TexasCHLforum.com

So if a silencer is a gun, what would qualify as an 80% gun that doesn't require a FFL transfer? A plastic 2 liter Coke bottle? A pillow?

From Michael McCaul:

"February 17, 2017

Dear Mr. Goose:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 367, the Hearing Protection Act. I appreciate the benefit of having your views on this matter.

As you may know, H.R. 367 was introduced by Representative Jeff Duncan (SC-03) on January 9, 2017. If enacted into law, this bill would eliminate the $200 transfer tax on firearm silencers. This bill would also remove firearm suppressors from the regulation of the National Firearms Act. Please know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. As such, I will review this legislation closely.

This legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means. While I do not serve on these committees, I will share your concerns with my colleagues who do. Should H.R. 367 come to the House floor for a vote, I will consider it with your views in mind."

A little disappointed that it doesn't say he supports it. Fairly non-committal, IMO. But not hostile towards it either. Fingers crossed.

House version now has 104 cosponsors. Ted Poe TX-2 and John Abney Culberson TX-7 signed on yesterday.

goose wrote:From Michael McCaul:

"February 17, 2017

Dear Mr. Goose:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 367, the Hearing Protection Act. I appreciate the benefit of having your views on this matter.

As you may know, H.R. 367 was introduced by Representative Jeff Duncan (SC-03) on January 9, 2017. If enacted into law, this bill would eliminate the $200 transfer tax on firearm silencers. This bill would also remove firearm suppressors from the regulation of the National Firearms Act. Please know, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. As such, I will review this legislation closely.

This legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means. While I do not serve on these committees, I will share your concerns with my colleagues who do. Should H.R. 367 come to the House floor for a vote, I will consider it with your views in mind."

A little disappointed that it doesn't say he supports it. Fairly non-committal, IMO. But not hostile towards it either. Fingers crossed.

Your voice as a voter matters and probably WILL affect his vote. However, I think they will NEVER say the don't support a bill. Either, "I am a co-sponsor " or "I will consider and read closely "! AS IF THEY EVER READ THEM!!!

Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politicians.

Some people attribute the above to General Patton while others say this isn't his quote.

All I can say is the words ring true!

If they can obfuscate or deflect or in some manner crawfish they will regarding any subject.

Hitler has an opinion on the HPA...

TreyHouston wrote:

Abraham wrote:Why wouldn't foreign mfgs. import lower cost suppressors?

I recall reading something to the effect they sell suppressors in Europe for $150.00 or so.

So, why would domestic mfgs. continue to demand so very, very much more?

its a tube and some baffling, nothing overly impressive here!

Exactly. I think if it passes, you'll see a lot of "garage factories," just people making them and selling them online.

no I dont think so. I puts them in same class as rifles.... so... ser# part will be????

Ruark wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

Abraham wrote:Why wouldn't foreign mfgs. import lower cost suppressors?

I recall reading something to the effect they sell suppressors in Europe for $150.00 or so.

So, why would domestic mfgs. continue to demand so very, very much more?

its a tube and some baffling, nothing overly impressive here!

Exactly. I think if it passes, you'll see a lot of "garage factories," just people making them and selling them online.

They can't do that legally if gun mufflers will still be classified as firearms. They'll need to be made by a Type 6 FFL or other Manufacturer FFL. We'll probably be able to make them for personal use, if normal firearm rules apply, but we can't sell or give homemade firearms to other people.

Ruark wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

Abraham wrote:Why wouldn't foreign mfgs. import lower cost suppressors?

I recall reading something to the effect they sell suppressors in Europe for $150.00 or so.

So, why would domestic mfgs. continue to demand so very, very much more?

its a tube and some baffling, nothing overly impressive here!

Exactly. I think if it passes, you'll see a lot of "garage factories," just people making them and selling them online.

Im already looking at the paperwork!

If this passes, I wonder if a flash hider threaded for an oil filter would be a firearm or just a part, assuming the flash hider doesn't reduce sound by itself.

I had the honor of being a judge at the Fort Worth regional science Fair this morning. One of the exhibits was by two young ladies evaluating the effect of a can on rifle accuracy... Our future is in good hands

I wonder what are the odds this bill passing is? I have form 4s ready, fingerprints and everything. Heck, if something ends up happening in the next 6 months, might as well wait and save the tax money.

107 sponsors in the house.

ArmedAndPolite wrote:I wonder what are the odds this bill passing is? I have form 4s ready, fingerprints and everything. Heck, if something ends up happening in the next 6 months, might as well wait and save the tax money.

I wouldn't wait. If it does pass, then there will be a run on suppressors form all the people that do wait. Supply will dry up and prices will increase until the supply and demand level out. Think AR's after Sandy Hook. Plus there is a provision in the bill to refund the tax stamps cost to all who filed after a certain date (although I wouldn't be surprised if that language is struck from the final version.