2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: yurcarmeean on January 25, 2017, 06:23:44 PM
-
please please please.....
Hearing Protection Act that mandates the use of silencers in order to protect ears.
they made a good point, there is no time for a cop to ponder hearing protection when engaging in a gun fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdx_Rt5JbhA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdx_Rt5JbhA)
-
Never happen here. The citizens are not responsible enough to be trusted with them.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
That would be a ghost gun
No one would hear it shoot 30 calibers in 3 seconds
140 decibels in half a second
I say that again....
140 grains in 30 decibels
-
I truly hope this goes national.
Guarantee hawaii will find a way to restrict it though.
-
Oil filters still legal here, worth a try if the adapters become non-NFA. No law against it AFAIK.
-
I truly hope this goes national.
Guarantee hawaii will find a way to restrict it though.
Suppressors are already banned here. Currently suppressors are Federally regulated, not banned, with an acquisition process and tax. Hawaii has a law banning them. Therefore this law would not help us unless Hawaii's law changes in the future.
-
Oil filters still legal here, worth a try if the adapters become non-NFA. No law against it AFAIK.
Adapters aren't NFA.
People use them to screw oil filters on when cleaning their guns to catch the gunk.
It's only illegal once you discharge a round through it, making it into a suppressor.
Lot of companies will ship to Hawaii.
In both AR and pistol threadings.
Not much of a sight picture though.
Hope this passes Congress but Hawaii would still ban 'em.
Edit 1/27/17: see KK's post below.
-
I truly hope this goes national.
Guarantee hawaii will find a way to restrict it though.
Suppressors are already banned here. Currently suppressors are Federally regulated, not banned, with an acquisition process and tax. Hawaii has a law banning them. Therefore this law would not help us unless Hawaii's law changes in the future.
Hawaii is one of the eight states that prohibit the possession of suppressors (in case Obama is reading this that means they're legal in 42 states, not 49). While it's true that the National Hearing Protection Act wouldn't effect Hawaii by simply removing them from the NFA requirements it would continue the process of making Hawaii more and more of an outlier compared to the rest of the country. The fact that Hawaii has more irrational, arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional restrictive firearms laws that have absolutely no effect on crime or public safety compared to almost all other states would have no bearing on the statist authoritarian politicians here who have the ability to make the laws rational. They don't give the slightest damn about that, they have a different agenda than "public safety". But, it would highlight the situation for members of the general public who might notice the situation and possibly question who to vote for in some future election. Heavy on the "might" and "possibly". Plus, more freedom for more citizens wherever they are is a good thing, even if I am still under the thumb of fascists here.
-
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. While I am not holding my breath on impacts locally, would be interesting "test" on how things will or could progress in the next 3-4 years.
I've always wanted a suppressor, particularly for my ARs. That said, if they were legal here, my bank account would definitely have been hurting a lot more. . .
Was listening to NPR this morning and they were discussing the 10th Amendment, but in the context of rules regarding sanctuary cities.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It sates that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.
I know that a lot of federal laws/rules that states have to follow are ties to funding, like federal highways. The individual states get federal funding for highways, but the states have to follow federal highway laws, rules, design standards, etc. If the states don't follow the federal standards, they just won't get funding.
Yes, different case in terms of NFA in this case. That just got me wondering how things could be arranged such to leverage following federal laws instead of the current state law. That and are there many cases where there are national/federal laws that states have been "forced" to follow? There probably are, but just can't think of one that would be similar that would help in this case.
-
Adapters aren't NFA.
People use them to screw oil filters on when cleaning their guns to catch the gunk.
It's only illegal once you discharge a round through it, making it into a suppressor.
Lot of companies will ship to Hawaii.
In both AR and pistol threadings.
Not much of a sight picture though.
Hope this passes Congress but Hawaii would still ban 'em.
The company selling the Econo Can adapter (Cadiz) sells the oil trap one and also sells an adapter which is an NFA item. Not sure if the NFA one is steel while the oil trap one is AL. Agree that the filter makes the sighting very hard.
Anyways here's a link on the issue about legality.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/10/24/solvent-traps-still-illegal-use-intended/
-
Even though this wont help Hawaii, I signed the petition.
Kind of don't want this, because I know I would buy one. Then would have to buy all new stuff for my guns (barrel, muzzle break, etc...) =P
-
That and are there many cases where there are national/federal laws that states have been "forced" to follow?
Roe v. Wade (abortion)
Obergefell v. Hodges (homosexual marriage)
Not federal laws per se, but federal court rulings that limit the ability of states to determine their own standards and laws regarding certain subjects.
-
Roe v. Wade (abortion)
Obergefell v. Hodges (homosexual marriage)
Not federal laws per se, but federal court rulings that limit the ability of states to determine their own standards and laws regarding certain subjects.
But none about guns right? Unless if makes the national news, it wont help. And we all know the media is pro 2a.
-
I hope it will become legal to make your own. $20 and a trip to the hardware store should get you everything you need except for the big nut to go on the barrel adapter. That can be bought at HI Nut & Bolt in Mapunapuna. A Dremel and mig welder and you are in business. YouTube has lots of videos.
-
Roe v. Wade (abortion)
Obergefell v. Hodges (homosexual marriage)
Not federal laws per se, but federal court rulings that limit the ability of states to determine their own standards and laws regarding certain subjects.
Weren't Roe and Obergefell Constitutional issues though ?
Pretty sure the 2A doesn't give us the right to suppressors.
I would definitely pick up a rifle one and a pistol one though if they became legal.
Oh to dream......
-
Roe v. Wade (abortion)
Obergefell v. Hodges (homosexual marriage)
Not federal laws per se, but federal court rulings that limit the ability of states to determine their own standards and laws regarding certain subjects.
Thanks! Roe vs Wade had come to mind, but not being super familiar with the details other than abortion (and not willing to spend that time prior to my post to research), chose not to say either way and just pose the question. Will see if I can pull more information, more for my curiosity than anything else. That's kind of what I was looking for though. Yeah, something related to firearms would've been great and offer more hope, but my initial thoughts were that states are typically "free" to have laws that are stricter than federal level as long as they aren't unconstitutional. Which in that case, what seems to happen is states pass the laws, impose them until such time (after many years+) that the law/ruling/etc can be ruled unconstitutional.
Just drawing on my personal experience with building codes. There are national standards and many states adopt them verbatim. Many states adopt those standards with state amendments, which are typically more stringent. The projects I typically work on have to follow mainly federal based standards and we often get into situations where both the design team and even local officials get caught up on what is the governing requirement (which standard). Not exactly the same as federal, state, city laws, but seems pretty similar.
I will still support this and other state level efforts regardless. Just sort of trying to logically see reality of the situation, which again, I'm not holding my breath.
-
An example of a federal court decision overruling state law would include McDonald (SCOTUS) which ended Chicago's ban on handguns (which was very similar to D.C.'s ban overturned in Heller). Later, in Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Illinois ban on carry was unconstitutional, and fearing SCOTUS upholding that decision and making it binding nationally, the Illinois AG, Madigan, chose not to appeal for cert to SCOTUS.
A couple of current examples might apply here. The national reciprocity act and one of the carry cases such as Peruta or Nichols, et al. could be granted cert and heard by SCOTUS. In one of the latter cases SCOTUS could rule that open carry is the right protected by the Constitution and all states must have laws that provide for citizens to open carry. Thirty-nine states already have such provisions, most of them don't even require a permit to do so, but places like Hawaii would be under court order to remedy the situation within a set period of time. Hawaii would then likely pass a law with all kinds of moronic idiotic fascist "common sense" restrictions re time and place to carry and high costs for licensing, training, etc. That would set off another few rounds of litigation lasting longer than most of us will be around. I would LOVE to see the faces on the Hawaii bureaucrats when they get open carry shoved down their throats by the feds. Holding breath not an option.
-
Adapters aren't NFA.
People use them to screw oil filters on when cleaning their guns to catch the gunk.
It's only illegal once you discharge a round through it, making it into a suppressor.
Lot of companies will ship to Hawaii.
In both AR and pistol threadings.
Not much of a sight picture though.
Hope this passes Congress but Hawaii would still ban 'em.
You're right and wrong.
The adapters are NFA regulated if you're going to use the oil filters to shoot through. (In other words, the same companies that sell the gunk catching adapters, sell the exact same adapter with a serial number and you can apply for a tax stamp on it so you can legally use it for a oil filter suppressor)
If all you're doing is using them to "catch gunk", you buy the non serial number one and there are no NFA restrictions.
-
[Dupe of my post on the Legal and Activism forum...]
HB1589 Hawaii Suppressor Legalization (for Hunters Only)
Well, it's a start. At least it broaches the subject, though as written wouldn't allow even a hunter to use the suppressor at a range to dial in their rifle with the suppressor on it. People might want to call the sponsors and thank them and ask for modifications to allow range use.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1589&year=2017
HB1589
Measure Title: RELATING TO HUNTING SAFETY.
Report Title: Firearms; Noise Suppressors; Hunting
Description: Authorizes licensed hunters who comply with state firearms law to possess and use firearm noise suppressors while hunting. Authorizes the manufacture and sale of firearm noise suppressors for licensed hunters who comply with state firearms law.
Introducer(s): YAMANE, CREAGAN, DECOITE, HAR, ITO, KONG, MCKELVEY, OSHIRO, SAY, TOKIOKA
Sort by Date Status Text
1/25/2017 H Introduced and Pass First Reading.
-
I got one and they really work great....duct tape over my old ladies mouth :crazy: :shake: :wtf:
-
For those that are confused by what is banned or allowed, here is a simple table:
Federal State Overall Result
Banned Banned = Banned
Banned Allowed = Banned
Allowed Banned = Banned
Allowed Allowed = Allowed
Silencers/suppressors have always been allowed by the Feds, but banned by the State = banned for us possessing.
CCW in Hawaii is allowed by the Feds, and allowed by Hawaii (but not issued) = allowed potentially through the Hudson CCW Reciprocity.
How Constitutional Rights come into play (Roe V Wade, Mcdonald, Heller, etc) is it prevents the Feds and/or State from banning something.
There are some exceptions such as immigration and GMO's. I believe immigration is set by the constitution to be regulated only by the federal government, not sure about GMO's.
-
I got one and they really work great....duct tape over my old ladies mouth :crazy: :shake: :wtf:
I hope she doesn't read this forum!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
For those that are confused by what is banned or allowed, here is a simple table:
Federal State Overall Result
Banned Banned = Banned
Banned Allowed = Banned
Allowed Banned = Banned
Allowed Allowed = Allowed
Silencers/suppressors have always been allowed by the Feds, but banned by the State = banned for us possessing.
CCW in Hawaii is allowed by the Feds, and allowed by Hawaii (but not issued) = allowed potentially through the Hudson CCW Reciprocity.
How Constitutional Rights come into play (Roe V Wade, Mcdonald, Heller, etc) is it prevents the Feds and/or State from banning something.
There are some exceptions such as immigration and GMO's. I believe immigration is set by the constitution to be regulated only by the federal government, not sure about GMO's.
This is what I've been telling people. I signed the petition, but they're still illegal in Hawaii. I signed it to help all 2a people.
-
All :geekdanc: my shooting buddies can chip in as they all bitch about the concussion of my ak when shooting next to me
-
This is what I've been telling people. I signed the petition, but they're still illegal in Hawaii. I signed it to help all 2a people.
That's why "encouraging" our local legislators to grant a hearing and vote for HB1589 (Suppressor legalization for hunting) would complement the federal Hearing Protection Act.
Allowed + Allowed = Allowed (I really hate that word when it comes to the government and my rights! >:( They use their monopoly of violence to decide whether they will "allow" me to exercise my "rights", which the founders explicitly said pre-exist government! (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif) How can I, and why should I, even pretend to have any "respect" for these people?)
-
I read the bill in full and its a great start. Well written and a good compromise that can be tweaked in the future. I'd gladly pay the fee for a hunting license so I can suppress my Rem 700. My first suggested change would be to allow the use of suppressors at the range. :shaka:
-
Gun control groups turn up volume against suppressor deregulation after shooting
Though a recent high-profile shooting at a Congressional baseball practice did not involve a suppressor,
gun control advocates pose the question “what if it had” in an effort to derail pending reform on the items.
In the aftermath of the shooting that left GOP House Whip Steve Scalise among others critically wounded
at a practice for a charity baseball game, national proponents for increased gun regulations are claiming
the incident could have been worse if the assailant used a suppressor.
So, without any evidence or data to back them up, somehow gun control groups "just know" a silencer would have made the Virginia shooting worse!
LOL! These people are so obviously ignorant, it's embarrassing! He had an SKS rifle.
"Without a suppressor, the sound of a shot from such a gun is 165 decibels. This is more than twice as loud as a jet take-off, if you are 25 meters from the jet.
With a suppressor, the SKS would be about 140db. That’s equivalent to being on an active aircraft carrier deck.”
http://www.guns.com/2017/06/21/gun-control-groups-turn-up-volume-against-suppressor-deregulation-after-shooting/
Comment Section:
What if he had a suppressor? He would've missed more quietly...that's all.
-
silencer is not an accurate term as there is some significant amount of noise.
Witnessed an XM3 shot with a suppressor and it was as loud as my Benjamin Disco without its LDC. So equivalent to a 22 short.
-
silencer is not an accurate term as there is some significant amount of noise.
Witnessed an XM3 shot with a suppressor and it was as loud as my Benjamin Disco without its LDC. So equivalent to a 22 short.
Not my thread! :geekdanc: