Could Hearing Protection Act backfire?

Joe Drees

If it passes could people sue that they be made mandatory on ranges ? State lawmakers make them mandatory? Any time the government passes a law "For our safety " I cringe.

He Dog

I never shoot without them, but I too cringe at being told it is the law.

DEEREHART

I think Joe may be referring to the delisting of suppressors from the ATF tax stamp debacle.

Don McManus

Obviously there could be blowback.

Put yourself in the position of an anti-gun legislature when presented with a GOP backed bill that basically label non suppressed firearms a public health hazards.

Alpine

"Intent" and "Outcome" are not necessarily the same.

Lawmakers are lawyers for the most part, and obfuscating is what they do best.

Dads3040

quote:Originally posted by us55840

Removing all restrictions on their use and/or mfg. is totally different from making them mandatory to purchase/use.

Where is it stated they are MANDATORY?

[?]

Using facts on the InterWeb is clearly verboten. Demerits will be assessed. [;)]

It wouldn't occur to the Doubting Thomas absolutists among us that this can easily be framed as an issue of freedom.

'It is well known that noises above a certain level can damage hearing. Hunting with personal ear protection inhibits the ability to hear the sounds in the surrounding area. Therefore, citizens engaged in hunting should have the FREEDOM to utilize a technology that can offer protection for hearing when the firearm is charged without restricting the ability to hear the normal sounds at all other times. A FREE people must have access to available technologies without the interference of a federal bureaucracy and the onerous fees and taxes it levies against a valuable technology.'

There. It's called messaging.

Don McManus

The bill as presented in the last Congress simply states the repeal of the Federal tax/restriction upon the purchase and ownership of suppressors. In that sense it is, IMO an excellent bill. It does not mention, other than in the title, hearing protection anywhere.

No one is buying into the hearing protection aspect of this bill. It is a proper removal of a restriction to, as Dads3040 points out, upon an individual freedom that is not addressed in the Constitution, and is therefore a 9th or 10th Amendment issue.

The potential problem with the bill lies in that it, in addition to eliminating the Federal restriction, mandates the elimination of all State restrictions. The justification of the potential 10th Amendment intrusion upon the powers of the States can set this up for extra-Constitutional justification that can be mis-used as noted previously.

The bill should be supported on the merits, but the hearing protection straw man should tossed before it is used against something much more significant than suppressors.