Results of Sep 12th SHARE Act Legislative Hearing (Included HPA)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • stanc
    Banned
    • Apr 2011
    • 3430

    #16
    Originally posted by keystone183 View Post
    Silly ploys are what wins hearts and minds..... Constitutional authority...not so much. How else did we get here in the first place.....
    We got here mainly because of emotional reactions to events. Generating an emotional response is "what wins hearts and minds." An inane argument about reducing noise pollution won't.

    Comment

    • keystone183
      Warrior
      • Mar 2013
      • 590

      #17
      Originally posted by stanc View Post
      We got here mainly because of emotional reactions to events. Generating an emotional response is "what wins hearts and minds." An inane argument about reducing noise pollution won't.
      reducing noise pollutionfor the little childrens............. There. Fixed.

      Comment

      • LRRPF52
        Super Moderator
        • Sep 2014
        • 8569

        #18
        Originally posted by stanc View Post
        We got here mainly because of emotional reactions to events. Generating an emotional response is "what wins hearts and minds." An inane argument about reducing noise pollution won't.
        Discharging a firearm inside my home in an emergency isn't an inane argument, nor is wanting to protect the hearing of animals when hunting (horses and dogs for example).

        There is no need for me to have to justify why I want or don't want to use a particular firearms accessory to some power hungry despot and any other citizens that feel I should have to make my case to them as to why I want to use that device. Especially looking at sound moderators, which aren't even weapons, this whole reality is an example of why the NFA was way off the reservation when looking at individual rights.

        My understanding what drove the inclusion of suppressors in the unconstitutional 1934 NFA was their concern over poaching, as the world was in the midst of a Great Depression and some people were hunting more for food supply after losing employment. It's odd though as suppressors were not very widespread at the time, being they had only been recently invented. The logic of regulating suppressors to stop poaching falls pretty flat on its face when you accept the reality of the bow and arrow or crossbow.

        Statist control freaks are going to assault your rights at every chance I guess, unless there's some other series of events we just don't know about. The gangster-on-gangster machine-gun ambushes and drive-by shootings were no justification to regulate machine-guns, but they did that too. The St. Valentines Day Massacre between Al Capone's goons and the North Side Irish Gang in Chicago happened on Feb. 14th, 1929. At the time, a lot of the legislation in States dealing with organized crime they helped create with Prohibition was focused on short barreled shotguns first, then machine-guns.

        It's interesting how they use extreme cases of career criminals to justify eradicating the rights of everyone else. They tried to include handguns with the 1934 NFA, but the NRA fought that and there wasn't enough support for it, so that provision was dropped.
        NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

        CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

        6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

        www.AR15buildbox.com

        Comment

        • Bigs28
          Chieftain
          • Feb 2016
          • 1786

          #19
          30mm. , b ,m. ? . , .. . , ,,, ?,
          ,. . ,, ,,,,,,,,,,., . ,, ,. , il

          Comment

          • biodsl
            Chieftain
            • Aug 2011
            • 1714

            #20
            Originally posted by stanc View Post
            An inane argument about reducing noise pollution won't.
            I suspect there are a lot of home owners around my gun club who'd love it if all the members were using suppressors.
            Paul Peloquin

            Did government credibility die of Covid or with Covid?

            Comment

            • montana
              Chieftain
              • Jun 2011
              • 3209

              #21
              Stan, I guess the easy access to shoes, socks, pants, underwear, etc increases their use in crimes. All items of clothing should be heavily regulated. I wont even get into the unregulated access of car mufflers, enabling criminals to escape stealthy away from the scene of a crime. It would be much easier to catch a barefooted, naked criminal trying to escape in a non muffled automobile.
              Your argument is silly and could be applied to anything. With that logic we should heavily regulate everything and anything that a potential criminal could use in the act of a crime. With that logic bows and arrows should have ear shattering noise makers every time a bow string is released. I now see where the logic of the word "infringe" has about as much meaning today as male and female comes from.
              Last edited by montana; 09-15-2017, 11:22 AM.

              Comment

              • 41bear
                Warrior
                • Jan 2017
                • 382

                #22
                It's out of committee and now on the House Floor for a vote.
                "Wild flower, growin' thru the cracks in the street" - Problem Child by Little Big Town

                Comment

                • TomSawyerNW
                  Warrior
                  • Nov 2015
                  • 225

                  #23
                  I admit I'm only partly following this, but I have interest in this issue. I like to shoot, and I hate that the neighbors don't like the noise. And frankly speaking, I don't care to be sitting on the deck in the evenings and hearing shooting noise a couple fields over. Noise pollution.

                  But I have to ask, if suppressers will increase crime, then why hasn't the black market already manufactured them and made them available?

                  370 million people in this country, and with cities like Chicago, Baltimore, D.C., St. Louis, etc., I have yet to hear of a shooting committed by someone using a suppressor. Or, have I missed a CNN headline?
                  If the Democrats had been in power when this country was founded, we'd be the British.

                  Comment

                  • bj139
                    Chieftain
                    • Mar 2017
                    • 1968

                    #24
                    Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                    Discharging a firearm inside my home in an emergency isn't an inane argument, nor is wanting to protect the hearing of animals when hunting (horses and dogs for example).

                    There is no need for me to have to justify why I want or don't want to use a particular firearms accessory to some power hungry despot and any other citizens that feel I should have to make my case to them as to why I want to use that device. Especially looking at sound moderators, which aren't even weapons, this whole reality is an example of why the NFA was way off the reservation when looking at individual rights.

                    My understanding what drove the inclusion of suppressors in the unconstitutional 1934 NFA was their concern over poaching, as the world was in the midst of a Great Depression and some people were hunting more for food supply after losing employment. It's odd though as suppressors were not very widespread at the time, being they had only been recently invented. The logic of regulating suppressors to stop poaching falls pretty flat on its face when you accept the reality of the bow and arrow or crossbow.

                    Statist control freaks are going to assault your rights at every chance I guess, unless there's some other series of events we just don't know about. The gangster-on-gangster machine-gun ambushes and drive-by shootings were no justification to regulate machine-guns, but they did that too. The St. Valentines Day Massacre between Al Capone's goons and the North Side Irish Gang in Chicago happened on Feb. 14th, 1929. At the time, a lot of the legislation in States dealing with organized crime they helped create with Prohibition was focused on short barreled shotguns first, then machine-guns.

                    It's interesting how they use extreme cases of career criminals to justify eradicating the rights of everyone else. They tried to include handguns with the 1934 NFA, but the NRA fought that and there wasn't enough support for it, so that provision was dropped.
                    Thank you for posting this. It is right on the mark. Government does not belong in this issue but they violate the Constitution nonetheless.

                    Comment

                    • stanc
                      Banned
                      • Apr 2011
                      • 3430

                      #25
                      Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                      Originally posted by stanc
                      We got here mainly because of emotional reactions to events. Generating an emotional response is "what wins hearts and minds." An inane argument about reducing noise pollution won't.
                      Discharging a firearm inside my home in an emergency isn't an inane argument, nor is wanting to protect the hearing of animals when hunting (horses and dogs for example).
                      I fully agree. And those are good arguments, unlike the "reducing noise pollution" silliness.

                      Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                      There is no need for me to have to justify why I want or don't want to use a particular firearms accessory to some power hungry despot and any other citizens that feel I should have to make my case to them as to why I want to use that device.
                      That's very idealistic, but not realistic. The reality is that you do have to comply with legal requirements to buy and possess some devices.
                      Unless, of course, you wish to break the law and face the consequences if caught...

                      Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                      Statist control freaks are going to assault your rights at every chance I guess...
                      Of course they will.

                      Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                      The gangster-on-gangster machine-gun ambushes and drive-by shootings were no justification to regulate machine-guns, but they did that too. The St. Valentines Day Massacre between Al Capone's goons and the North Side Irish Gang in Chicago happened on Feb. 14th, 1929. At the time, a lot of the legislation in States dealing with organized crime they helped create with Prohibition was focused on short barreled shotguns first, then machine-guns.

                      It's interesting how they use extreme cases of career criminals to justify eradicating the rights of everyone else.
                      It's not surprising. People generally use whatever method they think will further their goal.

                      Comment

                      • stanc
                        Banned
                        • Apr 2011
                        • 3430

                        #26
                        Originally posted by TomSawyerNW View Post
                        I have to ask, if suppressers will increase crime, then why hasn't the black market already manufactured them and made them available?
                        I think removing restrictions on suppressors probably won't result in a significant increase in criminal use, because there are few types of crimes for which suppressors would be useful and/or practical.

                        Comment

                        • stanc
                          Banned
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 3430

                          #27
                          Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

                          Originally posted by TomSawyerNW View Post
                          I admit I'm only partly following this, but I have interest in this issue. I like to shoot, and I hate that the neighbors don't like the noise. And frankly speaking, I don't care to be sitting on the deck in the evenings and hearing shooting noise a couple fields over. Noise pollution.
                          Again with the "noise pollution" nonsense.

                          I suppose that the person who came up with this idea, and all of the shooters who repeat it, probably think they are being very clever in employing an environmentalist argument.

                          If I were a strategist for anti-gun groups, I would have them agree with removing restrictions on suppressors on the grounds it would benefit the public by reducing noise pollution.

                          Then, as with noise pollution control devices on motor vehicles, I would have them lobby Congress to make it mandatory that all firearms have suppressors attached when in use.

                          Imagine the effect on concealed (or even open) carry of handguns.

                          Comment

                          • Klem
                            Chieftain
                            • Aug 2013
                            • 3507

                            #28
                            Originally posted by stanc View Post
                            I fully agree. And those are good arguments, unlike the "reducing noise pollution" silliness.

                            .
                            You'd be surprised.

                            The Swiss are right into reducing noise pollution at their ranges, building sound-proof buildings and blinker-walls forward of the firing line to reduce noise pollution in a country with limited level ground.

                            Their resurgent use in the UK has been largely due to the growing population encroaching on rural areas and the need to reduce noise pollution.

                            In Australia, a guy called Andrew Stucken (a lawyer) purchased a house near the Lyndhurst Rifle Range in 2014. It wasn't until he moved in that he realised on the weekends there was a lot of noise coming over his fence. He petitioned the NSW Police Commissioner to enforce compulsory suppressors for all shooters using the range. An interesting situation in a country where only approved and disciplined bodies can use suppressors. Unsurprisingly the shooters themselves resisted and even stopped him when he tried to join their club in an attempt to change it from within. As a lawyer he did get some purchase in the appeal system until finally the then Police Commissioner vetoed his initiative.

                            For a short while a notable Australian anti-gun lobbyist, John Crook was on record as being pro-suppressor, to reduce the 'shocking' sound produced by rifle ranges in built-up areas. He was against their use in rural areas however as he felt people in the vicinity needed to know if there was a shooter nearby. His gun lobby subsequently talked him out of it however believing any promotion of suppressor use encouraged the use of guns. They are now anti-suppressor/anti-gun in all scenarios.

                            Comment

                            • stanc
                              Banned
                              • Apr 2011
                              • 3430

                              #29
                              Originally posted by Klem View Post
                              In Australia, a guy called Andrew Stucken (a lawyer) purchased a house near the Lyndhurst Rifle Range in 2014. It wasn't until he moved in that he realised on the weekends there was a lot of noise coming over his fence. He petitioned the NSW Police Commissioner to enforce compulsory suppressors for all shooters using the range.

                              For a short while a notable Australian anti-gun lobbyist, John Crook was on record as being pro-suppressor, to reduce the 'shocking' sound produced by rifle ranges in built-up areas.
                              Thank you for providing real world examples that validate my theory. Argue on the grounds of noise pollution control, and it may come back to bite us in the ass by making suppressor use mandatory.

                              Comment

                              • Klem
                                Chieftain
                                • Aug 2013
                                • 3507

                                #30
                                Originally posted by stanc View Post
                                Thank you for providing real world examples that validate my theory. Argue on the grounds of noise pollution control, and it may come back to bite us in the ass by making suppressor use mandatory.
                                A very unlikely scenario I think we all agree.

                                Using that logic, suppressors could become compulsory regardless of whether the gun lobby uses noise pollution to argue for greater access to suppressors or not. Mufflers on cars are compulsory so by the same token, why not make it the same for guns? Kind of like, 'Be careful what you wish for' as the government decides, OK, you want suppressors, then everyone has to have them from now on.

                                A logical but extremely unlikely scenario.

                                All I predict is the gradual relaxation of laws surrounding their control and access. Unlikely to ever get like New Zealand however, where the only government control over suppressors is the collection of a 20% Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the retail level.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X