Congress Needs to Hear from You Regarding the Hearing Protection Act of 2017

On Monday, January 9th, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), joined by co-sponsors Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) – introduced S. 59, the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (HPA). Similar legislation was introduced in the House by Reps. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and John Carter (R-TX) – along with 42 co-sponsors – as H.R. 367.

The HPA would remove sound suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and treat them as ordinary firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As with other firearms, commercial manufacturers, dealers, and importers would still have to be licensed, and the items’ retail sales would be subject to the GCA’s background check and transfer form requirements.

Currently, suppressors (misleadingly referred to as “silencers” in federal law) are subject to the NFA’s cumbersome and lengthy application process (about 6 to 12 months) and a $200 tax stamp. This is so, even though the devices themselves are completely harmless and very rarely used in crime.

Like a muffler on an automobile, suppressors reduce the muzzle report of the firearm to which they are attached, protecting the hearing of the firearm’s operator and reducing noise and disturbance to those nearby. Recoil is also dampened.

Suppressors have soared in popularity in recent years, as more and more hunters and firearm owners have discovered their benefits. Private ownership is legal in 42 states, and they are lawful for hunting in 40 of those states.

Contact your U.S. senators and congressional representative now. Let them hear from you on this legislation to protect your Second Amendment right via the NRA Write Your Reps tool or use the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Leading NRA Members Vow to Stop Obama’s Latest Self Defense Right

After a report claiming that individuals on Social Security could be prohibited from purchasing firearms the NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation have vowed to fight to keep such a plan from going into effect.

Individuals who receive Social Security but have another party legally manage it for them would be considered a “prohibited person” under federal firearms law. This plan, if brought into effect, could affect as many as 4.2 million individuals.

The National Rifle Association has stated that it will do everything within its power to ensure that the plan is never implemented.

The Second Amendment Foundation has stated that it will file suit against the Obama administration if attempts are made to implement the plan.

Link to Original Article

They were warned! NRA Sues 3 Pennsylvania Cities

Back in 2008, the city of Lancaster, Pennsylvania passed an ordinance requiring all gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to police within 72 hours. The city of Lancaster’s mayor, Rick Gray, said that the ordinance attacks the problem of “straw buyers“. A straw buyer is someone who purchases gun(s) legally in order to then sell them to convicted criminals.

The ordinance is impotent since any straw buyer could simply purchase a weapon, sell it to the convicted criminal, then simply report it stolen. The straw buyer is compliant with the ordinance and a gun is now in the hands of a convicted criminal.

Perhaps they were thinking this would prevent repeat straw buyers. Wrong again. A straw buyer could simply stock up on various weapons then report them all as stolen. Giving them the luxury of selling the weapons to criminals at their leisure.

The city of Lancaster had already been put on notice that any of their gun-control measures which violated a 1974 law, prohibiting cities from setting gun policy more stringent that the state’s, would be sued into compliance. With a lawsuit in motion, they are now blaming gun-right groups such as the NRA for burdening the tax paying citizens, when it is they, the city officials, who had been warned and chose to leave the ordinance in place. They forgot that they work for the citizens and now they have potentially put them in financial harms way.

It’s not just the city of Lancaster that is putting their citizenry at risk. The cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are also at risk for similar offenses.

You can’t stop a law breaker from breaking the law by passing more laws. You only burden and restrain the law-abiding citizens and embolden criminals.

“The cities of Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Lancaster have openly defied state law for decades. They continue to willfully violate the law and insist on politically grandstanding at taxpayers’ expense.”Chris Cox, Executive Director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action

Towns agree to rescind restrictive gun ordinances in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania state municipalities have agreed to remove their unconstitutional ordinances rather than face litigation.

Thanks to a new state law which makes it easier for gun rights groups (better termed, “right to defend yourself groups”) to challenge local firearms measures in court.

Attorneys for various pro-gun groups and several residents, cited the new law in putting about 100 Pennsylvania municipalities on notice that they would face legal action unless they rescinded their restrictive and unconstitutional firearms laws.

Under their new state law, gun owners no longer have to prove they have been harmed by a restrictive gun ordinance to successfully challenge it, and “membership organizations” like the National Rifle Association can stand in to sue on behalf of any Pennsylvania resident. The challenger may also seek damages.