Quote of the Day
Trump defeated Harris handily and pro-gun senatorial candidates secured a GOP Senate majority and the House is poised to remain in GOP control. This trifecta provides an opportunity to secure pro-Second Amendment legislation that has heretofore eluded both the White House and Congress.
Such legislation includes national reciprocity for concealed carry, which Trump supports, and a hearing protection act, which would remove suppressors from NFA (1934) oversight and regulation.
The previous Trump administration was on the cusp of securing a hearing protection act in 2017, but it was torpedoed by then-Speaker Paul Ryan (R) following the October 1, 2017, Las Vegas attack. Although Yahoo News reported that Ryan tabled the act “indefinitely,” Trump and the GOP-led Congress can pursue suppressor deregulation anew.
AWR Hawkins
November 7, 2024
With Trump, Gun Rights Groups Seek to ‘Make America Pro-Gun Again’ (breitbart.com)
We should try for this. Even if we only move the Overton Window a bit, it will make future actions easier. Future action options include court rulings and reintroducing the bills in the next legislative session.
The threat is gun free zones so hard restrictions on that have got to be the priority. I can accept prisons but not much else but any abolition is welcome.
Yep, the only “sensitive places” are places where a police officer can’t carry…
Replace “gun free zones” with “assumed defense obligation” zones. License them once they meet standards: hard perimeter; secure check-in boxes at security checkpoints; on-standby QRF manned according to zone capacity; affirmative obligation to defend occupants from violence on penalty of the establishing authority of being deemed an accomplice to any violent crimes committed. Regular and no-notice inspections performed to maintain the license.
So, prisons would be able to pass inspection. The schools that are built like prisons would pass as long as they had more than one SRO to be their QRF. Sterile areas of airports might pass; TSA has a high failure rate and the perimeter isn’t that hard. Anywhere else? The person(s) responsible for just putting up a sign would very rapidly be in jail as criminal accomplices, even if the actual criminal isn’t caught.
The one exception would be a safety zone: a place where it is intrinsically unsafe to have metal objects (MRI room) or there is no possible safe way a gun could be fired (oil refinery, hydrogen storage facility, firework factory, ammunition loading facility, etc).
I think ACCOMPLICE might be a word with the requirement of more Mens Rea than we think, or which the courts will impose, but certainly an ACCESSORY to any violent crime that occurs within the area one has possession, custody, or control over in which a violent crime occurs is within contemplation of the authorities, And if it is not, a statute should make it so with a minimum of chang the common law of murder.
Wonder what mass-murder the .gov clowns are going to pull off to get the Orange man on their side this time?
They murdered 58 in Vegas last time. We got the bump-stock BS. And not a second thought from the Donald. “Because I don’t like them.”
Never forget Trump is a Wall St. New York democrat wrapped in an American flag.
I’ll believe it when his name goes on the paper from congress. Till then it’s left-over campaign rhetoric.
He’ll stab us in the back faster than a $20 dollar hooker would over a pile on cash and drugs.
That’s probably why Matt Gaetz withdrew himself. Once he got on the inside and found out it was still only about who gets what. And shit to do with helping America?…. Just my guess.
Never forget either Trump got played on covid. Or he and his friends made billions.
No matter. A lot of people died. And clown world got what it wanted.
So, we’ll see.
If removed from the NFA list, I’d expect them to suddenly become strictly regulated by some states, and we’d have to litigate them all over at the state and local level.
Would love to see suppressors becoming common hardware store level items, especially if they added a preemption from the states regulating them into near non-existence.
Would accept having them be generic 4473 items, like long-guns.
I appreciate the rhetoric of calling such legislation the “Hearing Protection Act.” Accurate and friendly sounding.
The 4473s need to go, too. They are only useful for IDing gun owners and confiscation.
Let’s go back to the “Wild West Days” of 1967, or better yet, 1933….although even back then some states, and muncipalities, imposed restrictions randomly, so Rolf’s point is well taken.
Along those lines, I am unaware of widespread (I’m excepting Blue Swamps like NY and CA) restrictions on “parts” and suppressors are just “parts.” (If I can buy barrels, slings, sights, stocks and triggers anywhere, anytime, *almost* anyplace, why not also a Noise Reduction Device? If reducing noise poses some sort of “threat,” would not accuracy improvements (scopes, peep sights, better triggers, slings, training, etc.) also pose a similar “threat”?) Which doesn’t stop some states from banning suppressors for hunting, which seems…..odd, and a more than prejudicial. I am unaware of any state requiring bows, whether of recurve, compound, or cross- configuration be made noisier, so there are untold numbers of hunters in the woods with almost completely silent weapons!! The horror!
I suspect wide, deep and persistent ignorance may be a contributing factor, a result of dramatic Hollywood fabrications about “silencers”; reducing 160 dBA to ~130 is hardly “hearing safe” but does achieve a substantial improvement, of obvious benefit to the hunter and whomever else may be present.
Related: What happened to the “full faith and credit” clause that seemingly renders it invalid?
Magazines are parts.
Full faith and credit is mostly not honored. Marriage and car stuff is got but little else. I once had to listen to a half hour rant by an optometrist because Colorado wouldn’t honor his Illinois license.
“If reducing noise poses some sort of “threat,” would not accuracy improvements (scopes, peep sights, better triggers, slings, training, etc.) also pose a similar “threat”?)”
Judge McGlynn addressed this in Barnett v Raoul. Any feature of a weapon that makes it more accurate, makes it safer. That takes the weapon out of the “dangerous and unusual” category.
I’d agree that the 4473s should go, but we got here by increments, we’ll likely have to get out of it by increments. At least, barring some MAJOR moves by SCOTUS…. which I’d likely be OK with.
I think there was a case in Illinois recently that ruled licensing and “assault weapon” registration unconstitutional. It is a small step to 4473s being thrown out, too.
Barnett v Raoul, by McGlynn.
Legislation like this is a stopgap measure that does little to solve problems. As has been pointed out such legislation will simply lead to massive state level laws in places like Kali and NY that essentially gut what is a constitutional right. It’s not a bad idea…but it isn’t going to magically solve the problems. We have to force the end of legislation regarding weapons…completely. We need to have it so that ANY law that in ANY way infringes the Second is always and immediately shot down by the first judge who hears a case over it. A tall order but the only course that will truly solve the issue. Till then we are stuck with a piecemeal approach that is often one step forward and two steps back. Worth trying but not the perfect solution.
DJT has other resources while waiting for the Congress to bring legislation to him.
He can encourage his AG to get the Solicitor General to lose some cases before SCOTUS.
Once again we find law schools to be the culprit. And activist judges that either don’t understand or have an outright political agenda.
No one is stupid enough to believe 2A only applies to the federal government.
Their liars, or they’re to stupid to be at the adult’s table.
And since the NFA is treating suppressors as firearms? “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, has been fully infringed. Full stop.
The war on guns has never had a modicum of reason to it. Nor a basis in American law.
It’s an emotional bias with a sinister motive, and very deadly consequences. And nothing else.
And far passed time it was treated as such.