How Will the Hearing Protection Act Become Law?

*Don’t worry, we’re not getting into politics, just legal mechanics. 

With the election of Donald Trump, the firearms community has been beating the drums for the passage of pro-gun legislation. While yes, the mood is certainly positive, there is a fair amount of mechanical processes required  (with plenty of politicking–but that is outside TFB’s domain) to get the legislation onto the President’s desk.

First, a law must be proposed as a bill. The bill is the draft legislation as proposed to the Congress, typically written by the Congress member and/or their staff. The Bill is valid for two years.

Bills, after introduction, is assigned to committees within the respective chambers of Congress for more detailed consideration. Most of the wrangling over bills happens in committees, where members of Congress with more specialized knowledge of the legislative area debate and ultimately vote as a committee on the bill, which is, if passed, send to another committee or to the chamber itself for the up/down vote. Note, this happens in both Houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Once out of respective committees, the bill is voted on and either defeated or passed. If the bill in both the Senate and House is identical, it’s sent to the President for signature, but if different, in any way, the bills must be reconciled by a conference between the Houses which is resubmitted to the Houses for a vote again.

Simply put, while the political winds are far more positive for the Hearing Protection Act and similar pro-gun bills, there is quite a bit of process involved to get the bills into law.

Enjoy Adam Kraut’s old haircut, as he explains this all in detail within his latest Legal Brief:





Nathan S.

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

Nathan can be reached at Nathan.S@TheFirearmBlog.com

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • John A. Smith

    Thanks, Schoolhouse Rock!

    • SP mclaughlin

      Now I can’t unsee the little Bill without NODS and a suppressed Hk416.

    • Major Tom

      Quite possibly the most informative yet entertaining educational show ever created.

  • BryanS

    I would generally prefer a move to remove them from current NFA, and that’s it. No making them a firearm (because they arent one) and no need for the BTAFE to have any say in it.

    What we all have to fear is what crap will get added to the bill to make it a reality? Supressors with a side of?

    • Porty1119

      With a side of repealing the Hughes Amendment.

      • Rick O’Shay

        I don’t see that happening any time soon, to be honest.

      • noob

        how many senators have valuable collections of pre-ban transferrable machine guns? more than a few?

      • BryanS

        Better to just dump the NFA instead. Im sure someone will chime in with the needs of serial numbers (even though statistically they have done nothing) but Removing the NFA and all of its children would be good start.

    • Drew Coleman

      A $5000 tax on everything else NFA, probably.

      • TheMaskedMan

        I would be willing to live with an increase in the tax if they removed SBS/SBRs and suppressors from the NFA. Removing full-auto from NFA is politically impossible, and the guys who can afford those guns can probably afford a larger tax. I wish the NFA would be abolished completely, but the NFA is a game in which we’ll have to compromise to gain any ground.

    • Theo Braunohler

      There are already riders in the HPA that will be used as bargaining chips, such as the retroactive tax stamp credits for anyone that has purchased a stamp after Oct 2015. The government will lose millions if that happens, so you can expect that line item to be removed first.

      • Pod

        I agree. I once called for removing the tax provision, but then someone on here (or Reddit) stated that the tax refund provision is in place explicitly to be sacrificed.

        I don’t think anyone will get a retroactive refund.

    • Harry’s Holsters

      There are a lot of things I would prefer but I’ll take any move in the right direction.

    • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

      If they aren’t classified as a firearm, then they most likely won’t get any of the protections by the 2A that a firearm would/should get.

      So states could just straight-up make them a felony.

      If we keep them classified as a firearm, it pleases the soccer moms (“Oh, well at least you have to get a background check for one of those”) and then should offer them the protections they SHOULD HAVE as devices under the 2A.

      • John

        Good point….

      • BryanS

        Removing them from being a firearm puts them outside of the reach of the ATF. Sure, a state could still ban them, and the 2A only governs the feds anyhow. States have their own constitutions, and plenty of agencies to ignore them.

        I understand the idea behind making a new law to nullify t the old law, but would rather see a bill repealing. Because if it isn’t illegal, it is de facto legal, no 2 bones about it.

        • Norm Glitz

          The latest Supreme Court decisions incorporated the 2nd to the states via the 14th amendment. Mere passage of the 14th should have done that, but with the power the SCOTUS has grabbed for itself, nothing means what is says until they say so. Doh!

          And the 2nd is about “arms”, not just firearms.

  • AC97

    I’m worried that someone on the red side in the senate would vote against it, like, say, John McCain.

    I’m dreading the distinct possibility that this might not happen due to the fact that there’s only a one seat majority, and we don’t know if we’d have RINOs screw us or not.

    • junyo

      My in laws have a neighbor, Vietnam combat vet, redder than red Republican, and he’s range buddies with my FIL. I was down there a couple years ago and I went to the range with them and was chatting with the RO about maybe doing the paperwork for a suppressor and this dude chimes in with “What are you, an assassin?” and we get into it a little bit, and basically there’s no need for a civilian like me to own a suppressor, end of discussion. Suppressors are a ‘gun guy’ issue right now. They’re not a Republican issue. The fact that a lot of gun guys voted for the Republican doesn’t change that.

      • SCW

        When he asked if you were an assassin you should have replied, ” Huh…what…WHAT…I CAN’T HEAR YOU! I HAVE HEARING DAMAGE FROM SHOOTING UNSUPPRESSED FIREARMS!”

        • SirOliverHumperdink

          I know the ‘same’ guy. Career Navy, said in a nutshell, ‘no one should be able to own an AK,- too easy to convert to full auto’.

          • Was he aware that with that kind of field-expedient dumbassery, the resulting rifle isn’t so much “full auto” as “uncontrollably magdumps as soon as the bolt is dropped until it jams or runs out”?

          • SirOliverHumperdink

            So difficult to get a point across to someone who won’t listen. There have been quite a few people like him that when it come to guns, get all stupid. One guy I used to work with said he gave up his NRA membership because they were for ‘cop killer’ bullets.

          • THEY GOT COP KILLAS, RIGGS

            It’s a well-known Science Fact that Teflon coating on a bullet allows it to slip between the layers of space-time and murder police officers who haven’t even been born yet. Saw it on the internet, must be true.

          • SirOliverHumperdink

            He was in the Marines. Told me the difference between 5.56 and 223 is that the 5.56 tumbles to cause more damage.

          • valorius

            There’s a good chance he was in the ROTC.

          • Rural Texas

            Better chance he was the third assistant finance clerk in charge of toner cartridges for the printer.

          • Norm Glitz

            Printers would have had ribbons back then. 🙂

          • valorius

            LMAO

        • JumpIf NotZero

          If he was really in combat he’d already be aware of that point.

      • john huscio

        “bbbut all the bad guys on TV use them so they must be evil!”

        -every intellectually lazy dumbass

      • valorius

        Just for the record, the overwhelming majority of “Vietnam Veterans” are, sadly, fakes.

        This is well documented.

  • Malthrak

    I would be surprised if anything actually happens. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.

    While the GOP may not go out of their way to enact new antigun legislation or renew such, they certainly havent shown any willingness or intention to proactively overturn or change anything NFA related, Executive Order importation bans, or other such things in the last 30 or so years even when holding the Presidency and both houses of congress previously.

    Hopefully that will change, but I’m not holding my breath.

    • TDog

      The GOP is actually pretty anti-gun even if they don’t say it. After all, protesters who can’t shoot back are protesters who can be shot at with impunity. Look at how smug the cops were at Standing Rock and how skittish they were in Oregon – “law and order” is an even bigger rallying cry for the GOP than the 2nd Amendment.

      • Major Tom

        Oregon is a Democrat state.

        • TDog

          As a whole, yes. But not the eastern part of the state and definitely not the county where the standoff occurred.

          • valorius

            I agree with the local gov’t in this issue. The route was changed some 200 times to placate the locals.

          • TDog

            The locals are the ones who have to live there. The local government has an obligation to listen to their concerns, not override them like imperial overlords.

            Government is a servant, not a master. You might wanna remember that.

          • valorius

            It’s not on native american lands. They don’t live where the pipeline is going.

          • TDog

            It’s definitely going to impact their water.

          • valorius

            There are already gas pipelines under that lake, has that impacted their water?

          • TDog

            There’s a difference between natural gas pipelines, which typically transport natural gas (a gas) and the Dakota Access line, which would transport oil (a liquid). Gas diffusion into water is unlikely to cause as much damage to a water source as a heavy liquid such as oil.

            So to answer your question: no, because what the existing pipeline is carrying was unlikely to do so in the first place.

          • valorius

            I think this is much ado about nothing.

          • TDog

            Then why such a robust military and law enforcement response?

          • valorius

            Because the protesters are trying to stop the project.

          • valorius

            I need gov’t to serve me my oil. 🙂

          • TDog

            You can live without oil… try living without water. 😉

          • valorius

            If that was the only river in the world, and if filtration systems did not exist, you’d have a valid point.

          • TDog

            I tell you what – you move whenever someone contaminates your closest source of water – moving is cheap, easy, and entails no upheaval in your life whatsoever!

      • valorius

        If it wasnt for the GOP there would be no more 2nd amendment man.

        • TDog

          If the GOP lived up to its ad copy and empty talk, the 2nd Amendment would be in far better shape than it is today.

          • valorius

            Who passed shall issue or constitutional carry in almost every state in the US? Santa Claus?

            I’m an independent because IMO the R’s are total idiots on many issues, but the 2nd amendment isn’t one of them.

          • TDog

            The issue of carrying is a smokescreen so long as what we are allowed to carry is dictated by the powers that be. I’m no raving anarchist and I certainly endorse some “restrictions”, but my main observation has been that while the GOP pays lip service to the 2nd Amendment, they more heartily endorse the militarization of the police. The argument goes, according to the GOP, that an armed society is a polite one, yet they behave in the exact opposite manner.

            As society has become more heavily armed – a trend that I do view as positive, by the way – the rhetoric towards arming the police to more military standards has grown. If they truly believed in the 2nd Amendment, they would not so heartily endorse allowing the police to own the means with which to overpower the populace with ease.

          • valorius

            I’m no R automaton, i assure you, im a registered indy, and i agree about the police militarization issue, but he facts are the facts. CCW’s in almost every US state were passed by the R’s.

          • TDog

            And none of the existing restrictions were repealed by them and military sales to the police were begun by and advocated by them. Facts are facts.

          • valorius

            They’ve passed constitutional carry in almost 10 states now, that’s not repealing a restriction?

          • TDog

            Almost ten is not ten. Just say the number and try not to make it seem like more than it is.

            As for not repealing a restriction, no it isn’t. Unlicensed carry is a state matter and it should be noted that Democrats voted for those measures as well – not wholeheartedly, but they did.

            But as noted, conceal and carry – licensed or not – is window dressing. It hides the larger and broader issues because concealed weapons – legal ones – can and have been used as an excuse to allow the cops to shoot people in a shorter time frame. These measures have, in effect, given the police wider latitude to shoot suspects and the courts agree.

            They aren’t doing us any favors… “constitutional carry” is not only open season on crooks, but on carrying individuals as well. Or to put it another way, no cop ever said, “Let’s talk,” after someone yells, “Weapon!”

          • valorius

            Before the R’s started, there was CC in ONE state. There was Shall issue LTCF’s in zero states. There are now 41.

            That is ALL because of the R’s.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        There’s little evidence of them being extreme at “Standing Rock.” The protesters claim so, but have little evidence to support the claim.

        And nothing in current law would have stopped those protesters having guns.

    • Tom Currie

      As some prominent Republicans have noted, now that the GOP controls both houses of congress, and the presidency, and the ‘mandate’ brought about by Trump wiping out the opposition (on both sides of the aisle), the GOP suddenly finds itself in a situation where the NEED to poop or get off the pot. Congress is going to have to either make good on some of Trump’s rhetoric or find a much better excuse than those they used the last time they were in power.

      Of course, the GOP does not have the 67 seats they need in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, so that might provide them with the excuse they need (blaming everything on the Democrats would play very well with the NRA as an excuse for more fund raising).

      On the other hand, the HPA is less controversial than some of the other Big Ticket 2A items nominally on the agenda (such as 50-state reciprocity or reclassifying SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs) . If I was a betting man, I’d be looking for a very quiet back room deal to be cut, trading off some of the others to get HPA.

      • Evan

        There are also a few Democrat senators from red states up for election in 2018. A pro-gun vote would certainly help them hold onto those seats. One of those senators is from my home state of Pennsylvania, and he’s gonna get some calls from me on the issue for sure (not that I’ll ever vote for him either way)

      • John

        “Congress is going to have to either make good on some of Trump’s
        rhetoric or find a much better excuse than those they used the last time
        they were in power.”

        Why? They folded like a cheap suit every time they were sent in force to oppose leftist nonsense – and they became democrat-lite.

        I hope they don’t, but I won’t be surprised if they fold again.

      • Bunny Keane

        You only need 60 seats to overcome the filibuster. Currently there are 8 democrats who will be serving in 2016 congress that voted for national reciprocity in 2013. Most likely they will vote for HPA as well. The republicans will fall in line, even Toomey. Then there are a handful on democrats who were elected in blue leaning states that voted for Trump, plus there are some junior democrats from moderately strong blue 2A states.

        These things will pass if we get momentum.

      • De Facto

        “Of course, the GOP does not have the 67 seats they need in the Senate to avoid a filibuster”

        Harry Reid already exercised the “Nuclear Option” in 2013. Simple majority rules is all it takes.

        Turnabout is fair play.

    • valorius

      Trump ran on an extremely pro gun platform. he already said he’s going to push for a 50 gun carry permit and allow for military personnel to carry on bases.

      I would be suprised if he doesn’t support legalization of suppressors.

      • Malthrak

        Trump has a history of saying a lot of things, not such a great history of followimg through, in fact often very much the opposite. We’re talking a classic upper strata NYC personality here who supported AWB’s in the past, nobody should trust him any further than I can throw him. Even if we assume he supports these things though, it doesnt mean he’ll actively push for them or that congress will act on them. They certainly didnt under Dubya, all they did was choose not to act to renew the 94 AWB.

        Lets hope they do act, just not holding my breath.

        • valorius

          So far he’s doing all the things he’s campaigned on, and he’s not even in office yet. I am absolutely thrilled he won, and very proud to have cast my vote for him in Pennsylvania, putting him over the top.

          • Malthrak

            Eh, I’m seeing a sea of nepotism from my end. If he’s your guy, great, I hope he does achieve what you were looking for, but I was painfully depressed about my presidential options this year, looking to me (as a subjective view) like a choice between a corrupt and divisive political oligarch who wants power for its own sake and couldnt find her ass with both hands on one end and a possibly even more corrupt fascist blabbermouth with a looooooooong history of patently false statements and failing to live up to commitments on the other, both hailing from similar backgrounds and many of the exact same social circles. I ended up voting a write-in in a state that was predetermined for one of them before I ever cast my ballot XD

            Either way, the historical trend for the Republicans, even when holding both houses and the presidency, has been one of simple inaction on gun issues at best, not proactive movement, and I havent seen anything to encourage me otherwise yet. Lets hope Im wrong 😉

          • valorius

            I wanted a hand grenade that we could roll into washington, and watch explode all over the establishment’s face with absolutely spectacular results.

            Trump is absolutely that hand grenade. Heck he is a thermonuclear IED.

            Would i have preferred the love child of Reagan and Margaret Thatcher? Absolutely, but that person does not exist.

            The establishement needed a massive shock to it’s system. Trump will provide that shock without question.

  • Lance

    Prefer a repeal of the 1989 and 1994 e/o ban on firearms and ammo.

    • Harry’s Holsters

      Less Likely to happen. I think repealing the NFA completely is more likely than repealing the 1989 ban. I could see an exception to 1989 ban for high end expensive collectors items. Think B&T and Sig’s high end rifles.

      • Dave Y

        Everybody would prefer -something- but HPA, and national reciprocity already have drafted legislation, sponsors, co-sponsors and committee assignments.

        Other dreams of gun owners have not yet taken legislative form. Support what we have on the floor now, draft up what you want to see pass.

        This is a far better problem to have than if Clinton had won.

        • Harry’s Holsters

          Agreed.

        • John

          Agreed indeed.

      • john huscio

        Congress doesn’t have to be involved in that since those are EOs…..trump can strike those down with the stroke of a pen.

        • Harry’s Holsters

          I still don’t see him doing it based off the pro american manufacturing stance. Guns and consumers of guns are no different than any other product. While a lot of AR15 parts are made overseas I think it would really hurt the US makers if over seas ARs were allowed to be imported.

          I’d like to see it as much as the next guy. If it does happen expect a heavy import tax which I personally would be fine with. US collectors would be able to get the cool stuff and the majority of US firearms manufacturing companies would be protected.

      • John

        Oh, hells no.

        There is no way the NFA or the Hughes Amendment will ever be repealed.

        • Harry’s Holsters

          We can dream.

  • Rick O’Shay

    Man, the number of times y’all have had in the last week or two, to make some kind of disclaimer relating to your “firearms not politics” about how “no really this isn’t politics” is a little disconcerning.

    • Twilight sparkle

      I was thinking the same thing… I’ve seen a lot of things that have crossed the line into politics lately. Other than the video in the article this one was probably the least political since it was supposed to be focused on firearms laws instead of the politics around the laws.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      That motto wasn’t forward thinking to of all the sweet political clickbait.

    • valorius

      i welcome political discussions on TFB.

      • Rick O’Shay

        I’m not opposed to political discussions. I’d rather TFB just drop the tagline “Firearms Not Politics” altogether, and acknowledge that firearms are/will always be tied to politics to some extent. As opposed to constantly “reminding” us with little things like “we don’t discuss politics, but with that said,” and totally launch right into politics. This article isn’t terribly political, but I’m really over that disclaimer at this point.

        • valorius

          I agree.

  • Pod

    Here’s some questions – what happens to all the suppressors waiting for approval if the HPA passes? Will they just be kicked out of the system and then their owners can go pick them up the day the law takes effect? Or will it be a case of having to wait for the ATF to clear the backlog regardless?

    Will existing cans be deleted from the registry? Will those of us who currently own suppressors be able to just chuck the tax stamps? Or frame the Form 4s as a relic of a bygone era?

    I would sincerely hope existing cans get deleted from the registry.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Yes, they’d all become non-restricted items at the moment the law took effect. Unless the law specificed those in the system had to work through. I doubt there’d be any refunds on any stamps paid for.

  • Anomanom

    Nope. But really just because the government, democrat or republican, will not be inclined to give up selling all those USD 200 tickets for basically zero actual work.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      That, too. In fact, as inflation nibbles away at that $200, i wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a push to amend it to $500 or $1000.

  • Blake

    “members of Congress with more specialized knowledge of the legislative area”

    meaning “Congresscritters that are supposed to have some sort of an idea of what the hell is being discussed” as opposed to “clueless & oblivious on the house floor”

  • john huscio

    Can’t see how it wouldn’t pass. Suppressors are cheap and over the counter everywhere else in the world and even mandated for hunting in some countries……

    • Nobody in the industry/hobby wants to hear it, but the Republican Party as an organization doesn’t actually give any kind of philosophical damn about guns or the Second Amendment; individual elected officials may or may not care, but at the top levels it is purely a way to attract and maintain a voting base that will keep them in office. Various states often undertake legislation to strengthen 2A rights whenever they have an R majority, but at the national level, RNC stategists take gun owners for granted the same way DNC strategists take minorities and the poor for granted, so while they may fight D attempts to attack self defense rights or enact ridiculous gun control measures, the Rs don’t have any real incentive to actively pursue a pro-2A agenda.

      • Evan

        Unfortunately, you’re pretty much right.

      • valorius

        doesn’t matter much operationally, they NEED the 2nd amendment voters to remain a viable party that can actually win elections.

        • They need gun owners, but they know in advance they’ve got gun owners, so they don’t spend any political capital actively doing anything to support the Second Amendment; they’ll rally to oppose Democrat attacks on gun rights, but there’s just no institutional impetus to go on the attack themselves and expand gun rights.

          • valorius

            Then who passed all those shall carry and constitutional carry laws all over the US?

            At any rate, Trump says he’s going to pursue enhanced gun rights, so we’ll see. If he gets us 50 state carry permits, he’ll be my hero forever. LOL.

          • State legislatures– there’s more room for mavericks at the state level, because lawmakers don’t have to report to their entire state, only to one district. The RNC is a different animal.

            And yeah, it sure would be nice if the federal government actually bothered to enforce Article IV Section 1 every now and then; if my Texas Driver’s License and Travis County Marriage License are legally valid/binding in Calimafornia, my Texas License To Carry for damn sure should be as well. This is the sort of thing I’m talking about, though; the HPA has a serious likelihood of being passed and signed, but nationwide reciprocity is a lot less likely, because the RNC knows they’ll take a hell of a lot more flak for it, and the one and only thing they truly care about is getting re-elected so they can continue to draw that permanent gummint welfare check.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Not Congress.

          • valorius

            Republicans in state houses bro…nationwide. And just 2 or 3 years ago R’s in congress came within 2 votes of getting passed a filibuster for a national carry permit law.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            It may happen, and I welcome it and will assist. I’m just not assuming it’s a done deal until the deal is done.

          • valorius

            That is a prudent attitude to hold.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          Yup, and if they give us the golden ticket, they lose the ability to string us along. It’s like my gay friends who bleated for 20 years, “At least the Dems SAY the right things!”

          Didn’t actually DO anything for them. But SAID it. It was a state push and SCOTUS that changed marriage, not Congress, and even the Dems kept voting for “marriage protection.”

          That state push, though, took pressure OFF that community to vote for Dems, because that issue is settled, the end.

          If the NFA gets repealed by this Congress, what can they possibly offer gunnies as an incentive to vote for them?

          This war will be won a baby step at a time, and at the state level. I’ll gladly take a Congressional win, but I don’t expect one.

          • valorius

            Trump says he’s going to deliver national carry permits. I believe him.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Pity that’s not a presidential power.

          • valorius

            The R’s were expecting to get crushed election night. They were certain they’d lose the presidency. They were all but convinced they’d lose the senate, and the Supreme court. They even thought there was a good chance they’d lose the house.

            One man prevented all that. Now i ask you…do you think the R’s are going to accommodate him in his agenda, or oppose him? The R’s now have complete and total control of every branch of the US govt- Donald Trump, and we the people made it happen.

      • Emperius

        @Malthrak:disqus @disqus_aw7tQ2thIw:disqus @valorius:disqus @disqus_AW8nueRcWK:disqus @MichaelZWilliamson:disqus @disqus_jRdAYsIujW:disqus @disqus_Fc0CpuxfOP:disqus @disqus_P87Or3Ru6A:disqus @bunnykeane:disqus @MGDave:disqus @disqus_bNbLni0gnS:disqus @spmclaughlin:disqus @disqus_36g0MGMq7N:disqus @junyo:disqus @disqus_Wb9SXcWTij:disqus @SirOliverHumperdink:disqus @TexasUberAlles:disqus @normglitz:disqus @jumpifnotzero:disqus @johnhuscio:disqus @disqus_EP8UknTvhd:disqus @Porty1119:disqus @aussienoob:disqus @disqus_ROSkdtb1eO:disqus @rumblestrip:disqus @harrysholsters:disqus @TheoBraunohler:disqus @dvdigital:disqus @christianhedegaardschou:disqus @disqus_zqVpgaayZU:disqus @disqus_qSAXd9nbYz:disqus @blakedotfr:disqus @singleshotcajun:disqus @disqus_AOTqT8e6a0:disqus @nicole_woodruff:disqus @Limonata:disqus @iowaclass:disqus

        Republicans are filled with Jesuit Knights of Malta, they are in the agenda of confiscation the guns, the only way the Vatican Roman Catholic Church can execute an inquisition in this country. Islam, immigration and federal reserve notes are all planned actions from the Vatican structure along with banking families of vintage Europe. It would be stupidly better to simply repeal the ’34, ’68, and ’86 laws than pass more paperwork garbage on top of other unconstitutional paperwork garbage. Watch them pass a pseudo-pro-gun law requiring complete submission of personal private information, a complete violation of the 4th amendment, to record, database and log gun users for future purposes.

        • AC97

          “the only way the Vatican Roman Catholic Church can execute an inquisition in this country.

          What? Citation needed.

        • valorius

          Uh….ok.

  • valorius

    NFA- you’re fired.

  • iowaclass

    ef it — if we are going to talk politics, let’s take a deep dive: I maintain that California and New York state gun control laws cost the Democrats everything in this election. Before Sandy Hook, Democrats looked good to go for the foreseeable future. After Sandy Hook, the Sarah Brady gang came roaring back, and the Democrats were kaput.

    I am pro-gun. I am pro-machine gun. I am also pro-pot, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-universal-health-insurance, and pro-family-medical-and-sick-leave. This election, and just about every election, puts me to a Hobson’s choice.

    If the Trump administration can ram through pro-gun legislation and a pro-gun Supreme Court, I hope it will settle the issue for the Dems FOR THEIR OWN GOOD the same way Obama settled the issue of gay marriage for the Republicans FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.

    • Sledgecrowbar

      Iowaclass hits the nail on the head with my view on politics, too: let everyone do what they want as long as they’re not harming anyone. It’s long past due that we went in the other direction, legislatively, to throw responsibility back on individuals in the name of freedom and the purpose of becoming more self-sufficient.

      • uisconfruzed

        Iowa doesn’t agree with “throw responsibility back on individuals in the name of freedom and the purpose of becoming more self-sufficient.”
        He wants everyone to pay for:
        -A gubmnt bloated bureaucratic health care system,
        -Everyone to pay for special privelages and bathrooms for the sexually confused.
        -The gubmnt to control the teachings of the church
        – and give him the freedom to have his guns and pot cheap.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      I don’t agree with all your positions, but we could have a reasonable discussion about them.

      I agree that settling non-issues (gays, guns) might just force the parties to address actual issues.

    • uisconfruzed

      Agreed, except for:
      – Why aren’t you pro the child’s choice that’s about to be dissected?
      – Why do happy people get special rights? oh, that’s not what you mean, you meant homosexuals.
      – Why are you for a bloated, wasteful, inefficient gubmnt taking from people in order to control everyone’s choices of healthcare providers and options?
      – IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GUBMNT’S JOB TO INTERVENE IN ALL FACETS OF OUR LIVES! That is Stalin’s & Mao’s vision & it’s an evil one.
      The Constitution’s , AKA Law of the Land, purpose is to RESTRICT the federal government’s reach.

      • iowaclass

        So the question is, does a voter have to accept your spin on all these other issues? Or can a voter be pro-gun without licking up all this Fox News vomit you just spewed up?

  • John

    I don’t believe this will ever pass (hope I’m wrong).

    The press will get a hold of this and then they’ll make it look like Pandora’s Box is about to be “unleashed” on an innocent and unsuspecting public… and that public MUST be protected.

    • iowaclass

      Here is how it will really go down:

      (1) the Left wing Dems will resist it in total: “Silencers will be used to kill children!!!”

      (2) But some centrist Dems will say:

      “okay, but only if background checks are universal. We don’t want silencers being privately sold second-hand at gun shows in Texas without a background checks, then getting dumped into the Mexican Narco-war. Bad publicity for us gringos.”

      That compromise would provide enough votes to get it to Trump’s desk.

      (3) The NRA will look at this compromise offer and say: “hmmm… do we want to win with this compromise? Or do we want to reject this compromise, lose, and then send out fifty million fundraising letters to everybody on our sucker list about how we need more money to get even more Republicans elected to the Senate in 2018?”
      (4) [your chance to guess which way it goes]

      • John

        I think the press will win out and we won’t see the HPA passed.

        There aren’t enough repubs that will vote for it IMHO.

      • uisconfruzed

        The NRA ISN’T a Repibican organization.
        They’ve supported Socialist RINOs and Dems if they only say they won’t hinder hunting rifle ownership.

        • iowaclass

          The NRA started bipartisan, and stayed in place. The parties shifted around it, eventually forcing it to be virtually a one-party organization.

  • mazkact

    I’m just a bill ya I’m only a bill……………………………………………………………………………………………..But if He signs me then I’ll be a lawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Oh how I hope and pray that he will but today I am still just a bill. School House Rock still rocks.

  • Limonata

    It would seem easier if they passed the bill to allow the old 1911s to go to the CMP for sale.

    Trump should repeal many of the stupid EOs and there many that Obama gave us.

    Silencers are still the Bogeyman and the left will play it for all its worth because Hollywood and stupid people.

  • Tp

    Ah come on, Obama didn’t bother with that, Trump can just write up an executive order to keep the tradition going.

  • Richard Lutz

    2A protects right to own hand grenades and rocket launchers

    Off topic, but if 2A protects the right of competent adult American civilians of good character to possess the same small arms commonly used by soldiers why can’t they buy M67 hand grenades and M72 LAW rocket launchers? Or do you think semi-auto rifles are all good American civilians need to combat soldiers equipped with machine guns, hand grenades and rocket launchers who are supported by tanks, attack helicopters and jets?

  • uisconfruzed

    I can hope & pray.
    Then let it eat at me that I’ve already been taken to the cleaners by the BATFE by $1200

  • More than a bit strange as well.