TexasCHLforum.com

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Does anyone have any more information about when this might come up for a vote. My thoughts is if this doesn't make it pretty soon it will probably be pushed to the side???

I’m thinking this has been pushed to the side due to gov shutdowns, debt ceilings, immigration, and fisa reauthorizations.

Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

BBYC wrote:That would be an actual compromise. Put slidefire stocks on the registry with an amnesty period to register tax free, and in exchange take suppressors off the registry. Throw in national reciprocity and I might support the compromise.

srothstein wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: Because every knowledgeable person in the world knows the results would have been no different if the shooter had been using suppressors.

When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.

Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?

ninjabread wrote:I'm getting older and I'm afraid that without passage of the Hearing Protection Act, I won't be able to hear GOP requests for campaign contributions, etc.

Ruark wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

Abraham wrote:Why wouldn't foreign mfgs. import lower cost suppressors?

I recall reading something to the effect they sell suppressors in Europe for $150.00 or so.

So, why would domestic mfgs. continue to demand so very, very much more?

its a tube and some baffling, nothing overly impressive here!

Exactly. I think if it passes, you'll see a lot of "garage factories," just people making them and selling them online.

goose wrote:From Michael McCaul:

"February 17, 2017

Dear Mr. Goose:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 367, the Hearing Protection Act. I appreciate the benefit of having your views on this matter.

As you may know, H.R. 367 was introduced by Representative Jeff Duncan (SC-03) on January 9, 2017. If enacted into law, this bill would eliminate the $200 transfer tax on firearm silencers. This bill would also remove firearm suppressors from the regulation of the National Firearms Act. Please know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. As such, I will review this legislation closely.

This legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means. While I do not serve on these committees, I will share your concerns with my colleagues who do. Should H.R. 367 come to the House floor for a vote, I will consider it with your views in mind."

A little disappointed that it doesn't say he supports it. Fairly non-committal, IMO. But not hostile towards it either. Fingers crossed.

Abraham wrote:Why wouldn't foreign mfgs. import lower cost suppressors?

I recall reading something to the effect they sell suppressors in Europe for $150.00 or so.

So, why would domestic mfgs. continue to demand so very, very much more?

Ruark wrote:I'm looking forward to buying my first suppressor at Academy for $39.95.... (checks wallet).

AndyC wrote:Silencerco CEO: ATF Won’t Fight Hearing Protection Act

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/ ... ction-act/