PDA

View Full Version : Hearing Protection Act



gravitysuksv15
11-10-2015, 07:29 AM
Link to the American Suppressor Association (honestly, I didn't know they existed so I assume there are others out there who didn't know either). Pretty easy form, and then is sent to your legislators.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/11/10/one-step-hearing-protection-act-form/

Glenn E. Meyer
11-10-2015, 05:43 PM
No offense but I've seen this presented elsewhere. My take is that there is no chance in the current administration and if the Democrats win, no chance in the immediate future.

Even if the GOP wins the Presidency, they do not have a recent record of being pro-active on major gun measures. I think you will hear the crickets chirping on this one.

Sad to say - there a quite a few pro-active things that could be done that wouldn't be seen as that extreme (like free guns for all). Freeing up the full-auto registry, some policy to encourage national reciprocity of carry permits, forbidding state ban laws (like NY for instance), freeing up the post office carry rules, etc.

Think the GOP, if one of them made it, will do anything like this. Nah.

Bigghoss
11-15-2015, 06:05 PM
I think it's got a slim chance at best but I still emailed all my congressmen in favor of it. I think suppressors are probably the best place to start eroding the NFA and no matter what it's probably not going to happen on the first try. Might as well get the ball rolling now.

olstyn
11-15-2015, 06:35 PM
freeing up the post office carry rules, etc

The post office situation is stupid. How post offices are considered federal buildings is beyond me. It's usps.com, not usps.gov, after all. Granted, usps.gov redirects to usps.com, but that would seem to be set up in order to correct a common error people make when trying to visit the website. Take that classification away from them and the problem is solved. Of course, it would also make sense to change the classification of buildings in national parks as well. It makes no sense that you can (for example) walk and drive all over Yellowstone armed, but if you go into a building in the park, you've committed a federal felony.

TAZ
11-21-2015, 04:35 PM
The post office situation is stupid. How post offices are considered federal buildings is beyond me. It's usps.com, not usps.gov, after all. Granted, usps.gov redirects to usps.com, but that would seem to be set up in order to correct a common error people make when trying to visit the website. Take that classification away from them and the problem is solved. Of course, it would also make sense to change the classification of buildings in national parks as well. It makes no sense that you can (for example) walk and drive all over Yellowstone armed, but if you go into a building in the park, you've committed a federal felony.

Government rarely makes sense.

The law has a snowballs chance in hell of passing no matter who wins the election and by how large a majority. NEITHER party as a whole wants to relinquish the governments control of ANYTHING. Individuals on both sides of the isle have shown themselves as pro gun, but not the lot. Even is the GOP sweeps both houses and the WH (scary as all hell a prospect) we wouldn't get any relief as gun owners.

olstyn
11-21-2015, 07:11 PM
Preaching to the choir, TAZ. :)

DMF13
12-19-2015, 08:07 AM
The post office situation is stupid. How post offices are considered federal buildings is beyond me. It's usps.com, not usps.gov, after all. Granted, usps.gov redirects to usps.com, but that would seem to be set up in order to correct a common error people make when trying to visit the website. So, rather than look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the associated legislation that establishes post offices, you'd rather base your decision on whether the US Postal Service uses .com rather than .gov for the website?

///SARCASM ON/// Wow, that's brilliant. ///SARCASM OFF/// :rolleyes:

Wheeler
12-19-2015, 10:19 AM
Georgia allowed hunting with suppressors this past year. No one thought that would ever pass either.

olstyn
12-19-2015, 04:37 PM
///SARCASM ON/// Wow, that's brilliant. ///SARCASM OFF/// :rolleyes:

The .com/.gov thing is merely one piece of evidence. Governmental entities use .gov, corporations use .com or sometimes .net, educational institutions use .edu. Obviously, that's not a law, but it points to a reasonably logical conclusion.

Are you suggesting that the USPS is an actual governmental entity? As far as I can tell, USPS doesn't serve an administrative, executive, legislative, judicial, military, or law enforcement purpose, and it's not funded by taxes, but rather by its own revenue. That doesn't sound like a part of the federal government to me. Do you think there's a good reason why carry should be a felony in a post office any more than it is in a FedEx or UPS building? Effectively, the only difference between the three is that one was originally established by the government, but has effectively become a separate entity, and the other two are fully private.

Sarcasm away, sir, but please, offer a logical reason why you think post offices should be considered federal buildings.

olstyn
12-19-2015, 05:32 PM
The U.S. Postal Service is what's know as an independent agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_governme nt) of the the United States government. Quite a few government agencies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_governme nt#Examples) are as well.

That list is interesting. Somehow the USPS is in the same category as the CIA. I never would have guessed that. I still think it makes little to no sense, but it seems I'm done arguing it from that direction, at least.

DMF13
12-20-2015, 01:21 AM
The .com/.gov thing is merely one piece of evidence. Governmental entities use .gov, corporations use .com or sometimes .net, educational institutions use .edu. Obviously, that's not a law, but it points to a reasonably logical conclusion.It's evidence of nothing, and most certainly does not point to any reasonable or logical conclusion. Do you also believe the US Air Force is not a US government agency? http://www.airforce.com/
Are you suggesting that the USPS is an actual governmental entity? I was not suggesting it, and maybe my sarcasm didn't make it clear, despite my reference to the Constitution and legislation, rather I was flat out stating the US Postal Service is in fact a government agency.
As far as I can tell . . .Well apparently you can't tell anything beyond a website extension.
Do you think there's a good reason why carry should be a felony in a post office any more than it is in a FedEx or UPS building?I wasn't arguing that point, merely addressing your completely false assertion that the USPS is not a government agency.
Effectively, the only difference between the three is that one was originally established by the government, but has effectively become a separate entity, and the other two are fully private.Again, that is simply not true.
Sarcasm away, sir, but please, offer a logical reason why you think post offices should be considered federal buildings.I already offered a logical reason, and it begins with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, which reads in pertinent part, "The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish Post Offices and post Roads . . ."

Further, Title 39 of the US Code (aka federal law) clearly shows that the US Postal Service is a government agency. It's long and boring, but feel free to read it for yourself: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/201

However, I'll make it real easy for you, and quote the simplest, most direct portion, which shows your rantings on this topic are completely false. Title 39, Section 201 of the US Code, in it's entirety, states, "There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/201

So it's your own ignorance that prevents you from understanding why USPS offices qualify as "federal buildings."

:rolleyes:

DMF13
12-20-2015, 02:01 AM
I assume you missed the my post and olstyn's response where he essentially admitted he was wrong. Because if you didn't, your post seems a little browbeatingly over the top and unnecessary. :)I did not see your post and his reply prior to responding, but since he decided to call me out directly (despite failing to determine whether any of his own assertions were true or false), I would have responded the same regardless. He chose to post false info, then double down on that, despite being clued in as to what the basis of my statements were, and asked me to me to prove him wrong. In light of that my response was quite appropriate.