Indianajonze 379 Posted January 28, 2017 introduced as S.59 in the senate and H.R. 367 in the house. text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/59 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367 basic gist is that his bill removes suppressors from the NFA act and make them purchasable like any other firearm with just a simple background check (no stamp, no $200 fee). sounds great, lets do it and get it passed. except there's one huge problem. it does absolutely nothing for states where suppressors are deemed illegal. they're perfectly legal in 42 states, but the usual suspects, including our beloved state of new jersey, deem them as a tool of the devil and ban them outright. https://www.silencershop.com/where-are-they-legal this is utter bullshit. the thing is, i can't for the life of me make sense of why this dumb state actually bans them. as far as i know, we're the only state that has to pin our stocks to a fixed length. this is presumably to make them as physically long as possible so we can't conceal our evil assault rifles under our black trench coats and cause mayhem. sooooo by the same logic, why would they ban suppressors? they pretty much double the length of a handgun, making them more difficult to conceal. i get that they're not permanently attached and can be removed at will, but still, it takes time and when affixed make them hard to hide. did the legislators watch too many gangster movies? own stock in hearing aid companies? who the hell knows. i shoot. a lot. i've invested in expensive ear protection and still feel that it's not enough at times. why should i have to be condemned to eventual hearing loss for the horrific crime of excercising my 2a rights because trenton says so? i've been doing my email writing campaign to our state reps for awhile now on this topic. i strongly urge everyone else here to do the same. i feel with the introduction and hopefully passage of these bills, in conjunction with national reciprocity, it will bring renewed attention to the many, many injustices in the gun-grabbing states. get involved. email your reps. join or pitch in with groups like the american suppressor association. best of all. run for office. it's the only way we can stop this crap and vote these morons out of office http://americansuppressorassociation.com/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indianajonze 379 Posted January 28, 2017 btw here's what the nra says about the topic. some very good points: The benefits of suppressors are scientifically proven. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have both determined that even a single noise over 140 decibels causes hearing loss. The peak sound pressure of a gunshot ranges from a low of 144 decibels (.22 caliber rifle) to 172 decibels (.357 caliber revolver). A suppressor reduces the sound by approximately 30 decibels. In consequence, even suppressed firearms are loud – about 120-130 decibels – and louder than a car horn three feet away. It is, therefore, both inconsistent and illogical for the government to recommend – and even legally mandate – noise abatement for loud machines like lawn mowers and chainsaws while simultaneously setting large regulatory hurdles that discourage suppressor use with firearms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigAl 10 Posted January 28, 2017 The argument is flimsy and can be taken apart by even a graduate level audiologist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deerpark 83 Posted January 28, 2017 1. Repeal the NFAs of 1934 and 1968. 2. Repeal the import ban. 3. Repeal NICS. 4. Dismantle the BATFE. 5. Instruct the Justice Department to prosecute anti-2A states: NJ, NY, CA etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhunted 887 Posted January 28, 2017 Imho, most of these dumb laws were made by Fudds. Either because they know nothing but 1911s, (7 round mags like NY?) and/or based on what they see in movies. The rest are based on false knowledge, (exploding bullets? Shoot down planes?) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted January 28, 2017 What's interesting is that the bill bans states from regulating suppressors but does not ban the banning of them outright. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex V 99 Posted January 28, 2017 The pinned stock law in Nj is retarded. I can pin the stock fully closed and it's still legal. So stupid. Anyway, I hope this bill passes, it won't change anything in NJ but when I love I won't have to wait months for a stamp. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhunted 887 Posted January 28, 2017 The pinned stock law in Nj is retarded. I can pin the stock fully closed and it's still legal. So stupid. Anyway, I hope this bill passes, it won't change anything in NJ but when I love I won't have to wait months for a stamp. Definitely one of the most stupid laws. My guess it was just something to throw in to create one more evil feature. Nothing more. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indianajonze 379 Posted January 30, 2017 What's interesting is that the bill bans states from regulating suppressors but does not ban the banning of them outright. yeah it is a little odd. i assume (hope?) that this is the first wave and they'll go after the banning states next. or maybe use this as a basis to allow rights groups to sue the state over the bans Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indianajonze 379 Posted February 7, 2017 now this article just throws me into a rage. two of the states in this article are actually WORSE for 2a than new jersey, and it looks like even they may be getting suppressors soon. the one in MA was even introduced by a democrat. 2a rights coalition in this damn state is an unorganized mess http://www.guns.com/2017/02/06/suppressor-reform-legislation-afoot-in-4-states/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indianajonze 379 Posted September 12, 2017 http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/350333-lawmakers-spar-over-gun-silencer-bill well it looks like at least one of the pro gun bills is set to move forward. gun grabbers are sufficiently outraged and being whipped into a frenzy, which means a vote is close at hand. should be within the next couple of weeks according to multiple reports. should easily pass in the house, likely to pass in the senate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indianajonze 379 Posted September 14, 2017 aaaaand it's out of committee! floor vote imminent! left going batshit crazy! http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/gun-silencers-congress-republicans-242673?cmpid=sf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted September 14, 2017 Why do they say it has little chance of passing the senate? also, this still doesn't help us in NJ, right? I forget if this had federal supremacy baked in or not Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barms 98 Posted September 14, 2017 So besides for HD of course to save your ears if you are shooting in your house, but for most of us who will never be in a place where we would shoot a pistol outdoors on private land tell me when suppression is usable? If even ONE person at the range is shooting non suppressed you gotta keep your ears on. Believe me I'm not being a hater. I will be first to buy threaded pistol for the home (after i learn pros and cons of fumbling in dark to put on the can because nobody has a pistol box large enough to keep the can on Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted September 14, 2017 Bill has this wording. Don't think it helps us. Quote SEC. 1504. PREEMPTION OF CERTAIN STATE LAWS IN RELA- 5 TION TO FIREARM SILENCERS. 6 Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is 7 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Notwith- 8 standing the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a 9 political subdivision of a State that imposes a tax, other 10 than a generally applicable sales or use tax, on making, 11 transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm 12 silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or 13 imposes a marking, recordkeeping or registration require- 14 ment with respect to such a firearm silencer, shall have 15 no force or effect.’’. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted September 14, 2017 Its been said (and proven in Court) multiple times that a State law can be more restrictive then Federal. When it comes to firearms, there are tons of examples demonstration NJ being more restrictive than Feds and thats not changing anytime soon, and definitely not for silencers. Unless SCOTUS wakes up and suddenly declares silencers as "arms". But we have LOOOOOOOONG way to there. How about we get BB GUNZ out of NJ firearm definition first. That will be some achievement for the decade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
glockncolts 46 Posted September 14, 2017 6 hours ago, Barms said: So besides for HD of course to save your ears if you are shooting in your house, but for most of us who will never be in a place where we would shoot a pistol outdoors on private land tell me when suppression is usable? If even ONE person at the range is shooting non suppressed you gotta keep your ears on. Believe me I'm not being a hater. I will be first to buy threaded pistol for the home (after i learn pros and cons of fumbling in dark to put on the can because nobody has a pistol box large enough to keep the can on If ALL shooters are shooting suppressed you still have to keep your ears on...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites