Why the HPA is a false flag - Get ready to get angry (A Stick oped piece)
Just some food for thought.
The Hearing Protection Act (HPA) has been leaped upon by every wannabe internet firearm celebrity in 2017, and there is certainly a lot of people who take this as a "rally round the flag" moment. I don't think there is much doubt that as a feel good measure, the HPA is awesome. Cans/ Suppressors/ Silencers are the forbidden fruit of the firearm world for most people, probably even more so than SBRs (Short Barreled Rifles meaning anything less than a 16" barrel). The lusty desire to harness your inner John Wick while battling the forces of darkness can't be anything other than a desire every man should have.... right?
The truth about cans is a little different than reality. Cans make a weapon considerably more nose heavy, considerably more dirty, considerably longer, and considerably less reliable. All of this while for the vast majority of calibers, not actually providing a "hearing safe" level of protection. The cold hard truth about cans is that the glamour just isn't quite there after you really start to use them. Don't get me wrong, they are fun, kill flash, reduce recoil, reduce muzzle rise, and do help with the overall noise, but none of that negates the above issues.
Let us get to the false flag part, which is the crux of the matter. The BATF is a heavily flawed agency. Any agency which is allowed to interpret the law and create their own version of things on an as needed basis is flawed. Wearing a badge for a couple decades leaves me with a very black and white view, an action is either against the law, or it is not. Your Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) don't get to issue a legal opinion that changes an actual law. The strength and "meat" of a law is in how it is written. If a law doesn't stand on its own merit, it is rewritten, dissolved, or all too commonly additional laws are simply written in addition to it. What does not happen is for a LEA or Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) or supervisor to simply decide to change the law to fit their needs.
In criminal law we all learn the federal government has less authority compared to the power of the states to enact criminal laws. If the states have more power, yet it is not allowable at a state level to make arbitrary changes in definition and actions of criminal law, how is the BATF/ ATF allowed to make rulings which go against and make vast sweeping changes? When we look at these considerations, let us look no farther than a ruling which makes a muzzle brake a suppressor and therefore illegal (Remember Sig a couple years ago). How about the ever famous pistol brace, which has gone back and forth from legal, to illegal, even though there is no law actually covering the topic (think about Sig and some others on this one as well). How did we ever go from smoke grenades being legal as a nondestructive marking item, to unacceptable in the last few years? Have you forgotten about ammunition like M855 suddenly being illegal, then changed after an outcry from the public (we don't see that often).
Something to consider is not only the arbitrary changes in legality which we see in the ATF rulings, but the obscene acceptance of this in taking place. Please remember, this is NOT a court of law making a ruling, it is a LEA making a ruling outside of law which is then used for enforcement. Allowance of such actions has resulted in acceptance of said actions. With the sweep of a pen, what current items do you own which are no longer permissible? The hollow handle for my jack extension could be used for a suppressor, will that be legal tomorrow? Can it "readily be converted"? Will your AR15 be in an unallowable configuration because it has the "wrong" firing pin, or maybe it has an engraving marked "auto" even though it isn't real or functional?
I would humbly submit that the needed changes are not those which would make a change in suppressors. The changes which needed to be made are clearly the cleaning house of ATF with the same enthusiast powers given to the feds when they swept into LA and other cities for "oversight". Arbitrary enforcement and changes in the law via department rulings violate the second, fourth, fifth, and even tenth amendment. Using our first amendment rights to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, there should be a demand for clear and concise application of the law, not waving determinations which wave in the wind under definitions such as amplified, clarified, declared obsolete, modified, revoked, superseded, and supplemented. Who gave the final word to ATF to override or alter the law as it is written? Where is the civilian oversight?
Our demand should be for the law as dictated in the second amendment, and since no other constitutional amendment requires a punitive enforcement arm of the federal government, the restriction of ATF action until such time as it can be rendered effective and equitable.
