BREAKING: Hearing Protection Act Moves Up, Hope for Saigas, Veprs, and 7N6, and No More Armor Piercing Bans? – H.R. 3668 SHARE Act

The effort to deregulate of silencers has reached an important milestone: The Hearing Protection Act has made it out of committee, and been incorporated as part of another larger bill. House Resolution 3668 – the Sportsmen Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act – has been introduced to the House floor with a new subsection, Title XV, Hearing Protection. The new subsection provides for the change in classification of silencers from NFA items to standard firearms such as long guns, just like the HPA. Its text is reproduced at the bottom of this post.

Also included in the SHARE Act is another subsection, Title XVI, which, among other things, would allow the importation of any firearm or ammunition legal for sale in the US, and prevent the classification of common rifle ammunition as “armor piercing” pistol ammunition by the ATF. This subsection also includes provisions to ease importation of weapons for the purposes of experimentation, personal weapons being re-imported from other countries, and curios. It also includes a provision to protect shotguns from being classified as destructive devices, even if they are not considered “sporting” weapons. Finally, the subsection includes a provision to further protect the temporary transfer of lawful firearms across state lines, by removing the “sporting purposes” proviso from Title 18, 922(a)(5)(B), (a)(9), and (b)(3)(B).

Here is the full text of Titles XV and XVI of the SHARE Act:

SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the “Hearing Protection Act”.

SEC. 1502. EQUAL TREATMENT OF SILENCERS AND FIREARMS.

(a) In General.—Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking “(7) any silencer” and all that follows through “; and (8)” and inserting “; and (7)”.

(b) Effective Date.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 1503. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SILENCERS.

Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(f) Firearm Silencers.—A person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer.”.

SEC. 1504. PREEMPTION OF CERTAIN STATE LAWS IN RELATION TO FIREARM SILENCERS.

Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that imposes a tax, other than a generally applicable sales or use tax, on making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or imposes a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement with respect to such a firearm silencer, shall have no force or effect.”.

SEC. 1505. DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS.

Not later than 365 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall destroy any registration of a silencer maintained in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record pursuant to section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any application to transfer filed under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the transferee of a silencer, and any application to make filed under section 5822 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the maker of a silencer.

SEC. 1506. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.

Title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in section 921(a), by striking paragraph (24) and inserting the following:

“(24) (A) The terms ‘firearm silencer’ and ‘firearm muffler’ mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including the ‘keystone part’ of such a device.

“(B) The term ‘keystone part’ means, with respect to a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, an externally visible part of a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, without which a device capable of silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm cannot be assembled, but the term does not include any interchangeable parts designed to mount a firearm silencer or firearm muffler to a portable firearm.”;

(2) in section 922(b)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking “shotgun or rifle” the first place it appears and inserting “shotgun, rifle, firearm silencer or firearm muffler,”; and

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking “rifle or shotgun” and inserting “shotgun, rifle, firearm silencer or firearm muffler”; and

(3) in section 923(i)—

(A) by striking “Licensed” and inserting the following:

“(1) In the case of a firearm other than a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, licensed”; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

“(2) In the case of a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the keystone part of the firearm silencer or firearm muffler, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm silencer or firearm muffler imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer, except that, if a firearm silencer or firearm muffler does not have a clearly identifiable keystone part or has multiple keystone parts, licensed importers or licensed manufacturers shall submit a request for a marking variance to the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall grant such a request except on showing good cause that marking the firearm silencer or firearm muffler as requested would not further the purposes of this chapter.”.

SEC. 1507. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON FIREARM SILENCERS OR FIREARM MUFFLERS.

(a) In General.—Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end of the list relating to “Articles taxable at 10 percent” the following:

“ Firearm silencers or firearm mufflers.”.

(b) Firearm Silencers; Firearm Mufflers.—Section 4181 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following:

“For purposes of this part, the terms ‘firearm silencer’ and ‘firearm muffler’ mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.”.

(c) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Section 4181 of such Code is amended by striking “other than pistols and revolvers” and inserting “other than articles taxable at 10 percent under this section”.

(2) Section 4182(b) of such Code is amended by striking “firearms, pistols, revolvers, shells, and cartridges” and inserting “articles described in section 4181 and”.

(3) Section 4182(c)(1) of such Code is amended by striking “or firearm” and inserting “firearm, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler,”.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer in any calendar quarter beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 1601. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act”.

SEC. 1602. ELIMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO RECLASSIFY POPULAR RIFLE AMMUNITION AS “ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION”.

Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking “may be used” and inserting “is designed and intended by the manufacturer or importer for use”;

(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting “by the manufacturer or importer” before “for use”; and

(3) in subparagraph (C), by striking “the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” and inserting “is primarily intended by the manufacturer or importer to be used in a rifle or shotgun, a handgun projectile that is designed and intended by the manufacturer or importer to be used for hunting, recreational, or competitive shooting”.

SEC. 1603. ELIMINATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTATION OF NON-NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT FIREARM OR AMMUNITION THAT MAY OTHERWISE BE LAWFULLY POSSESSED AND SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Elimination Of Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:

“(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless the manufacture or importation of the ammunition—

“(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

“(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

“(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation, and has been authorized by the Attorney General;”;

(2) in subsection (l), by striking “925(d) of this chapter” and inserting “925”; and

(3) by striking subsection (r).

(b) Broadening Of Exceptions.—Section 925 of such title is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking “determined” and all that follows through the end and inserting “intended for the lawful personal use of such member or club.”;

(2) in subsection (a)(4), by striking “(A)” and all that follows through “for the” and inserting “intended for the lawful”; and

(3) by striking subsections (d) through (f) and inserting the following:

“(d) (1) Within 30 days after the Attorney General receives an application therefor, the Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if—

“(A) the firearm or ammunition is being imported or brought in for scientific, research, testing, or experimentation purposes;

“(B) the firearm is an unserviceable firearm (other than a machine gun as defined in section 5845(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is readily restorable to firing condition) imported or brought in as a curio or museum piece;

“(C) the firearm is not a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

“(D) the ammunition is not armor piercing ammunition (as defined in section 921(a)(17)(B) of this title), unless subparagraph (A), (E), (F), or (G) applies;

“(E) the firearm or ammunition is being imported or brought in for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

“(F) the firearm or ammunition is being imported or brought in for the purpose of exportation;

“(G) the firearm or ammunition was previously taken out of the United States or a possession thereof by the person who is bringing in the firearm or ammunition; or

“(H) the firearm is a firearm defined as curio or relic by the Attorney General under section 921(a)(13) of this title.

“(2) Within 30 days after the Attorney General receives an application therefor, the Attorney General shall permit the conditional importation or bringing in of a firearm or ammunition for examination and testing in connection with the making of a determination as to whether the importation or bringing in of the firearm or ammunition will be allowed under this subsection.

“(3) The Attorney General shall not authorize, under this subsection, the importation of any firearm the importation of which is prohibited by section 922(p).”.

SEC. 1604. PROTECTION OF SHOTGUNS, SHOTGUN SHELLS, AND LARGE CALIBER RIFLES FROM ARBITRARY CLASSIFICATION AS “DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES”.

(a) Amendments To The National Firearms Act.—Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking “recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes” and inserting “recognized as suitable for lawful purposes”; and

(2) by striking “use solely for sporting purposes” and inserting “use for sporting purposes”.

(b) Amendments To Title 18, United States Code.—Section 921(a)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (B) of the first sentence, by striking “particularly suitable for sporting” and inserting “suitable for lawful”; and

(2) in the second sentence, by striking “solely”.

SEC. 1605. BROADENING OF THE TEMPORARY INTERSTATE TRANSFER PROVISION TO ALLOW TEMPORARY TRANSFERS FOR ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES RATHER THAN JUST FOR “SPORTING PURPOSES”.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in each of subsections (a)(5)(B), (a)(9), and (b)(3)(B), by striking “sporting”.

 



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Twilight sparkle

    Dang… someone in Washington actually knows what they’re doing…

    • PK

      That’s what I was thinking – this is well done to remove all authority in certain areas, and would be a gigantic step back toward restoration of obvious rights.

      • Twilight sparkle

        Yeah the only obvious thing they missed was 922r but I mean… you gotta keep tapco in business somehow

  • DavidV

    Hallelujah!!!

  • Scott P

    Let the imports flow!!

    Sorry, unless we are in a state of war with a country (like North Korea since we never signed a peace treaty), then all imports should be legal.

    Don’t like Russian, Chinese, etc. guns? Fine, don’t buy them.

    You don’t have the right to tell me and others how we spend our hard-earned money.

    • ARCNA442

      Sorry, if we can limit the weapons development of likely adversaries I’m all for it. Or perhaps you think we should also be buying guns from Iran, Cuba, and Syria – after all, we aren’t at war with them.

      And if you want to get technical, while we never signed a peace treaty with the DPRK we also never formally declared war on them in the first place.

      • EC

        Pretty sure with all the other stuff that everyone buys from China, a few extra QBZs sold in the US isn’t going to make a noticeable difference at all.

        • ARCNA442

          Buying cheap consumer goods doesn’t result in better weapons. While it may start as a few extra QBZ’s, the US civilian market is possibly the best place to test firearms developments and I see no reason to offer that resource to antagonistic nations.

          • int19h

            This seems like a very convoluted scenario. If Chinese really wanted to test firearms development on the US civilian market, why wouldn’t they just open a shop here and staff it with a bunch of expats?

            OTOH, you could argue that giving US civilians access to firearms of OPFOR is beneficial for the well-regulated militia learning more about said OPFOR.

          • Very true — keep in mind, the import bans WOULD NOT apply to “Chinese” (or Russian, or Martian) guns built in a plant in the Good Ol’ USA, staffed with US workers. If they really wanted us US civilians to “field test” their small arms, they could.

          • The Chinese have a huge army. They don’t need the US civilian market to test anything.

          • Yeah! They can make crappy inaccurate bullpups in anemic calibers with cheap plastic that falls apart in cold weather all on their own!

          • Nick

            If I cared what you thought I wouldn’t eagerly line up to buy a QBZ when they get here. However I don’t care what you think and I’ll likely eagerly buy a QBZ when they get here. Probably a SAIGA too. Small arms development plateaued a while ago anyway. Everything these days is tweaks and aesthetics.

          • EC

            That’s a bit absurd.

            1) The Chinese don’t tend to export their best. We probably will not be seeing 5.8mm QBZ-95s, and instead get the 5.56mm T97s that Canada gets.

            2) Civilians use their rifles nowhere near close to how militaries use them and do not produce useful data. Most people aren’t firing thousands of rounds in dire conditions. Even then, I see no way that the Chinese could collect reliable and useful data.

            3) Advanced nations already have their own development programs that do not rely on civilian testing. China would no more need civilians to spruce up their weapons than the US military uses civilians to test their M4A1s.

            Really the only “intelligence” that the Chinese could get from exporting firearms to the US market would be what types of firearms US civilians like to buy. Hardly anything that an “antagonistic” nation might use to any military advantage.

          • Actually, the US DOES get a lot of firearms development out of civilian shooters. We used to get more, before the Hughes Amendment…

            But a LOT of small arms stuff you see on new, cutting edge small arms in the inventory was first “tested” and debugged by… civilian shooters.

          • EC

            Can you be more specific?

            Most of the stuff I see on military rifles comes from designing something with the intent to have it used by the military. Civilians then hear it is used by the military and go gaga over it.

            There are probably a few exceptions. PMAG, which probably had a significant civilian following, comes to mind. But even then, Magpul (as in the original thing that you pull magazines with) was first designed and exhibited for military, not civilian, use.

            I would imagine that higher-end things like PEQ-15s or even the original M2/M4 optics were all designed for the military and later for civilian markets.

            So unless you mean to include industrial engineers as “civilians”, then I really don’t think your point is very strong. Given military procurement and trial systems, it’s highly unlikely that civilian shooters are significantly impacting military equipment.

          • Cool story how I’m a governmment resource because I’m part of the free market.

            STFU and GTFO statist.

          • ARCNA442

            And so you prove Marx right and the last capitalist shall be hung by the rope he sold – or in this case shot by the rifle he funded.

      • I really don’t think small arms can do a whole lot of “development” that could be stymied by an import ban; everyone has more or less figured out the whole “bullets go that way” thing by now.

        • ARCNA442

          Oh, I forgot that we are still using Garands.

        • Giolli Joker

          The only logic in that concept would be: “Let’s not finance these companies that are also likely to manufacture ICBMs and such.”

          • Yeah, “don’t give import/export contract money to jerkbutts” is the only tangible justification there, but it seems like A.H. thinks the U.S. civilian firearms market is some kind of free market test bed for foreign powers to refine handheld superweapons or something.

          • Giolli Joker

            Forums and blogs are also full of their R&D engineers trying to get new ideas to improve their designs…

          • Rick O’Shay

            SHOT Show apparently constantly has foreign spies coming to scope out the latest gun tech and steal trade secrets. At least according to TTAG a year or two ago.

          • pun&gun

            I think that’s more about economic leverage than gaining military prowess. Every trade show has that issue.

          • Rick O’Shay

            Oh, I absolutely agree. But if you’ve invested heavily in Reynold’s aluminum foil products, there are people who’d happily throw some fuel on that fire.

          • Giolli Joker

            If I remember correctly, they also happen to be sexy.
            But, whether it’s real or not, it’s nothing related to military development.

      • Amplified Heat

        You don’t really stop development by barring the purchase of already-manufactured products. We all know this stuff is overruns from military production anyway. And though it’s also not likely a Nork rifle is worth importing anyway except as a curiosity, there are more than enough reasons for us to never have any commerce with that country whatsoever so long as the current regime lives. Lying down with dogs and all that.

      • john huscio

        Well considering that cuba and syria have next to no domestic arms production capabilities and iran is sanctioned six ways to sunday…..

      • neoritter

        They’ve declared war on us.

      • Scott P

        Sorry

        As long as we are not in a declared state of war with them invading our shores I could not care less.

        I’ll spend my money where I please whether you like it or not.

        Keep your politics off my guns.

    • Amplified Heat

      Technically, the Russian secret squirrels are currently more or less engaged in battle with US secret squirrels ‘somewhere’ over there in Syria/Ukraine (allegedly). So I’d argue a state of war is at least broadly active; whether it is necessary or wise to be so engaged is another debate entirely. There’s also the third debate as far as using economic sanctions as leverage for foreign policy goals, e.g. the suppression/assassination of political opponents & expropriation of their property as grounds for restricting certain aspects of trade (not explicitly the cause for the rifle ban, but justification for numerous other sanctions on Russia)

      • ARCNA442

        Political drama aside, the US and Russia forces in Syria have actually done a pretty good job of communication and avoiding direct confrontation.

      • Scott P

        If we wanted to hurt them we would ban vodka and caviar.

        Guns are a mere spark in the pan. All these sanctions do is hurt gun owners.

        And keep your politics off my guns I’ll send my money to whoever I please if the price is right and the product is good.

    • Ben

      I need more Norinco guns and Chinese steel core ammo. Ahhhh….the pre Clinton days….

      • Aren’t they making them out of chinesium these days? I had an NHM91 back in the day and it was a pretty solid AK-alike, but I hear bad things about the matallurgy on current Chinese guns from Canadanians.

  • Billy Jack

    Anyone know any suppressor company lobbyists? What chances does this have of making its way through without stripping the parts we actually care about?

    • They’ll definitely be fighting it as hard as they can– heh– in order to maintain their profit margin, which is built on the completely artificial scarcity of silencers being NFA items. Domestic manufacturers will also be fighting the elimination of import restrictions tooth and nail.

      • Barrett Lobo

        Suppressor manufacturers would stand to make more money from them being deregulated than having them sit on the NFA list. The volume of sales will more than make up for the lower price point they would be sold for. Companies like S&W whom already sell firearms to all sorts of general stores (such as Bi-Mart, Walmart, Fred Meyers and other non outdoors orientated stores) would already have the dealer infrastructure in place to sell them AAC cans easily, and quickly. No one would want to deal with a form 4 at their Fred Myers, but getting a suppressor right before you go shooting the next day? The BC could clear by the time you’re done buying Cheetos and beer. Hecks to the yeah!

        Plus, with them being deregulated, we stand to see more development in something that has basically been unchanged since Maxim starting making them ages ago.

        • I think you’re perhaps being a bit optimistic about the likelihood of corporations having sense enough to understand the value of long term high volume sales vs. short term MAXIMUM PROFIT!!! sales. Obviously, selling a million of something at 5$ profit apiece is better for everyone involved than selling ten thousand of them at $400 profit apiece, but nobody ever went broke betting on the shortsightedness of corporate executives.

          • Barrett Lobo

            While that’s entirely possible, S&W buying Gemtech after the HPA started gaining steam leads me to think they are looking at the long game, and not just the short road to a quick buck.

            Time will tell with this, and hopefully we’ll all be winners.

          • Man, it sure would be nice to be wrong about it– my ears ain’t gettin’ any younger.

          • int19h

            Large corporations generally understand that just fine. Look at Walmart, Amazon etc.

          • iksnilol

            Won’t the market get saturated much quicker if suppressors are off the NFA?

          • “Saturated”? No, I don’t think so… after all, how quickly did the AR15 market become “saturated” after the AWB expired in 2004? 😉

          • iksnilol

            I dunno. People are hesitant to pay 800 bucks for a rifle… Why would they pay 200 for “just an accessory”?

            At least, that’s how cheap optics are still in market.

          • pun&gun

            I’m as skeptical of corporations as anyone, but they do generally know how to do math. I’m fairly certain SilencerCo, at least, is behind the HPA.

          • It isn’t the price of cans that slows their sales nearly so much as it is the PITA of NFA.

          • That’s definitely a major part of it, but that also keeps new kids on the mono-block out of the industry, and the fewer companies there are which provide a product the more they can charge for it.

      • Billy Jack

        Hadn’t even considered that angle. Stupid me. I thought people who make products would love to sell and make more of them. Why make do that when prohibition lines your pockets? Seems one can’t even use the bathroom anymore without being realistically cynical about the outcome. Jeez.

  • Given how focused Congressional Republicans have been on one-upping the Democrats when it comes to doing the Headless Chicken Dance, I ain’t gettin’ my hopes up, but gawt-dayum this would be fantastic. I’d rather have silencers reclassified as just another accessory instead of requiring a 4473 for a tube with some washers and springs in it, but this is more likely to pass, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯.

    One interesting thing we’ll see as this moves on is just how powerful ~~The Gun Lobby~~ really is or isn’t, because all those idiotic import restrictions were 100% written by domestic firearm manufacturers’ lobbyists as a cynical effort at market share active defense with a flimsy veneer of MADE IN USA trade protectionism.

    • Amplified Heat

      I’m more hopeful of a Machine Gun Amnesty being announced as a distraction from some scandal/embarrassment before it’s all said & done (and yes, I’m grudgingly supporting the man on most things these days). Lordy, the press coverage. The meaningless injunctions. The gnashing and wailing and rending of garments.

      • Never going to happen. Trump is a NY RINO anti-gunner at heart. He’ll sign stuff, but he’s never going to take any chances on us…

        • mig1nc

          But his son is NOT. And his family plays an important role to him. I’m sure if it ever makes it to his desk he’ll sign it.

          • He’ll sign it if its sponsors have sense enough to make sure someone is standing next to him to tell him he can take credit for it.

      • Sunshine_Shooter

        If they only sign this stuff to cover up a scandal, I hope they start ordering hookers by the dozen and cocaine by the crate. There’s a lot of legislation I’d like to see passed.

        • Amplified Heat

          “The LBJ Method”

          • I don’t believe even for a moment that President Tinyhands McGee could stand up to The Legend Of Jumbo.

  • Enzo Baldwin

    It goes a few steps further too. The first section would restrict the ability to ban hunting ammunition or fishing devices based on lead content. So no more all copper projectiles should it pass.

    Some conservation groups are pretty heated about this act since it opens up all federal wilderness areas to hunting and fishing unless otherwise additionally prohibited.

    • Amplified Heat

      Those aren’t conservationists, but preservationists, then, who would rather the land remain worthless (if it cannot be used, it is indeed worthless)

      The ‘sporting purposes’ reform basically guts the entire gun imports restriction regime, from 922r to ammo & barrel bans. Only legit trade sanctions on China/Russia/etc would remain.

    • That’s worrisome, because hunting-related lead bans are the ones that actually make sense, unlike all the histrionic LEAD IN ARE WATERS!!1! laws that are just blatant attempts to shut down shooting ranges; for waterfowl and fish especially, if lead pellets get into a game animal’s digestive system it most definitely does cause lead poisoning both to the animal and to anyone eating it.

  • AZgunner

    I’ll be following this optimistically until I read of its demise with a sense of crushing disappointment.

  • Marcus Toroian

    This could be the biggest win we have had in a generation. We need to push for this hard.

    • Rick O’Shay

      Gorsuch was our big win. This is just icing. Now if Kennedy or Ginsburg would step down…

      • PK

        Both, please.

      • Klaus Von Schmitto

        I’d be OK with Ginsberg dying too.

        • Lew Siffer

          I hope she lives to be 100 and sees everything she believes in repudiated by the other justices. South African constitution my ass.

        • Ben

          They may still keep her on the bench and say she is just sleeping.

          • Billy Jack

            Weekend at Ruthie’s

  • glenn cheney

    Well Nat, I’m of record that HPA odds were running in favor 2-1.
    Admittedly, at that time, no one expected Paul Ryan would be the turd causing the constipation.
    Having said that, ( there is much more behind scenes that suddenly allowed “movement” ) we perceive Ryan is dealing with invitations to Ovals, only to be freaked by who is sitting facing them, and their seats are warm. I lmao when I saw his expression and body language.
    Now then, I had run up the pole to add a card swipe at all US Postal offices for silencers, networked to NICS to A. Remove the wait time and B. Wrest from Turk and his rogue ATF the decision making authority, control, and revenue. 200 bucks was to become 20-50.
    Looks like we won’t be needing my rec after all. Ryan is feeling some heat, it remains to be seen who lines up for or against.

  • Jeff S

    How about getting rid of the 1986, 1968 and 1934 shenanigans as a whole? The arbitrary BS especially dealing with SBRs is asinine at best. Get rid of the NFA!!

    • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

      While that’s a nice thought, in reality we lost the bulk of our gun rights in small incremental steps.

      We will have to regain them the same way.

      This is a small incremental step towards that goal and I fully support it.

      • Max Müller

        Well, ackchually…
        We would just need one or two people in the supreme court to die and be replaced with diehard constitutionalists who will make “shall not be infringed” the only gun law in existence.
        Which would be my preferred method. Because congress approving more laws to make gun control laws even more confusing and a little less restrictive is not exactly the greatest thing on earth. We are still stuck with a giant bureaucratic pile of crap called government that regulates way to many things to satisfy the needs itself created.
        Seing the supreme court to crush down thousand pages of laws or shut down entire govt branches that have no reason to exist other than sucking their own d*ck would give me tears of joy.

        • Ben

          That sounds great, but I’m sure Roberts would be bought off or blackmailed like he was with his Obamacare decision if a gun rights case like this were to ever find its way in front of the Supreme Court.

    • Nice dream — but realistically “all or nothing” results in getting nothing. They ate our cake, one bite at a time — we gotta make them spit it back out the same way – one bite at a time.

  • Ninoslav Trifunovic

    Good luck guys!

  • Brett baker

    Striker-12 baby! The 80’s are back!

    • pun&gun

      I really wanted one of those from the time I played Resident Evil 4 until the time I watched the Forgotten Weapons video about it. Those guns are rad-looking pieces of crap. XD

      • Brett baker

        Almost bought one in the 90’s. Only nice thing, I could have got the tax stamp when they were reclassified as DDs for free, and I could say I own 3 stamp items instead of 2.

        • Lew Siffer

          You youngsters should have been around in the 70s when silencer parts were not regulated. You could go to the ads in the back of Soldier of Fortune and mail order a “replacement tube” for a Sionics suppressor and then from a different company order “replacement” baffles and interior parts. It was as legal as buying a shotgun and a hacksaw.

          • Brett baker

            I CAN remember THE SWD “pop bottler.”😁

  • Nick

    Because the GOP sucks, I don’t have high hopes. Let’s be honest the Democrats even in the minority still control both chambers of congress.

    • Billy Jack

      They don’t suck at their jobs. They’re very good at it. They have no intention of serving the will of their constituents. Never did. Pretending to be powerless is their art, until their paymasters need something accomplished.

  • TalbotFarwell

    Any update on the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity effort? I’m trapped in a commie state by my job, and I want an out-of-state CCW license so I can defend myself and my family!

  • Mike

    Just a thought, homebuilt firearms don’t require serials, and this legislation would classify suppressors as firearms…

    I would think that the tube numbering would only apply to commercial products.

    • Note — there is ONE case where a home built Title I gun needs a serial number — and it would apply to suppressors under this bill, if it passes.

      While you CANNOT home make a gun with the *intent* of “transferring” it to someone else (that is statutory law), ATF is more than happy to tell you that, if, subsequent to making it, you decide that you want to give/sell/trade it, you *can* (just like you cannot buy a gun with the intent to sell it, but you can buy a gun, then later decide to sell it)… the catch is you (the maker) MUST mark the gun with the same sort of markings they would require you to do for an NFA Form 1 build (Name, city/county & state, and a S/N that *you* haven’t already used for another gun) before the transfer. (No, this doesn’t mean you have to follow NFA registration rules — they just interpret the law to mean you have to apply the same “minimum markings” as they require on home rolled NFA items.)

  • iksnilol

    No, I meant that if everybody buys cheap suppressors, everybody is gonna have one and thus not really have much motivation to buy more (especially if you buy a cheap, overbuilt/bored one that can handle both your pistols and rifles).

    Also, why not just have a short, open tube that’s wide enough for most oil filters and serialize that? That would satisfy the proposed law whilst still being cheap.

  • pun&gun

    Those small companies have existing infrastructure and patents, which could all easily be sold to a larger company once the market demand is there. It’s also possible that instead of being the only game in town, they’ll just move up to the high end of the market, as most of those big companies will be making relatively low end (or even disposable) silencers. Right now the market is artificially trending toward the high end, due to the long wait period and $200 tax.

  • pun&gun

    Ryan said that about carry reciprocity.

  • uisconfruzed

    YESSS!!!

  • Sianmink

    So suppressors as unregulated accessories is dead?

    • Bradley

      That was never on the table. All the recent proposed bills I know of reclassified them as firearms.

      • SHUSH Act would have deregulated them entirely, but I suspect it served more as a scare bill than a real proposal.

        • I’m perfectly happy making suppressors Title I/GCA “firearms” instead of having them as Title II/NFA “firearms”.

          After all, you can buy (for personal use) or sell (not in the course of business) Title I guns without licenses or State involvement, and you can make them at home. So, if my in-state buddy has one I like, or I have an idea for a build, I don’t have to jump through NFA hoops or a 4473 to do it.

      • Sianmink

        First draft of the SHUSH act proposes classifying them as firearms accessories.

  • Maximilian Johannes Benning

    It was a smart idea to put the HPA in with this bill, but I think adding the 7n6 was a bad idea. No politician wants to be the guy to put “armor piercing” bullets back on the streets. regardless of whether it actually is or isnt.

    Doesn’t matter either way because this probably won’t get through. the GOP has taken us for granted.

    • Rick O’Shay

      Seems silly that a politician would be worried whether they got painted as putting “armor piercing” bullets back on the streets, but not “super silent assassin” suppressors.

  • st381183

    High hopes until the republicrats forget about promises made and the voters that put them in office. Won’t somebody think of the children!

  • Joe

    I’ll hope this passes, like I hoped the AWB wouldn’t pass. I’m expecting the same results.

  • Treyh007

    Looks to have a lot of CoSponser “Support” at the moment, now let’s see who backs out when it’s time to vote! Repewbs are good at supporting these types of bills but when it’s time to vote they crawfish or don’t show up!

  • UWOTM8

    The opportunity to get a real AK-74 would be like a second Christmas, honestly….

  • Dave

    Even though I’m stuck in the Peoples Republic of Australia I seriously hope this passes and you guys get your funs back, if only just to shut the mouths of every idiot prattling on about silencers making everyone hitmen running around massacring people.

    • American gun-grabbers who trip about silencers can be tripped up pretty easily by getting them to agree that the US should have silencer laws more like they have in Europe… before telling them what those laws are actually like. It’s illegal to hunt with unsuppressed rifles in some Scandinavian countries, because being that loud is considered rude.

  • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

    The real interesting part at the end to me is the removal of the sporting purposes and arbitrary “anything over .50-cal, including 12ga is a DD, unless it’s not. Then we arbitrarily decide maybe yes maybe no”.

    The question though is, will that force the removal of the current 12ga shotguns that are regulated and registered as DD’s? (The USAS12, for example). Or ONLY allow the importation/manufacture going forward?

  • Some Rabbit

    Wake me if and when this makes it through congress, the senate and Trump signs it into law. Until then I’m not holding my breath.

  • neoritter

    *fires gun in air*

  • SBaaaarRRRrrrr!!!

    Would this do anything to 922r compliance when converting an imported pistol into an SBR? Would be nice if they did away with it.

  • kjack

    But why would you want an oil filter suppressor over other homemade options that would be made legal and wouldn’t block your sights or have reoccurring costs from needing to replace the oil filter? Oil filter suppressors always struck me as kind of stupid.

    >or a can full of steel wool

    If they want to sell a suppressor that uses steel wool, then why not just sell the tube assembly and have the customer change out the steel wool when needed as opposed to selling prepackaged steel wool canisters that would no doubt be overpriced?

    • Low end stuff like that makes sense now, when the existing companies can casually charge north of $300 for even the lowest quality suppressors– that’s why those companies specifically attacked the cheapo alternative market. There wouldn’t be any need for Fram or Castrol on an adapter if silencers were deregulated… but there also wouldn’t be any need for $600 cans that cost $20 to make if other companies were out there selling them for $50. Prices industry-wide would plummet as new outfits started up, and that would wreck the bottom line of the current manufacturers.

  • QuadGMoto

    How is the rest of the bill? Is it something we can support wholeheartedly? Or is there a poison pill lurking in it that needs to be excised?

  • USAF Veteran

    Not holding my breath.
    I’ll believe it when President Trump signs it.
    With Lyin’ Ryan in the House and McConnell in the Senate, I don’t hold much hope.

  • destruxxx

    I don’t think this will alleviate the problems caused by trade sanctions. Saiga, Vepr, and Norinco are not simply being kept out by firearms laws they’re being kept out by international politics.

    However, a lift on import restrictions will mean that we should see a price drop on some rifles that are currently being imported in pieces or in “compliant state” for final assembly or conversion in the US (bad news for those jobs though).

  • USAF Veteran

    So does this mean we can re-import all those WWII M1 Garands from South Korea?

    • UWOTM8

      *heavy breathing*

  • Tom

    It would be huge if this happens, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. I don’t think this has a prayer in the house, and even less in the senate. I honestly think this is just the GOP trying to make their members feel like they are trying to do right by gun owners with a piece of legislation that’s very unlikely to ever get passed.

  • Salty

    Call your reps!!!! Can’t sit back, hitch whine say it won’t pass, then Reps don’t hear from you cause “it won’t pass”, it doesn’t pass cause you didn’t call, then you sit back in your chair and whine some more and wonder why it didn’t pass. Freakin call, have your wife call, have your kids call, have your mom call have her mom call, they literally make a tally sheet for or against (pretty sure????) and vote “as their constituents want” meaning whoever called most.

    Silencerco CEO this morning said opposition had hundreds their and only 10 pro. How can we “win” if we don’t show up???? Don’t gimme that “I have a job crap”. Your job is to call(email)

  • Ben

    Hopefully this goes through in full so we can then work on ridding ourselves of the crappy 922(r) Compliance law.

  • ARCNA442

    Try thinking about it a little more – maybe you’ll be able to figure it out.

  • Simon Riley

    I hope they will repeal import ban (FAMAS, SPAS, SIG550, etc.)

    • Sweet Surrender-Monkey Jeebus it would be awesome to suddenly have the market flooded with cheap Frenchsurp semi-auto conversion FAMASeses. If they did the conversions on that side of the Atlantic, there’d be nothing stopping it if the import ban was lifted, it’s not like France has any qualms about arms exports the way Germany does.

  • Sunshine_Shooter

    Pretty dude indeed.

    • I’ll admit, it is an entertaining result of the curse filter kicking out a more appropriate expression of how scumbaggy it is to wish death on someone just for disagreeing with their political views. It’s also not a very intelligent thing to do, since the anti-gun media isn’t asleep just because Republicans are (allegedly) in charge of everything right now, and some internet tough guy pinhead making ~~veiled threats~~ against Supreme Court Justices is exactly the sort of thing they look for to villify us.

      Either way, though– I’m a Texan, “dude” is still an insult when presented as an adjective.

      • Billy Jack

        Comments from “Lew Siffer” notwithstanding, if all you did publicly as a 2nd Amendment supporter was feed the homeless and hungry in between healing the sick you’d still be vilified. Your opponent is totally immoral and Ginsberg is part of that group. She arguably wishes death on every private person who has had to defend their lives with a firearm during her term.

      • thebeeishorrid

        She’s done a LOT more than just disagree with people’s political views, dude.

        I hope she dies a painful death, for the treason to the Constitution, (which she swore an oath to) that she’s committed.

        • And this is why you’re an unamerican scumbag. Go move to Putin’s Neo-Soviet Russia if you want a country that has no respect for Freedom Of Speech and eliminates judges who don’t toe the party line.

  • Triplanetary

    Someone will try to add some control or prohibition of something and it will go down. Both sides are the same when you are count in the selfish, ambitious, greedy, slimeballs.

  • Gregory Peter Dupont

    This would be an INCREDIBLY good step in the right direction.

  • Doug Snodgrass

    If it was a stand alone Bill, you might get some of them passed but as it is grouped, they can shoot down the whole package.

  • ActionPhysicalMan

    Thanks Nate. It is better to read happy stuff from you in the morning than Amanda Marcotte quotes from Morning Bummer Farago;-)