General Categories > Newsworthy

Yet another bill going nowhere

(1/1)

Les:
In this climate.  https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2021/1/26/the-hearing-protection-act-of-2021?fbclid=IwAR3S5cflO4lxvjeAcSRTXGsoZzEMT2764JBLkm-yt7SImV1SZFndkZrh95k

eelstrebor1:
My understanding is that you still have to wear hearing protection since the silencers won't bring the sound level below the hearing danger threshold. So why push this? Since silencers don't bring the sound level down enough, why were they put in the NFA anyway?

Atrus:

--- Quote from: eelstrebor1 on January 26, 2021, 07:13:42 PM ---Since silencers don't bring the sound level down enough, why were they put in the NFA anyway?

--- End quote ---

I've read it was included because of Depression-era poaching.

"In 1934, the federal government began to regulate machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers by placing a $200 tax on such weapons to discourage their sale (U.S. Congress, 1986b:219-220). The 1934 congressional debates provide no explanation about why silencers were licensed. Paulson (1996:10) opines that during the Great Depression, poaching game was thought to be a problem and silencers were licensed because of this concern."

https://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v08n2/clark.pdf

But I've also read an alternative theory that the NFA was originally going to ban handguns and, once it was determined that wouldn't pass, the drafters swapped in silencers. I can't find the article on that one at the moment.

DanS:
In 1934 some self proclaimed 'expert' on crime and hoodlums, testified before Congress that machine guns, Thompsons etc., were favored by criminals, and then also, that the 'silencers' could be used by the criminal organizations to carry out gangland 'hits'. As a result of this ill advised testimony, Congress passed the law with a tax stamp required to own either, with the amount of the tax so high that no one but gangsters could afford to pay it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index