I am untrained with guns, plan to take classes at some time in the future.
That said, what is the point of this measure?
Are they saying that ‘yes’ we should have access to ear protection when using certain guns, (perhaps at a range).
Okay, fine, makes perfect sense to me. So then go ahead and use the ear protection. Is there a law in place that is preventing this step?
I’m pretty sure it won’t be passed. This is too easy to demagogue and the spineless Rs won’t support it, to say nothing of the traitorous Ds.
If we want to chip away at the NFA we might do better starting with SBRs. It’s easily the most non sensical thing to have on the NFA. It’d be harder for bed wetters to demagogue it any more than they do already with guns in general.
What are the arguments for not passing this? Is it really about hearing protection?
If its heart and soul is 2nd Am. then we shouldn’t be pussyfooting around with non 2 Am. issues. If it really is about hearing, as a chronic tinnitus suffer, I’d like awareness to be a priority over legislation.
I live with the results of cumulative hearing loss in me and my family. When I hired tradesmen and they were working on my property around loud machines, I always offered free hearing protection; usually a new set of comfortable, flexible ear plugs. Not once has any of these macho idiots accepted the new-in-the-package gift.
You can lead a workman to save his hearing, but you can’t make him do it. Sorry, we don’t need any more laws.
The HPA would repeal this requirement and treat suppressors as firearms – which would allow them to be transferred through regular federal firearms license holders to anyone not prohibited from possessing them after the buyer passes an FBI instant background check.
...
They should make them available over the counter like ammo.