Quote:
|
Originally Posted by New Era
In fact, gun restrictions will continue to ease. Bump stocks may disappear, but universal concealed carry is on the way as is access to suppressors and other restricted weapons. The uniformed will be happy with the “win” on bump stocks, but will soon be outraged as more restricted weapons become available for sale without a tax stamp or extended background, and carrying them concealed will be extended across the nation. One step forward, a dozen steps back. Oh, but that President Camacho!
|
The thing with the HPA (removing suppressors from the NFA requirements), is that the only thing it really changes is the need to go through the tax stamp process and the FBI/BATF background check. People would still be getting a NICS check to get one and the states that have currently banned them are not forced to reverse that ban.
If opponents the bill could actually show that suppressors make firearms more dangerous or that there are tons of crimes being committed with them, there might be a case to keep the restrictions in place, but they can't do either of those. The bill is a prime case where if facts were looked at, there would be nothing supporting the current restrictions.
Also, unless I'm mistaken, there is no other bill tabled right now that proposed to reduce the restrictions on NFA (restricted) firearms or devices. As far as I know, there has been no legislative push to remove the requirements on FA/SBR/SBS firearms.