Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 367

Should Gun Silencer Regulations (Except Background Checks) Be Left Up to States?

Argument in favor

Silencers protect the hearing of hunters and recreational shooters, and this bill would make it easier for law-abiding people to access them while keeping background checks in place to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands.

Justin's Opinion
···
02/02/2017
Suppressors have long been misrepresented by the media and Hollywood. They are not "silencers" in that they do not make anything "silent." The muzzle report of a firearm is somewhere around 160dB - immediately damaging to the hearing of the shooter. The BEST suppressors I've tested reduce that to around 127-130dB. By comparison, a running jackhammer at a distance of three feet is only 110dB. Anything that is four times louder than a jackhammer cannot be called silent or even quiet by any measure of the term. The only effect that a suppressor actually has is in the name of the bill: hearing protection.
Like (138)
Follow
Share
Mark's Opinion
···
01/13/2017
There is no downside to this bill. Greater hearing protection for lawful gun owners is enough of a reason to pass this law. This could also cut down on noise pollution for ranges.
Like (57)
Follow
Share
JTJ's Opinion
···
12/01/2018
The liberals measly knowledge of firearms and the constitution, are based on Hollywood, not the truth. For now, states should be allowed to deregulate suppressors, ultimately there should be national reciprocity. Law abiding citizens should not become criminals by crossing a state line. The second amendment is not a state guarantee, it is national.
Like (44)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Federal deregulation of silencers would enrich the gun industry and make it easier for silencers to get in the wrong hands, thereby threatening public safety by making it difficult for first responders to identify active shooters.

I.Got.an.Idea...'s Opinion
···
12/01/2018
Does the United States 🇺🇸 of America even exist anymore? If so, we may want to drop the “United “ and add “The disheveled “, “The mangled”, “ The broken”, “The divided”, etc. We are one “United” nation, not 50 individual sovereign nations. We need to be able to travel around our Country freely and comfortably and safely, without worrying that we could be thrown in prison, without our family’s knowledge, for no reason, other than we spit on sidewalk or wore the wrong clothes on Sunday, or held the wrong person’s hand, etc. Republicans are trying to divide America through legislation. They are trying to make every unethical value they possess, a State’s right, and everything they devalue, a Federal law to ban a practice of product. In other words, Republicans are using our legislative freedoms and democracy against the best interests of humanity and our Nation.
Like (108)
Follow
Share
Ronda 's Opinion
···
12/01/2018
We’re dying by the hundreds. The states are doing a lousy job. Time to get rid of all the contradictory state laws and enact comprehensive federal gun regulations.
Like (57)
Follow
Share
viceabbess's Opinion
···
12/01/2018
Silencers are for killing people. If your gun is too loud for you, stop shooting it. I’m a voter in Ohio’s 12th congressional district and I oppose this bill.
Like (31)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
      Committee on Ways and Means
    IntroducedJanuary 9th, 2017
    silencers are likely to cross state borders and are obviously useful to criminals. They should NOT be available to the general public AT ALL!
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Silencers are unnecessary. Their only use is to kill people!!! They should be done away with in the regular population. If the military has a use for them as in a sniper, etc.they should be able to use them.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Framing the issue as one of crime prevention versus public health or domestic violence versus product safety may suggest a resolution of the federal-state issue, but it is doubtful that a consensus will ever be reached on how to frame the issue. Given the available resources for enforcing existing regulations, it is hard to make a strong case for one level of government over the other. Simply put, there is no clear mandate for giving either the state or the federal government exclusive responsibility for regulation of firearms.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    10th amendment says that MOST things, other than a specific and defined list of federal responsibilities, should be left to the states.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Giving the government a 200 dollar for every silencer purchase is unnecessary.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    What a stupid idea!
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill is solely intended to treat silencers as long guns and make their transport and ownership easier. I cannot support this on moral grounds.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    No more blowjobs for the gun industry.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Suppressors provide simple, hearing safe shooting. Suppressors were added to the NFA to prevent excessive poaching during the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, a situation that is no longer relevant. Additionally, an expanded civilian market for suppressors can expand
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    As if we don’t already have a big enough gun problem in this country we have to vote on a bill that should not even be a thought?! People are barely responsible enough to own guns let alone a silencer. If you ever met a gun enthusiast you will understand why this is a bad idea. This bill makes as much sense as remodeling a home that you are renting.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    They aren’t silencers. No firearm can be silenced. The can suppress flash & sound but not make it the “james bond quiet”. Calling them silencers is misleading
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    We need federal gun restrictions laws now. Sensible gun restrictions laws now. Federal.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Nope!!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    No.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Silencers make it possible to fire a good number of times before surrounding people may realize a gun is being fired. I can think of no reason to have them that isn’t about hiding the shooters activity. If shooters want to protect their hearing they can wear noise cancelling headphones.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Although I am in general in favor of states’ rights, we can easily see that state-by-state gun regulations have done nothing to reduce gun violence. Anyone that lives in a state with strict gun laws can buy a gun in another state.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Federal deregulation of silencers would make it easier for them to get in the wrong hands, making it difficult for first responders to identify active shooters. There is no reason any civilian should possess one of these in the first place. That's what gun ranges have ear muffs for. The only people that want silences on the streets are the people that make and sell them.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    As an avid shooter nothing would make a bigger difference than to cut down on the noise, and help protect the ears of others around as well yourself also. Having power to protect against such an issue and not take the opportunity to make it become successful is just wrong.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Please work to pass the "Hearing Protection Act of 2017."
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    If left up to the states...NADA! Federal government can’t seem to agree or DO ANYTHING ON GUNS😫
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE