SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A Republican trifecta in Washington next year will likely see action on a bill to remove firearm suppressors from National Firearms Act regulation after 82 years.
The Hearing Protection Act was introduced last October by U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., and currently has 78 bipartisan co-sponsors from 34 states. Since then, the HPA has been among the top 10 most-viewed bills on Congress.gov almost every week since it was introduced.
However, with a slim Republican majority in the Senate unable to override a near-certain veto from President Obama, the bill has been in doldrums.
Now, with the White House under new management next year, advocates for the measure feel signs are looking up and will likely return to the next Congress with a fresh mandate.
Why is this important? Safety has been increasing in nearly every aspect and product since the beginning of time, but allowing people to protect their hearing by adding silencers to their weapons has been a tough road for gun owners for a long while.
“Imagine for a second that we lived in a world where you had to pay a $200 tax to buy a pair of earplugs,” Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association, the industry trade group for the devices, told Guns.com on Wednesday. “Now, imagine that even after paying that tax you still had to wait 8 months before you could bring your earplugs home with you. As silly as that sounds, it’s the world we live in with suppressors in the NFA.”
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 21 2016, @07:42PM
Carrying a silenced weapons at all times isn't exactly practical if you have a physical occupation.
I may take the 15 seconds of putting ear protection on over the hours of that foot-long (or more) piece of metal getting in my way.
Whatever tablet makers and San Fernando Valley producers pretend, carrying objects bigger than 9 inches is an encumbrance.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @10:03PM
I've never found it encumbering, and the ladies I meet sure seem appreciative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @10:21PM
As you're probably aware, some folks are happy to carry a full-size gov't model .45 or a big wheelgun all day every day. (Especially if they don't suffer from the mall-ninja mental disorder that makes some people carry concealed for "the element of surprise" -- it's amazing how much more room there is outside one's pants than inside.) And that fits with your "bigger than 9 inches" comment as well, so I think we're agreed that's a reasonable target. But I think we absolutely can make a suppressed handgun for snakes and varmints, using modern materials, to fit in the same box dimensions and weight as those. (The one dimension that may be hard to match without unacceptably compromising suppression is the M1911's thinness; more thickness is more volume. But if this is a priority, I believe you can still get "good enough" by increasing the vertical depth below the trigger guard.)
Take a look at the Maxim 9. That's hearing safe with standard 9mm ammo, but it's a fair bit longer than a 1911 (11", I'd guess, but they don't seem to be releasing specs, and it's rarely photographed with good references). Additionally, if you're using factory ammo, CCI loads 9mm snake loads in #11 and #4 shot, whereas all larger calibers are in #9 and #4; IMO #11 is better used on mice and sparrows, so if we step up to .45 ACP to get #9 shot, we'd need an even bigger suppressor for the same effectiveness. But since snake loads (and shot loads generally) are low-pressure rounds, you can get away with less; I'm thinking a setup in .45 ACP, tuned to run on both CCI's shot loads and standard ammo, with similar suppressor volume as the Maxim 9, but in a shorter, taller envelope, should have enough suppression to be hearing safe with snake loads, and at least reduce the hearing damage from standard loads. Carry it with 2 or 3 shot loads on top, backed up by hollow-points for rabid dogs and such.
You might ask why such a gun doesn't already exist (AFAIK, the Maxim 9 is the only integrally suppressed centerfire pistol currently in, or rather approaching production), and wonder if that demonstrates that it's not as simple as I make it sound. Well, it's not "simple", there's significant R&D to any new integrally suppressed design. And so far, there's been very limited demand for integrally suppressed handguns -- the enormous hassle of NFA bullshit makes people much more interested in a separate suppressor, so if they ever decide to change guns, they can easily sell their old gun with no suppressor, and put the suppressor on the new one. If you take away that hurdle and make buying an integrally suppressed handgun the same process as buying an ordinary one, I think this sort of gun would be a big hit with ranchers and others who work outdoors.