Proposed Hearing Protection Act

[nonameisgood]

I have practiced in a shoot-house. I have never worn eye or hearing protection. If I were to fire in the presence of a loved one, deafness would be the least risk.

I did not mention regulation and resent your tagging a hypothetical to my response.

As far as the first part, I was simply pointing out that the valid argument to silence a self-defense weapon. I often carry a 357 Sig with a short barrel, a weapon which has a huge flash and loud bang, and have been accused of trying to scare a bad guy to death or into surrender. I like to think of it as "to the pain". In my house, my strategy is different.

Since this thread is about removing or changing a regulation, I figured that I would address that aspect. Sorry you took it as personal attack, it was not intended that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nonameisgood]

It can make a .22 somewhat quite ... but its not like in the movies.
...But if you made the design so that an exterior holder for the filter is used, making the filter disposable part of the suppressor I would wonder if the disposable part being replaced would then require a new tax to be paid is a question.
Any thoughts?

I recall reading in the ATF regs that it is unlawful to have things like baffles just laying around. I would think that, if it were legal, manufacturers would design the very expensive cans to be rebuildable, using very expensive parts, so we would be encouraged to buy parts rather than potentially switch brands when it came time for a rebuild or replacement. Also, a multi caliber suppressor would be as simple as swapping internals.

If they were not taxed as they are, we would probably have access to the cheaper (in all ways) European style suppressors. (I don't have first hand experience with those, but hear tell that they are lighter and less expensive.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MSG Laigaie]

^^ one for the ol' oil filter suppressor. Technically, in this suppressor design every time you change the filter would require a new suppressor tax.

But if you made the design so that an exterior holder for the filter is used, making the filter disposable part of the suppressor I would wonder if the disposable part being replaced would then require a new tax to be paid is a question.
Any thoughts?

Yes. The "adapter", the part that screws onto your firearm, should have a serial number registered with ATF. That makes the filter itself a "replacement part". Sort of a disposable "wipe". Not very quiet, hard to use in the field, but a good "expediant".

I recall reading in the ATF regs that it is unlawful to have things like baffles just laying around.

Again, yes, you get arrested for just having the "parts" it shows "intent". If they wish to be difficult, some get into trouble for having "steel wool" because it can be used in a can. Personally I like the monolithics rather than baffles, they are much easier to keep clean.

View attachment 12843View attachment 12844