millerkiller77
Well-known member
Or print them at home, and avoid waiting for someone with down syndrome to open "the glass"
Hearing Protection Act gutted by House Ways and Means, need a push.
- Thread starter MO Betta
- Start date
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,493
Yes, At least prior to the backcountry i'm pretty positive mack bros was the OEM for all of their banish lineup. Not sure if that's the case with any newer models like the backcountry.
To me it always seemed the majority of their business was driven by simplifying the NFA process and advertising/sponsoring everything in the shooting media/event world much more so than manufacturing the most desirable product. Not that the products are bad, i just don't think they are the primary selling point.
Edit to add:
Last edited:
KingOfTagSoup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2022
- Messages
- 277
Ok people, Congress is back from their much needed recess 
and now the Reconciliation package is in the Senate. As of now the HPA is in the bill in it's full form. The one hurdle that there is some concern over is the Byrd Rule, which essentially states that only matters concerning taxes and budget can be in a reconciliation package. The concern is that opponents will try to argue that HPA does not adhere to the Byrd Rule. However, diligent research has shown that the enactment of the NFA in 1934 was explicitly put forward as a tax, not a outright ban. In fact the attorney general at the time testified in Congress that it was being put forward as a tax because an outright ban would be unconstitutional. All this to say, we need to keep the pressure on the Senate and the message is clear, the NFA is a matter of taxation and budget, therefore the HPA belongs in this package. Send the messages and melt the phone lines!
Here is a video that does a good job breaking down what I described above.
and now the Reconciliation package is in the Senate. As of now the HPA is in the bill in it's full form. The one hurdle that there is some concern over is the Byrd Rule, which essentially states that only matters concerning taxes and budget can be in a reconciliation package. The concern is that opponents will try to argue that HPA does not adhere to the Byrd Rule. However, diligent research has shown that the enactment of the NFA in 1934 was explicitly put forward as a tax, not a outright ban. In fact the attorney general at the time testified in Congress that it was being put forward as a tax because an outright ban would be unconstitutional. All this to say, we need to keep the pressure on the Senate and the message is clear, the NFA is a matter of taxation and budget, therefore the HPA belongs in this package. Send the messages and melt the phone lines!Here is a video that does a good job breaking down what I described above.
Addicting
Well-known member
Just left a message with Sen Thune on protecting public lands and restoring this as part of the BBB.
If you haven’t read this was stripped from the BBB yesterday from the Bryd rule.
If you haven’t read this was stripped from the BBB yesterday from the Bryd rule.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,602
Baffling a "tax" isnt budget related...
jryoung
Well-known member
Can the tax be stripped without removal from the NFA?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,602
MO Betta
Well-known member
The argument for its(NFA) justification since its inception was that it isn't an infringement on the 2A because it is strictly a tax.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Probably fell under the "incidental" rule. Don't bash me too bad, but I think it should just be separated out and go through the normal process.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,602
Sonzinsky v. United States
Facts The National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, required dealers in certain types of firearms to register with the Collector of Internal Revenue and to
studicata.com
No - its a tax and was argued as such at the supreme court and in the legislative chambers.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I don't think that is the argument at all. And not every tax has to go into the budget bill. There is a series of rules that have to be applied by the Parliamentarian. Clearly one of those other rules appeared to be violated in their opinion.Sonzinsky v. United States
Facts The National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, required dealers in certain types of firearms to register with the Collector of Internal Revenue and to
No - its a tax and was argued as such at the supreme court and in the legislative chambers.
Also, calling and saying "please follow the Parliamentarian on pulling the land sale item but refuse to follow the Parliamentarian on this NFA item" seems like you don't care about rules at all. You just want what you want. I think that is where a lot of Americans are, which is part of the reason we have a dysfunctional Congress.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,602
Could be missing something. My understanding of the byrd rule was that it was to pertain to only items of revenue or spending.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Yes but not all. It is certainly confusing. The item proposed has to be within the purview of the committee that is proposing it. Not sure the source on this one. Also has to be material to the budget - I suspect this one isn’t- and its primary purpose has to be budgetary and not driving some other intent. Those are three that might apply to this item in terms of “squishiness”. I kind of wish the parliamentarian had to publish its reasoning so we could get clarity.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,602
145 million last year in revenue - i realize thats "small" on a relative scale but it doesnt seem immaterial. Especially when most of the nfa employees could be terminated.
I get the "intent" but that seems like a squish that could be applied to near anything, ie renewable energy credits.
I agree - i wish that the reasoning was published. Congress is increasingly inept at producing good policy - so this looks to be the death to hoping things change.
El Jason
Well-known member
It’s sad our government is so dysfunctional they cannot achieve something like this via legitimate legislative process.
mevertsen
Well-known member
Agree with that.
I truly wish each item could be pushed through as an individual bill.
Vote yes or no, move on. Rather than sneaking stuff into a huge bill, and fighting about it for weeks at a time.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,602
Democrats passing pro gun regulation?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Very squish. I view it simply as the Parliamentarian's job is to call bullshit on non-budget items that violate the Byrd rule so it could only need 51%. There was so much crammed into this thing the outcome for a lot of it was obvious. As someone pointed out, there is a reason the Senate approval is a 60% threshold. It was to put a check on power and encourage compromise. I would rather see more things move through the normal process.
She killed the medicaid cuts so this whole budget is on life-support. Those spending cuts were central to not blowing a whole in the fiscal situation. Calls for her to be fired/replaced will increase. Another example of an abuse of power. Someone can't get what they want so try to blow up the whole thing.
El Jason
Well-known member
Why not? Do stuff legitimately and let folks see where their legislators stand, and pressure them accordingly.
It’s pathetic folks are so conditioned to this disingenuous course of action they think it’s okay.
