Guns – Page 42 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Hearing Protection Act Loaded onto Omnibus

The Hearing Protection Act has been attached to the SHARE act, which is a sportsman’s omnibus bill, and what a glorious omnibus it is. Of the important things the SHARE act does:

Eliminates the sporting purposes language from GCA ’68 and the law on armor piercing ammunition.
Creates a blanket exception for shotguns to prevent arbitrary reclassification as destructive devices.
Moves silencers/suppressors from Title II to Title I (no longer an NFA item).
Preempts states from playing games to discourage silencers but does not outright prevent states from banning them. (limited preemption)
Enhances the FOPA language to include travel by means other than vehicles.
Creates remedies against states that violate the safe travel provisions, including a cause of action and attorneys fees.
A bunch of hunting related shit I don’t really care about.

One concern I do have with the enhanced safe travel provision is that while it does cover ammunition and firearms, does not cover ammunition feeding devices or other accessories. If this bill passes, it will make suppressors Title I, which means they will become more common and more widely transported. Ten states still ban them even after this becomes law. About the same number of states have some kind of restriction on ammunition feeding devices. FOPA safe travel won’t do us much good if we can still be arrested for magazines and accessories.

The antis are quickly trying to get word out that they are now supposed to oppose the SHARE act, and not the HPA anymore. The attachment of HPA to a bill that should be easier to pass suggests that perhaps the GOP is a bit more serious about actually passing this, if they can pass anything.

I’ve been blogging for ten years, and this bill would constitute winning on a number of things we’ve been fighting for that whole time, including things I didn’t think would be politically possible ten years ago.

Burning Heretics: Pat Mac Edition

Tam notes in response to this segment with Pat Mac on Jordan Klepper’s Comedy Central special:

Jordan Klepper Solves Guns
Get More: Watch More Stand-Up.

Tam notes:

I’ve participated in two internet lynch mobs of the sort. Both were for print journos (former Outdoor Life writer Jim Zumbo and former RECOIL editor Jerry Tsai) who spoke up in favor of AWBs at times when such things were realistically still on the table. And Jim Zumbo got a pardon, as far as I was concerned, after a public recanting and a carbine class with Pat Rogers.

I also thew a few logs on those fires. Plus, during the 2008 campaign, I built the pyre that Dan Cooper was burned on, even if it was others who tossed on the gasoline and lit the match.

My enthusiasm for burning heretics ain’t what it used to be, so forgive me if I don’t toss any wood onto Pat Mac’s fire. But nor am I going to grab a bucket either.

I don’t really care what Pat Mac said or didn’t say, or whether there was a whole conversation that was heavily edited. Pat Mac’s sin isn’t what he said. I know Comedy Central heavily edits everything. So does everyone else with half a clue.

Pat Mac’s sin is that he gave Comedy Central what they wanted: a laugh at the expense of gun rights activists who are trying to move the ball forward, and to try to marginalize the activists away from the larger body of gun owners and enthusiasts. I don’t care that Pat Mac said he supported NRA many times, and that it ended up on the cutting room floor. You’d have to be a fool to not understand that would happen.

I often think this is not foolishness, and is perhaps more aptly blamed on hubris; a kind of thinking that makes someone believe, “I can play their game and win. I will come out smelling like a rose. The people will love me when they see how well I represent!”

No you won’t. The person with the tape splicer (yeah, yeah, I know it’s all digital now) is the one holding all the cards in that equation.

So for Christ’s sake, for the dozenth or so time: don’t talk to the fucking media or Comedy Central. They are snakes with cameras and editing rooms. They will make you look bad. No you can’t beat them at this game. To quote one of my favorite movies: “The only winning move is not to play.”

NFRTR Problems

Dave Hardy details the problems with the NFA registry in all its horrid detail.

OIG asked how often there was a discrepancy between the inventory and what the NFRTR said the inventory should be: 46% of inspectors said either “always” or “most of the time.” (Only 5% reported “never”).

I’ve heard this from ATF people who have spoken at the National Firearms Law Seminar too. The database is a mess, and there’s been a quiet effort to clean it up going on for years. Dave also notes:

Mind you, felony prosecutions are undertaken relying on the NFRTR to establish that a gun is not registered, and with evidence consisting of an affidavit from the custodian of records for the NFRTR certifying that no record of registration could be found.

But don’t go thinking you’ll evade prosecution if you convert your AR because the NFRTR is flawed. Most machine gun prosecutions there days proceed under 18 USC 922(o), where all they have to do is prove the machine gun was manufactured after May 19th, 1986, and that you possessed it. But if grandpa kicks the bucket, and you find the M1 Thompson he managed to smuggle back from Europe, be sure your lawyer knows the history of the NFRTR.

On The Move in Michigan

Passes the House by a 59-49 vote. We’re on a roll! Granted it still has to go through the Senate and earn a Governor’s signature in both MI and NC, but these things often take several sessions to pass. Concealed Carry was this way too. Given that Michigan’s governor has shown a willingness to veto pro-gun bills, Michigan seems a stretch, but every little step.

Constitutional Carry on the Move in NC

Voted out of the House by a 65-54 vote<. North Carolina is a pretty large state, with about 10 million people. It’s considerably more populated than Arizona. A victory with Constitutional Carry here will be quite a prize, and would help get the ball rolling elsewhere. It’s a harder leap for legislators to make when Arizona is the most populous state to vote go Constitutional Carry so far. “It’ll never work here,” becomes less an excuse once states that are similarly situated adopt it, and the sky doesn’t fall.

In this day in age, when police cruisers are fitted with networked computers, they can tell immediately whether someone shouldn’t have a gun. The more information technologies like that become more widespread, the less permitting systems make sense.

A Protected Class?

A bill has been introduced in Pennsylvania that would amend the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act to make gun owners a protected class. This means it would be unlawful for employers, landlords, banks, and public accommodations from discriminating against you because you’re a gun owner or because you carry a firearm.

I have mixed feelings about these bills. On the one hand, this is the system that exists, so as long as it does, I don’t see why, for instance, a landlord ought to be able to deny someone housing because they are a gun owner (and that does happen, and it happens pretty often, actually). Also, it’s hard to have sympathy for companies like Weyerhaeuser, when you read about the way they treat their employees. This incident is what got this whole issue rolling.

But unlike race, sex, disability, etc, owning a gun is not an immutable characteristic, and I’m not that big on the state interfering with private relationships. I accept that it was probably a necessary evil to do so for race. But it is an evil which I am loathe to expand to more and more people over issues that don’t boil down to immutable characteristics.

Yes … Next Question

Should Democrats give up on gun control?

I have absolutely no love of playing in politics (though I would likely remain an enthusiastic observer), but I play the game because I care about my gun rights. Take that issue off the table, and I have better things to do with my time, like, you know, enjoy my gun rights for a change.

So yes, as long as the Republicans remain better for gun rights than Democrats, I will work with Republicans. But boy could I be convinced to stay home and chill if the Dems would just let the issue drop.

And why would they do that? Because there are a lot more people like me out there than there are people who will vote for Dems because they are against guns.

Despite Long Guns Being Rarely Used in Crimes …

… and despite Pennsylvania’s ban on transfers or loans of firearms without going through an FFL or Sheriff not doing hardly a think to put a dent in Philadelphia’s violence crime rate, some lawmakers want to expand the ban on transfers or loans to long guns.

This has been going around in rightly circles. It’s interesting to see some of the outlets making hay of this given that Santora is still willing to vote the right way on abortion.

Gun Control Folks Definitely Expecting HPA to Move

There’s just too much chatter about it for that not to be the case. A common argument against: “What’s wrong with ear plugs?” But note this editorial concedes many of our points:

To be sure, the noise-reduction devices at issue do not eliminate gun noise; they reduce it by 30 decibels or so, making â€œsuppressorâ€ a more accurate term, and mitigating whatever additional risk the general public might face if the law results in more use of silencers, including unlawful use, as opponents fear.

Sure, it could happen. But the sky could fall too! Death, destruction everywhere! And if that’s going to happen, and WaPo’s editorial staff would prefer it be deafening, and not just kinda loud.

In fact, the harms to shooters are modest â€” somewhat elevated risk of non-total hearing loss, essentially â€” and effective alternatives to silencers are readily available.

Basically, they don’t give a crap about your hearing unless you’re driven to the point of utter deafness. Then they care. Maybe.

The problem is that firearms users generally donâ€™t take these simple precautions. Suppressors might help, NHCA acknowledged, but not â€œwithout the wearing of hearing protection.â€ In other words, â€œmanufacturers cannot guarantee that use of noise suppressors alone will prevent hearing loss.â€

Again, making our point for us. You still need hearing protection, just not as much. I doubt anyone at the WaPo involved in this editorial actually shoots, or has any idea that not all earplugs or muffs are created equal. That’s also not to mention that it’s better for hunters to Â be able to hear what’s going on around them. Or for instructors teaching a new shooter to be able to communicate effectively without having to shout.

I use these electronic muffs, and they are the best compromise between protection and usability I’ve found. But I still can’t get a good check weld on a rifle with them. Also note they are rated for a 22db reduction, which means they reduce to about 138 decibels, which is just below action level. Note, WaPo journalists, that muffs that take gunfire well into the safe range are a lot thicker.

Ear plugs are very effective, offering up to 30 decibel reduction for quality plugs, but my main issue with earplugs is that I can’t hear shit when I’m wearing plugs unless someone is absolutely shouting at me, and to be completely honest, I hate having shit stuffed in my ears. You want to be able to communicate with other shooters and the people around you when you are shooting potentially dangerous weapons.

I’m not saying suppressors are a panacea that will make all hearing issues and noise complaints go away at ranges everywhere. But they are another tool in the toolbox. Even the WaPo editorial staff has to concede that the only reason to restrict them are hysterical predictions about criminal use if we unrestricted them. That’s never happened when this kind of thing has been predicted by journalists before, and I don’t see why it would happen now.

Constitutional Carry in Wisconsin?

Looks like it’s on the move. Note how the media is spinning it now? “Committee to Hear Input on Ending Concealed Carry Training.” Technically accurate, but does someone want to argue the headline isn’t loaded in a way that Bloomberg’s Everytown would surely approve of?

Good news for Pennsylvania if Wisconsin passes, since the two states are somewhat similar politically. Well, with one difference: say what you want about Scott Walker, but the dude gets things done, and sits atop a throne made from the skulls of his vanquished enemies. Contrast that with Tom Corbett, who couldn’t get anything done, and was sent packing after a single term.

UPDATE: Michigan too, another state similarly situated to ours.Â I know we have a Dem governor, but I don’t think this is even on anyone’s radar in Pennsylvania. The GOP in both Michigan and Wisconsin has shown a lot more backbone than they have here.