4007

So basically the stance is : “We might actually enforce laws already on the books.”

To be fair, that’s probably a fairly big step in some ways.

4008

Yup. I’m all for doing the things we’ve already tried before we try to do new ones.

4009

Look up the Hearing Protection Act. It’s currently in committees in both houses.

4010

Can some explain why suppressors shouldn’t be on the NFA list? Is it really just an argument to save the ears of gunowners, everywhere? Does headgear not do an adequate job?

4011

I’d heard about it, corkeh, but I’m not very sanguine on its chances.

A poster at the Daily Kos wrote something along those lines from a left perspective.

Fun fact: suppressors are NFA items largely because game wardens in the Depression wanted to be able to throw a heavier, federal felony book at people hunting deer out of season. Their use in crime is largely a TV and movie invention, and although it isn’t a 1-1 comparison because of tighter gun laws, European countries generally recognize them as the safety devices that they are.

4012

NFA stuff is very arbitrary in general, aside from full auto weapons. SBRs are <18" why? No idea, who came up with that? Suppressors definitely should not be NFA restricted. NFA1934 and GCA1968 are very clearly infringements on the second amendment and should have been overturned a long time ago.

4013

While I can sort of appreciate that poster’s POV, it doesn’t seem to hold a lot of water for me and it seems to keep circling back to people not understanding how suppressors work. I know how they work and that the movies are BS, so it’s not too revelatory. Perhaps it’s that I hold it to be more important that other people potentially within range of a gun be fully aware that one is being used by hunters/what not than hunters “needing to hear the forest.” It just seems more of a safety thing to me, but then that’s just me - I can also see the flipside of the argument that the shooter would want all their senses to make sure such people aren’t within the cone of danger when firing, but that reflexively (i.e. - without anything to back it up besides my gut) seems less helpful than alerting as many people as possible. I’m far from a neophyte to firearms and I fully respect people’s rights and reasons for possessing them. I just don’t have an issue with “reasonable accommodations” being made on their use, such as creating a situation where hunters would need to use earplugs if they want to protect their hearing in order for their report to be heard as far away as possible.

Oh, one thing I DO know - the comments about “sounds above 85 dB can cause permanent hearing damage.” That’s both true and bit misleading; you need a steady exposure to that level of sound for permanent damage to occur. That tidbit doesn’t invalidate the danger for shooters. Quite to the contrary, it just reinforces the need for headgear of some variety for those that spend long times in loud environments, whether a shooting range, construction, concerts, or wherever.

I can respect that people have arguments on legal grounds, but I am not a judge so I kind of presume that such arguments have failed to persuade those that are over span of 82 and 48 years respectively don’t have much traction. That’s not to say they SHOULDN’T have traction - common sense often seems to have no place in law from an outsider’s perspective.

4014

Supressors make your gun sound cooler, and while they result in a range reduction, they reduce recoil AND prevent you from showing up on radar when you fire your weapon, so they’re clearly necessary. Plus, there are tons of achievements you can only get if you use a supressor.

4015

Careful. It’s bad enough how kids these days are gamifying mass killings.

4016

The arguments being brought out against this are getting kind of laughable.

Now, bear in mind, I’m generally pretty pro-guns. I’m not scared of them, have grown up around hunters my whole life, etc.

But enforcing things like background checks seem reasonable.

Now there is some guy on CNN saying that if you go to the doctor and he says you are mentally unstable, that then you won’t be able to buy a gun to defend your family… But I’m thinking, isn’t that probably a good thing? I mean, that’s kind of the goal, right? So crazy people don’t get guns?

4017

Regarding suppressors…shooting a gun with and without one is almost a night and day experience. If you are shooting and have the option to use a suppressor, there are almost no situations I can imagine where you would not want to use the suppressor. The sound is greatly reduced, though you are still going to want some kind of hearing protection unless you are using subsonic ammo as well. The recoil is also reduced.

Also NFA1934 really just makes it harder for the average person to acquire NFA restricted guns and accessories, it does not make them illegal. Its trivial to set up an NFA trust and there is just a $200 tax and a waiting period to add an NFA item to your trust. Full auto weapons are a little different. GCA1968 made it illegal to import them aside from dealers, military and law enforcement. Then there was a bill in 1986 that made it illegal to register new ones under NFA1934. Which just made the prices for existing (previously registered) full auto weapons sky rocket. So, wealthy people have no practical barrier to obtain NFA items and there is a very active market for full auto weapons.

4018

Well the problem there is that people just wont go to see a doctor. And then they’ll go shoot a bunch of people or their family or themselves or whatever.

Currently the law is you can’t have one if you’ve been institutionalized by a court order (aka against your will). Which is a fairly decent place to work from. I mean if you get sent to an asylum, you probably shouldn’t have a gun at any point. But if you are depressed or the like… that’s a lot more of a grey area. I could see a lot of people not getting help if that was the case, which would probably be a net negative across the board. I’d rather a dude with some issues that’s getting help have a gun than the dude with issues that isn’t getting any help have one.

4019

This argument is nuts though… Because this is suggesting that someone who is crazy is going to be doing some kind of complex thought process where they are deciding whether to go to the doctor based on whether or not they want to buy a gun.

I mean, if that’s REALLY the case, they could just go and buy the gun first I guess. But I think that the idea of people not going to the doctor because they are afraid they won’t be able to buy a gun in the future is silly.

4020

‘Nuts’ isn’t the only territory we’re talking about here. If you’re depressed, say, or suffering from PTSD, you haven’t lost the capability to reason about the future—they’re emotional disorders. And yet, if your doctor is the careful sort, or perhaps the anti-gun sort, you find yourself adjudicated mentally incompetent to own a gun. Once you’ve received treatment and are on the upswing, how do you get yourself off that list? There isn’t an automated system, AFAIK, for people to be taken off of the NICS rolls.

4021

Maybe you shouldn’t be taken off the rolls? People with mental problems have a tendency to relapse. Maybe you shouldn’t own a gun.

4022

That last sentence I agree with.

4023

This is the issue. There’s an obvious parallel with the “No Fly” list. Both are based in compelling state interests – we don’t want untreated schizophrenics buying guns or suspected terrorists boarding planes. But some form of due process is needed, perhaps in the form of an appeal.

It would be a real stretch of the fifth amendment, but we’re discussing fairly serious, if necessary inhibitions on individual liberty here.

4024

When you’re talking about depriving people of constitutional rights without due process, there are complications.

4025

Sure, but there are limitations on constitutional rights. We already say you can’t own firearms if you’re a felon, for instance. I’m not sure it’s unreasonable to say that someone with a history of mental illness shouldn’t be able to own firearms, as they are a threat to themselves and others.

4026

There is due process to restore gun rights to felons.