACLU sided with the NRA and agreed with Trump on this one.

So what else can we expect from the current administration?  While Obama continuously it seemed, pressed for more restrictions, during his administration regulations were eased on carrying guns in parks and on trains as well as regulation 41P.   I'm mostly a big fan of 41P seeing as how people don't have to beg their local sheriff for permission to buy or make an NFA firearm now.

I hope President Trump will not be satisfied with doing less for gun owners than Obama did.  In my home state of Washington it is the urban Democrats and Republicans who press for the most gun control.  It is the blue dog Democrats who have made the most progress in easing controls on NFA firearms.

Ranb
My gun collection has killed at least five fewer people than the Kennedy clan has with airplanes, automobiles and golf clubs.

Solar

I wouldn't have hearing problems today if the military had allowed silencers. The ear plugs they supplied us with were totally useless.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

SueAnn

Quote from: Solar on October 07, 2018, 06:25:38 PM
I wouldn't have hearing problems today if the military had allowed silencers. The ear plugs they supplied us with were totally useless.
I wouldn't have hearing problems today if I had listened to my Mom when she warned me to turn the Rock and Roll music down a few decibels.  :tounge:

Ranb

I first encountered Republican indifference to gun control issues back in 2009 when I was trying to get RCW 9.41.250 changed.  Back then WA was the only state that allowed a person to own a silencer but prohibited their use on a firearm.  This applied to the police and military as well.  But the police did not care about the restriction.  I actually had a few cops tell me that the Attorney General exempted the police from prosecution for using silencers.  Later when I asked the AG why he exempted the police from prosecution, his assistant wrote back saying the AG did not do that.

So I wrote to the sponsors the silencer bill and was told they couldn't do anything about the bill dying in committee; which of course is not true.  Then in 2011 a Democrat named Brian Blake from McCleary sponsored a new bill.  I also got an appointment to speak with the House Judiciary chairman.  I tried to find a few people to go with me to speak with him (at a Starbucks) but the only person interested was an Australian who lived near Seattle.  The chairman back then was Jamie Pederson.  A middle aged gay man; Democrat.  I actually liked him as he was very blunt when it came to talking about various topics.  He told me he didn't care if it was fair or not that I could own a silencer but not use it; just obey the law he said.  :)

My Australian friend was well dressed and educated, I'm a US Navy veteran and have no education outside what I got in the USN.  But we did well and convinced him the bill deserved a chance.  Pederson told us that if the sponsor pushed, and I got favorable opinions from the police and gun control organizations in the state he would schedule the bill for a hearing.

That was good news.  I made an educational video about silencer law and performance/limitations and sent it to gun control and police groups as well as most of the politicians in Olympia.  I got good feedback.  I was also able to speak to both of my local Democrat representatives and convince them to sponsor the bill.  My blue dog Dem Senator jumped on board also.  When the bill was scheduled for a hearing more GOP Reps decided to co-sponsor.  Until then it was strictly a Democrat sponsored bill.  I was not successful in getting the local WA gun rights lobby to take any interest in the bill, but they did not oppose it.

No one objected to the bill at the pubic hearing.  In fact the WACOPS sent their lobbyist to the hearing and he went on and on for ten minutes.  When it was my turn to speak all I could talk about was the 2 years of silencer crime research I conducted which showed no registered silencer crime at all in the sate. 

The bill went on to pass the House with only 4 no votes.  The next obstacle was Senator Kline (D), the most anti-gun politician in Olympia.  I'm not sure what Blake (D) did to get it a hearing, but it got a very short hearing and was sent along with a pass recommendation.  Kline also got up on the Senate floor and urged them to "show this bill a lot of live".   I talked to Blake later on and he denied selling his soul for a deal, but I know he had to give up something to get this done.

The most important thing required for bill passage is sponsor support.  I'm not sure what my efforts did for it, but it was worth the time and money (mostly lost wages) to appear in the hearings and talk to legislators.

Ranb
My gun collection has killed at least five fewer people than the Kennedy clan has with airplanes, automobiles and golf clubs.