31 comments on “Pending U.S. Federal Legislative Update

  • The 2nd Amendment is our last line of defense against any form of aggression. God for bin if our Country was under attack I don’t think our hands would do any good against bullets. Another form of protection would be the Looters who didn’t prepare and would try to force you and your family to give up what you had by any means nessasary.

    Reply
  • Great job explaining the current Legislative Bills, Emily. Thanks! My membership in the U.S. and Texas Law Shield Organization is the best money I spend each year. I am a 70-year-old widowed grandmother with a concealed carry permit. Knowledge is essential when you carry, and I feel this organization is the best! Thanks to all who keep it so….

    Reply
    • U.S. & Texas LawShield Admin says:

      Hi Jan. Thank you for your comment. We are happy to hear you feel this way about your U.S. & Texas LawShield membership. We couldn’t agree more that knowledge is essential when you carry!

      Reply
  • Since the 2nd Amendment is Federal Law and many States are “infringing” on it in many different ways, which are illegal, I suggest the Congress pass a national carry license. This would give all law-abiding gun owners the right to carry in any State and remove the unconstitutional State laws that now prohibit many of us from exercising our rights. The States have no right to infringe on this important Constitutionally protected freedom.

    Reply
  • I carry under(LEOSA) ,national carry for honorably retired law enforcement officers who qualify each year on an approved law enforcement firearms course. I see nothing wrong with returning the freedoms we enjoyed with these firearm accessories prior to Al Capone’s criminals misusing them prior to 1934. Incidentally, Capone was never affected by this law and spent the end of his life in prison for tax evasion. This makes good sense to me.

    Reply
  • I agree, she did a great to the point explanation of these pending legislations. Nice to read something that doesn’t have a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

    Reply
  • William Dawes says:

    I am in favor of suppressors being treated as just a firearm accessory – no 4473, no background check. A suppressor just mutes the sound of the report of a firearm, it does not eliminate it. It does not slow a bullet down to eliminate the sonic crack of a bullet traveling faster than the speed of sound.
    By removing suppressors for the perview of the NFA, that would give the BATFE and FBI a more efficient means to process the other NFA applications.
    It SHOULD NOT take the BATFE / FBI six months or more to process and/or do a background check on NFA applications. While the initial background check could verify your citizenship / documents for being in our country legally as well as criminal history, this does not need to be done each subsequent time a person undergoes this procedure. On subsequent background checks, it should be nothing more than a NICS check. The tax stamp / registration of a NFA item should be no more complicated or take more time than registering a motor vehicle.

    Reply
  • Paul E Bowling says:

    Attorney Taylor did a great job on explaining each bill, I will be contacting my senators and representatives again many thanks to U.S. Law Shield.

    Reply
  • I am a proud gunowner, can carry nationwide (LEOSA), and support most gun rights, but the Hearing Protection Act is sheer lunacy! Silencers for all is not a way to make our society safer or less violent.

    Reply
    • Chief LEOs have all reported that the criminal misuse of suppressors is statistically insignificant. They do not silence a firearm like in the movies. They work like auto mufflers to suppress the sound down to OSHA-approved safety levels.

      Reply
    • I agree Jim! This idea that any SIGNIFICANT number of hunters and shooters will run out to buy suppressors is ludicrous. I believe that there will be more problems with the people that are already illegally in possession of firearms getting these.

      Reply
    • Obviously this individual has never worked with suppressors and does not understand that they do n not silence guns, it simply puts the decibel level down to something not harmful to human ear.

      I suspect this persons exposure is only through Hollywood.

      I have both a 30 cal and 9mm and they simple make both much more pleasant to shoot.

      Reply
    • Silly…James bond silencers are Hollywood entertainment gimmick. In reality they don’t eliminate sonic crack…or even mute subsonic ammo…but they do effectively reduce noise levels. Get yourself on YouTube and watch/listen to silencers in action. Hearing protection is still required with super sonic ammo. Legalization isn’t going to create silent robberies…heck, handguns and rifles will be so long as to make wielding them a nuisense

      Reply
    • Jim, have you ever used a suppressor? It is NOT a silencer. It still makes plenty of noise. It just makes the sound levels safe to the human ear. The movie representations of suppressors are just that, movies. Find a place that will allow you to shoot a suppressed weapon and you might change your mind when you see just how noisy it still is.

      Reply
    • You’re not serious are you? Suppressors are absolutely wonderful. I’m able to take people to the range now who would normally be very intimidate by the extreme report of my firearms and help train them more efficiently. I’m sure you don’t own a suppressor or you’d know that they are far from “silent”.

      Nevertheless, right now, if you can legally purchase a firearm, you can legally purchase a suppressor. Your argument holds no water. Get your head out of the sand and get educated.

      Reply
    • I totally disagree. Suppressors do NOT silence firearms. I personally can’t wait for this bill to be passed. I refuse to pay the ridiculous tax stamp fees that we currently have to pay.

      A suppressor on my AR-10 with subsonic ammo would help so much with eradicating these feral hogs on my homestead and hunting lease.

      This bill could also help lower the cost of suppressors once supply catches up with demand.

      Reply
    • I am a proud gun owner and can carry nationwide (LEOSA) also, and support most gun rights. What is the lunacy of the Hearing Protection Act? The goal of the the act is not to make society safer or less violent, it is to allow the purchase of suppressors without having to pay a $200 tax, without having to justify why you want it to your local CLEO, and without having to wait for 12-18 months for an arbitrary decision by BATFE. Suppressor use in crime is unlikely at best due to the increase in weight and size of the firearms when it is attached. The benefit to hunters and sport shooters will probably outweigh the danger of criminal use. Your argument is the same one used by the anti-gunners to prevent the passage of concealed carry and open carry legislation. “Blood in the streets!” Let’s see a coherent and rational argument to support your position, please.

      Reply
    • michael blackwell says:

      It’s not about making our society safer or less violent. It’s about protecting the hearingof sportsmen,competition shooters, and the average guy or gal that likes to got to the range for personal enjoyment of shooting. If a person has to go through the same back ground check as they would if they were purchasing a firearm, then that means that felons,people with mental issues, habitual drug users, or anyone who cannot legally own a firearm would not be able to possess a suppressor(not a silencer as every one like to call them)

      Reply
    • Silencers “silence” nothing. They bring the Report Decibel noise down. They are useful for hunters, and help to preserve hearing. As a retired military professional, I understand the necessity of the preservation of the sense of Hearing. Once it is lost, in one ear or another, due to exposure from artillery fire, or sustained rifle or machine gun fire, it is gone for good. Hearing aids do not work well at all for nerve deafness and tinnitus is also not a good trade off for good hearing being lost. This is NOT a violence issue, and it is an issue for safer hunting of animals for food.

      Reply
    • I don’t think you understand what a suppressor is. For one, it doesn’t “silence” anything. It drops the decibel levels but not silence it. A supersonic bullet out of a suppressor is still loud, just not as hearing damaging. A subsonic is still loud enough to be heard a good distance and between rooms and buildings. Second, if people or “criminals” begin to buy subsonic ammo for “silent” crimes it means you as a cop and me as a civilian have a better chance at surviving the criminal encounter. Slower ammunition provides no benefits for lethality against living things. Yes well placed shots can be lethal but most criminals don’t shoot well aimed shots as much as thug grip and shoot without sights. Meaning shot placement is off and A lower velocity cartridge will be less damaging to soft tissue, while penetrating less than standard pressure ammo. A 5.56 NATO cartridge reduced to subsonic speeds so that it is as suppressed as it can be, is literally equal to less than a .22 LR cartridge. What we gain from suppressor is quality of life as active sportsmen and women. While not sacrificing anything. Criminals who want to use suppressor already do. Acts done spontaneously won’t be worse for having a suppressor. Technology used to detect, identify, and triangulate location of a weapon fired is beyond capable of functioning 100% as intended despite suppressors being used. Literally, nothing is lost for having them yet, we gain something for having them.

      The fear of suppressorss are more fictional than factual. Movies would have you think all people with guns are expert marksman and every suppressor makes gun entirely whisper silent without reducing the firearms lethal capacity. No consideration for facts.

      Reply
    • A silencer will not change the intent of a criminal willing to use a gun. I believe with the thoughtful regulation and background checks applied these safety devices could benefit hunters and recreational shooters alike.

      Reply
    • Silencers DO NOT make the gun silent, as anyone who has ever used one knows. It simply reduces the sound pressure to a safer level. To many people think that Hollywood props are real. James Bond screwing a ‘silencer’ on a revolver and making it silent is not reality.
      Following your logic (loud guns make criminals less likely to shoot or easier to catch) then GLOVES should be outlawed because they obfuscate finger prints.
      If you need to eradicate feral hogs effectively, a suppressor is mandatory.
      Leave the James Bond crowd and get real.

      Reply
    • Orville Harmison says:

      So you don’t think a person’s hearing is a safety issue ? That is all the hearing protection act is about. Silencers is a misnomer, suppressors is the correct terminology as they do not make any gun silent but only reduce the noise level to protect your hearing from damage. If you are basing your bias on movies then remember movies are make believe. This is an important safety issue that allows shooters (either for sport or hunting) to effectively use their firearms without the danger of hearing loss.

      Reply
    • Dan Wilterding says:

      “… sheer lunacy” Jim? A bit strong, not to mention incorrect. The safety aspect is related directly to reducing the potential for permanent hearing loss. Making our communities less violent? Well no, but then regulations on thumb-hole stocks, pistol grips and the like don’t address violence either.

      Reply
    • James Crandall says:

      I don’t understand the “lunacy”. The term silencer is a misnomer in the first place. Although the noise suppression devices do lesson the dB level of the shot it is still far from silent. The noise suppression device does nothing except help prevent tinnitus and percussive hearing loss. They make the firearm no more or no less leathal. A sniper will tell you that you don’t hear the shot that kills you, the speed of sound and the velocity of the bullet proves that to be a true statement. The noise suppression device would be treated as a legal firearm is meaning that the purchaser would have to fill out the federal paperwork and pass a NICS inquiry. The only thing this will do is eliminate the tax stamp requirement, reduce the red tape and paperwork because understand that they are not illegal devices, merely devices under the NFA Of I believe 1936 that imposes a tracking system and imposes tax. Personally, for handguns anyhow, I believe them to be awkward, changes the balance of the firearm and would make standard holster carry a bit clumsy so I’ll stick to my ear muff hearing protection, but there is no legitimate reason to make them difficult to purchase. As for National Reciprocity, way over due. It is ridiculous that I am limited in my free movement within my country when I have jumped through all the hoops, passed the training, the deeper background check and demonstrated proficiency and safe handling all at my own expense and choose to have the ability to defend myself. I carry every day, every day I pray that I don’t need to use my firearm but the reality is it seems more and more people in this country have little regard for their own lives or anyone else’s and although we have some of the finest, most dedicated and professional law enforcement officers in the world, the adage of when seconds count the police are only moments away is simply a reality. I choose to be responsible for my own safety. As for the third bill, preventing states or subordinate jurisdictions from restricting what commonly used firearms they will allow in their jurisdiction prevents government from obfuscating the second amendment by placing the infringement on the weapon or ammunition rather than the person. It should be common sense that if you infringe my ability to purchase a firearm or ammunition, you are also infringing my right to keep and bear arms but sadly we need this spelled out for those who seek to disarm the people by any means possible. I have no problem or objection to any of the three House Bills discussed.

      Reply
  • Richard A. Wright says:

    As usual, Emily did a fantastic job explaining each bill and what it means specifically for gun owners. Outstanding!!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice — it will appear shortly.