posts.freedomparts.com Open in urlscan Pro
192.124.249.4 Public Scan

Back to summary

URL:
https://posts.freedomparts.com/
Submission: On July 19 via automatic, source certstream-suspicious (July 19th 2022, 9:15:32 am UTC) — Scanned from DE

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET http://posts.freedomparts.com/

<form role="search" method="get" class="search-form" action="http://posts.freedomparts.com/">
  <label for="search-form-62d67625be6df">
    <span class="screen-reader-text">Search for:</span>
  </label>
  <input type="search" id="search-form-62d67625be6df" class="search-field" placeholder="Search …" value="" name="s">
  <button type="submit" class="search-submit"><svg class="icon icon-search" aria-hidden="true" role="img">
      <use xlink:href="#icon-search"></use>
    </svg><span class="screen-reader-text">Search</span></button>
</form>

Text Content

Skip to content
Welcome visitor Log In- or - Register My Account

FREEDOM FLAG PRODUCTS POSTS

Blogs, Media & News Updates

Menu
* HOME
* PRODUCTS
* Gun Components
* Muzzle Brakes
* Blast Shield
* Glock Slides
* Motorcycle Parts
* Bagger Derby Covers
* Sportster Derby Covers
* Bagger Front Master Cylinder Covers
* Sportster Front Master Cylinder Covers
* Personal Items
* Freedom T-Shirts
* Freedom Hats
* Beard Comb Tool
* Tactical Stick
* Freedom Tumbler
* Freedom Key Fobs
* Freedom Stickers
* Freedom Beanies
* NEWS
* MY ACCOUNT
* CONTACT US

POSTS

Posted on February 25, 2021

TEACHING CHILDREN HUNTING, SHOOTING & FIREARMS SAFETY

February 25, 2021

From our friends at DRGO
(from usacarry.com)

Finally, a researcher whose work seems to support, rather the attack, Second
Amendment rights. David Schwebel, a psychology professor, and his associates
describe a training program to improve children’s ability to safely deal with
guns. Perhaps surprising to those who read academic studies regarding firearms,
they imply that children’s exposure to firearms is not unusual and may have
positive consequences, such as becoming integrated into family activities as
well as sports like hunting and shooting.

They have obtained a large research grant to teach children, in a number of ways
and in several settings, skills to reduce the likelihood of misuse of guns.
Techniques will a include newly developed video games and tasks to teach
patience. They will also use “peers” – in reality child actors – to present
realistic stories about the dangers that accompany unsafe firearms practices.
The program participants will be girls and boys between 10 and 12, of diverse
ethnicity.

In this report the researchers say little about how these “peers” will be
chosen. Presumably, they will be slightly older than the participants. Having
once been a 10-year-old boy myself, I wonder how effective it might be for such
a participant to hear a story about guns told by a slightly older girl.

A strength of their plan, as the authors suggest, is that it acknowledges that
in many households, especially those in more rural areas, telling and teaching
children about guns is part of one’s upbringing and, I would think, no different
than teaching safety regarding swimming or bicycle riding.

Professor Schwebel’s interest in enhancing the safety of children around
firearms without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms is commendable.
Unfortunately, he is an outlier.

Project funding comes from the Centers for Disease Control. It’s good to see tax
dollars used to reduce firearm accidents through teaching children about
firearms, rather than by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Recent
legislation attempts to nullify previous restrictions on the use of tax dollars
to fund studies promoting gun control; it appears that Professor Schwebel’s
research is being paid for with money allocated in 2019.

More information about the project is provided by the University of Alabama:

“Our intention is to design a website that teaches children how to engage safely
with firearms to reduce risk for unintentional pediatric firearms-related
injuries and deaths,” said David Schwebel, Ph.D., director of the UAB Youth
Safety Lab and principal investigator. “The website will deliver messages
through the internet, a technological medium today’s children prefer learning
in. It also will incorporate brief messaging to parents, who will absorb key
lessons and reinforce them with their children.”

ShootSafe extends existing programs to achieve three primary educational goals:

* Teach children the knowledge and skills they need to hunt, shoot and use
firearms safely;
* Help children learn and hone the critical cognitive skills of impulse control
and hypothetical thinking needed to use firearms safely; and
* Alter children’s perceptions about their own vulnerability and susceptibility
to firearms-related injuries, the severity of those injuries, and their
perceived norms about peer behavior surrounding firearms use.”

By DRGO

Posted on January 30, 2020

SEEING RED IN VIRGINIA

From our friends at DRGO

(from preparedgunowner.com)

[Ed: Dr. Petrocelli plans to write Virginia state legislators along these lines
about the perversions inherent in Red Flag laws. This is a good example of
necessary citizen involvement with otherwise clueless and self-absorbed
government representatives.]

I am writing to you to ask that you consider the following information before
taking action on any so-called “Red Flag law.”

No one wants “dangerous” people armed. I have worked as a forensic psychiatrist
in maximum security forensic psychiatric hospitals and prison special housing
units, and am well aware of the harm persons with or without mental illness can
do with guns. As I’ve written before, the aspirational goal of violence risk
assessment—to identify persons who are likely to act violently—is laudable. Red
Flag laws are offered to intervene with such individuals who cannot be
identified through either the criminal justice system or the mental health
system.

In the abstract, this makes sense: there must be persons who are dangerous but
not mentally ill and have not yet committed a crime. Without these laws, they
could fall through the cracks and commit atrocities. Those of us who oppose
these laws realize that this abstraction doesn’t play out so neatly in reality,
and are accused that our opposition means we want to arm dangerous persons.

The most solid argument against the red flag laws lies in the fact that there is
no widely accepted, scientifically validated procedure to make such a
determination. Don’t take my word for it—instead, take it from anti-gun David
Rosmarin, MD, in his presentation to the Massachusetts Medical Society (emphasis
added):

“While the base rate for violence may be 20% for forensic populations, the
6-month incidence of violence in even urban populations is closer to 6%. This
yields a positive predictive value of .14, which results in a false positive
rate of nearly 90%.

“Even a test with an impossible 0.9 accuracy for both true positives and true
negatives will be wrong more than nine times out of ten at a base rate of 1% for
severe violence. Even with a 5-10% (hypothetically high)base rate of violence,
the clinician who always predicts “no violence” will be more accurate than the
clinician who identifies 20% as ‘violent’.”

We simply do not have methods of accurately assessing peoples’ risk of
violence. This gets worse when trying to predict rare events, for example, mass
atrocities. In fact, our methods are so poor for uncommon events that our
predictions would be wrong more than nine out of ten times. This fits with the
rest of the literature, which indicated that guns have to be removed from ten to
twenty people to prevent one gun related suicide, notwithstanding the fact that
once the guns are removed, suicidal people find other ways: “Connecticut’s
estimated reduction in firearm suicides was offset by increased non-firearm
suicides.”

Although there is great debate over how to approach risk assessment, it is
generally agreed that the evaluator ought to use some structured method:

“Over the last two decades a number of actuarial formulas have been developed to
predict various types of risk. Some have been the subject of extensive research
and active debate in the field. Respected researchers have opined that risk
assessment should be totally based on actuarial formulas, and asserted that such
a procedure is superior to any clinical judgment (Quinsey et al., 1998). Others
have decried reliance on these methods, saying that the day will never come when
clinical judgment can be replaced by statistical calculations (Litwack, 2000).
Still others have suggested that an integration of the two approaches may
produce the most valuable results (Hanson, 1998).”

What do red flag laws offer in this regard? Virginia’s Senate bill offers
nothing of the sort. Instead, it merely requires the court to entertain
evidence of risk:

“In determining whether clear and convincing evidence for the issuance of an
order exists, the judge shall consider any relevant evidence including any
recent act of violence, force, or threat as defined in § 19.2-152.7:1 by such
person directed toward another person or toward himself.”

There is no guidance as to how to reason about that evidence, or whether that
evidence is outweighed by protective factors that mitigate the risk of
violence-protective factors do not even have to be considered at all. The irony
of all of this is that the law requires the court to make a determination that,
if offered as testimony by an expert, would fail to meet the requirements of
admissibility, because the finding would not be based on any method commonly
used by experts in the field. Nor would its reliability (or error rate) be
known. This is probably why New Jersey eliminated the rules of evidence for its
red flag hearings.

Having established that risk assessment isn’t up to the challenge presented by
red flag laws, these proceedings are an affront to the concept that underlies
procedural due process: fundamental fairness. Fundamental fairness has been
defined as the “most comprehensive protection of liberties,” and “the trenchant
commitment to fair play and civilized decency in the relations between the state
and the individual.” How can there be “fair play” and “decency” towards red
flag respondents when the arbiters of the fate of their inalienable rights have
no scientifically valid procedure to apply to the evidence presented to them?

The Virginia Senate falsely compares its oppressive Red Flag law with Virginia’s
civil commitment statutes because both begin with ex parte actions—so red flag
laws’ must be constitutional. This is absurd, because what civil commitment
lacks in front-end procedural due process it makes up for with fundamental
fairness and decency.

Virginia’s mental health commitment scheme has three parts. The first, the
Emergency Commitment Order, is issued ex parte, and orders law enforcement to
bring a person to a place of evaluation for a short period of time. The subject
is evaluated by a mental health professional authorized by the Commonwealth to
perform assessments to determine whether or not the person is mentally ill and
if so, on that basis, a danger to themselves or others.

Only then can the person be brought to a psychiatric hospital under a Temporary
Detention Order (up to 72 hours). During that time the hospital staff evaluate
whether or not the respondent needs commitment for treatment, can sign in
voluntarily or should be released.

A full hearing, with counsel provided, is held before a Judge or Special Justice
to determine whether or not the respondent should be committed for up to 180
days if that was recommended. In summary, although civil commitment begins ex
parte, two professional evaluations are done and a formal judicial hearing with
the subject present with representation is required if further commitment is
recommended.

Red Flag laws so far provide none of this. They require no expert evaluation
before property is confiscated: police arrive, announcing they have come to
remove the respondent’s guns, and need not provide any additional information.
This triggers notification to the NICS database that the respondent is now a
prohibited person. Red flag laws do not permit the respondent to voluntarily and
privately relinquish their guns once confronted. Instead, after two weeks of the
seizure of their firearms and without mandatory counsel, a hearing is held to
determine whether the guns should be returned or held for an additional 180
days.

Perhaps the greatest distinction between red flag laws and civil commitment is
that civil commitment provides treatment under the doctrine of parens
patriae—the State as parent to those who are in need of protection or care. The
deprivation of rights that accompanies civil commitment is balanced against the
need for that deprivation along with the treatment available to remediate the
condition that led to the action in the first place.

Red Flag laws provide the respondent nothing: not counsel, not professional
examination, and no intervention intended to restore the rights taken from
them. The importance of this divergence cannot be overstated. The courts have
consistently held that intended purpose of civil commitment laws—provision of
treatment—balances any up-front procedural deficiencies:

“The judicial approval of involuntary commitment rests upon the assumption that
the state is pursuing beneficent purposes for the general society and for the
person committed.”

Grafting procedural due process on to Red Flag laws does not rehabilitate them
in the slightest. Consider a pop culture analogy, Agent Smith’s interrogation
of Neo in The Matrix. Just apprehended and facing a host of charges, Neo replies
to Smith’s litany of allegations by saying “You can’t scare me with this Gestapo
crap. I know my rights I want my phone call.” Agent Smith replies, “What good
is a phone call, if you’re unable to speak” and he disrupts the Matrix so that
Neo cannot speak. In this scene Neo’s procedural rights are preserved—he is
offered a phone, counsel, and presumably the opportunity to rebut the
charges—but he is rendered unable to use them.

This parallels the problem with Red Flag laws. All the procedural due process in
the world—being present for the hearing, confronting your accusers, etc.—does
nothing to ensure fairness, decency or respect if the ultimate issue can be
decided without the respondent’s participation in a meaningful evaluation or,
perhaps even worse, by emotionally charged accusations of feared future
violence.

Unfortunately, the fact that Red Flag laws do not function as billed is a
feature, not a bug, because they are used as Trojan horses for even more
infringement. Consider Dr. Rosmarin again:

“So in our state of 6.7 million — almost twice that of Connecticut’s — we are
petitioning only one-fifth as frequently. In my experience as a forensic
psychiatrist, I see two dozen cases meriting petition a year, easily.

“Massachusetts should modify our ERPO law to allow certain categories of
licensed clinicians to petition the courts for an extreme risk protection order.
Clinicians should be allowed to do so via a downloaded document, such as exists
for initiating mental health involuntary commitments. This will allow clinicians
to petition the court without leaving their clinical settings.

“Massachusetts should also enact a law that allows certain categories of
licensed clinicians to report to the police chief where the patient lives and
that the patient should not have gun access. This should be based on a judgment
about dangerousness, not mental illness. The disclosure of medical information
relating to dangerousness should be as narrow as possible. Something like:

“Chief, this is Dr. Rosmarin. In my opinion this person is dangerous and should
not have a gun.

“The chief would then have discretion to interview the owner, revoke the license
and to seize any guns.”

Are gun owners content with the idea that their clinicians can petition law
enforcement online after determining them to be “dangerous”? Will the police
chief be more likely to phone the respondent for an interview, or conduct a
no-knock raid out of “an abundance of caution” and a desire to “err on the side
of public safety”?

Let’s put all this in the context of the events surrounding the Virginia
Citizens Defense League’s annual Lobby Day. I was pleased to be able to speak
directly with my Delegate and Senator before attending the rally. I was too late
to enter the fenced in, gun-free Capitol grounds, as 10,000 attendees were
already there by 9:30 am, so I participated from outside the fence. I met
people from all walks of life, all ethnic backgrounds and all political
persuasions, who were united in advocating for their inalienable Second
Amendment rights.

Many openly carried the guns that our Governor seeks to prohibit. Despite the
presence of all those guns, there was no violence. The Governor insisted that he
and law enforcement “diffused a volatile situation” but the attendees were never
“volatile.” Criminals, not lawful gun owners, are the problem, and we were
shocked that every real crime bill was left tabled in committee. This is an
unconscionable response to the criminal homicide problem that exists in inner
cities related to gangs and drugs.

The Virginia House of Delegates must recognize reality about Red Flag laws, and
direct their efforts instead towards mental health and crime. Red Flag laws
address neither, and are an affront to the constitutions of our Commonwealth and
our nation, and to the inalienable rights these governments exist to protect.

–Dennis Petrocelli, MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced
for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body
training and self-defense, and is in the fight for Virginians’ gun rights.

Posted on October 25, 2019October 25, 2019

FREEDOM FLAG G17 SLIDE REVIEW

August 31, 2019
Review, Nevada Cerakote, Freedom Flag

If you haven’t heard of Freedom Flag Products, you should go look them up.
About a year ago, they collaborated with Nevada Cerakote to send me one of their
G17 slides. When they ask what model or cerakote I wanted, I left it up to both
of them. Freedom Flag also makes AR products, as well as other Glock style
slides. The review slide they sent me is in their “Track Style”, without an
optic cutout.

I can’t really describe the “Track Style”, but it is not a typical cookie
cutter slide. It has some oblong, straight up and down, cuts at the rear for
cocking serrations. Then down the rest of the slide it has, what I like to call
them, mathematical shaped recesses. At the front of the slide, there are also 2
angled cuts with 3 slots cut in them. On the top front, is also a diamond shape
recess with 2 slots. So a compensated barrel might work with this slide. Freedom
Flag’s slides are for Gen 3 style pistols, this includes Polymer 80’s. They also
come in 5 more standard cuts, in case you don’t like this style. An RMR cut is
$50 more, if that’s your thing.

As I would expect, the machining on this slide is spot on. I couldn’t detect a
single mill mark. Yes you can see marks through cerakoted parts. The Glock slide
parts kit installed with zero problems and everything works smooth as butter.
This is the second slide that Freedom Flag has sent me, which is why the review
has taken so long. The first slide they sent had a very, and I mean very, small
tool mark on the angled cut. I was okay with it, but they pretty much demanded I
send it back, so I did. That’s top notch service. I don’t know if this slide is
the same one, or a new one, but I suspect it’s new. The rear sight cut was spot
on, and I had zero problems installing the rear sight. The front slot seemed a
tiny bit larger than I needed, I could twist the front sight ever so slightly
when tightening it down. I measured it, and it was within Glock factory specs,
so it must have been the front sight and not the slide. All in all, they do an
excellent machining job.

All Freedom Flag’s slides are Cerakoted. As mentioned, this slide was sent to
Nevada Cerakote for some magic. I told them to also surprise me and that it was
being installed on a gray Polymer 80 frame. Nevada Cerakote did not let me down.
They did a 4 color gray/black camo on it that looks amazing. The colors are
blended together so smooth that you can’t even feel where one ends and the other
begins.

Nevada Cerakote is pretty big in the cerakote market. They have their hands in
lots of one off coatings for trade shows, like SHOT. They are factory trained
and certified by Cerakote. But really, they just do a great cerakote and have
great ideas for patterns. If you are looking to have something coated, please go
check out Nevada Cerakote.

The Track Style slide is a great addition to my Polymer 80. In fact I
purposely bought the Poly 80 frame for the original slide. The slide mounted up
easy. It slid right on and cycled smoothly. Frame to slide fit was phenomenal.
Not so tight that I needed to break it in, but not loose either. I can barely
wiggle the slide. To top it all off, the pistol cycles fine, even when the slide
was brand new. When I first installed the slide, if you rode the slide closed on
an empty magazine, it would stop about ¼” from going into battery. After 50 or
so rounds, that stopped. It never did it using the slide release or sling
shotting the slide. I’m using as Faxon barrel with the Freedom Flag slide. As
expected, it shoots great. Both a testament to the slide and barrel.

When using the Track Slide, I used it in a few OWB holsters. It fit fine in
both of them. I did have to loosen the tension screws on both. I attributed this
to the fairly squarish style of this slide. Not a big deal at all, more of just
a heads up. To go along with this, the cerakote has not worn off the edges
either. Another testament to the Nevada Cerakote quality.

If you are in the market for a Glock slide, Freedom Flag does a fine job. They
even make a slide that converts a G19 size frame into a G17 length slide and
barrel. The slide is 100% made in the USA and at a competitive price. Definitely
go give Freedom Flag a look, as well as Nevada Cerakote.

FIREARMS INSIDER REVIEWS – 8 KEY POINTS

CLAIM TO FAME:

Fully machined Glock Gen 3 slide with cerakote

TARGET MARKET:

Those wanting a unique, quality slide for their Glock or Glock style pistol

FNBS (FEATURES & BENEFITS OF THIS PRODUCT):

* “Track Style”

* Designed for Gen3 guns, will not fit a Gen4

* Cerakoted

* Optional Laser Etching

* Tighter tolerances for increased accuracy, reliability, and performance

* Precision machined from heat treated 4150 barrel steel

* Barrel lock-up manufactured with tighter tolerances

* When used with a match-quality barrel, accuracy will be greatly increased

* 100% Made in the USA

* Compatible with Polymer80 Frames

* Tested for function

WHAT OTHER AESTHETIC OPTIONS OR FINISHES ARE AVAILABLE?

Lots of single colors, or ask about special Cerakote

WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING?

5/5 stars – Fantastic and Durable Slide

I bought a graphite black slide a few months ago to go with a Polymer 80 G17 I
built. Taking it out of the box, it’s a really good looking slide. The front
serrations are very tactile and the back are equally good. When fitting it to
the gun, it was indeed a very tight fit, but that really is a good thing. I did
have to file a little bit on the inside of the slide around the barrel lock-up,
but that was primarily due to the aftermarket barrel being a little out of spec.
Once I fixed that, it worked great. I now have over 1k rounds through the slide
and no issues. I’ve used it in the Limited Division at a USPSA match and it was
great there, even got a couple compliments. I highly recommend filing in the
logo on top of the slide with white to make it pop. Overall, I could not be
happier. The customer service is very good and personal, and the shipping was
quick. If you’re on the fence about it, just do it! You won’t find a better
custom slide for the money

LINK TO OTHER REVIEWS:

Holster Reviewer on YouTube

PRICE POINT:

MSRP = $249.99, $400 as tested

MSRP (Cerakote) – $150 for 4 color camo

I NEED IT NOW! AVAILABILITY:

Freedom Flag Parts

Nevada Cerakote

OUR RATING:

Pros:

* Tight slide to frame fit

* Good barrel lock up

* Custom Cerakote finish

* Unique design

Cons:

* Square (holster fit)

* No front cocking serrations on this model

SCORE: 8.5 GREAT

Favorite Link: Axelson Tactical

Posted on October 25, 2019

GUN & GEAR REVIEW PODCAST, EPISODE 289

On this show we showcase gun reviews, gear and anything else a gun enthusiast
may be looking for. We strive to evaluate products from an unbiased and honest
perspective. I’m your host Chad Wallace from the Firearms Radio Network, your
source for all things firearms related. In this show we will be discussing a
Freedom Flag slide review, some Staccato pistol, a cz shotgun, and a garden gun.

Posted on March 9, 2018

STOPHR5087.COM – OPPOSE H.R.5087, THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2018

THIS INSANE BILL MUST BE STOPPED!

* Bill: HR 5087 – Assault Weapons Ban of 2018
* Author: Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI-1)
* Position: STRONGLY OPPOSED

1. Send a message to Congress using our Grassroots Action form below.

2. Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121??to connect with your reps –
tell them to oppose H.R.5087!

3. Share this page and Take Action message with your pro-gun friends and family!

H.R. 5087 would:

1. Add new definitions and terms like “semiautomatic pistol,”??semiautomatic
shotgun,”??”semiautomatic??assault weapon,” “large capacity ammunition
feeding device,” “barrel shroud,” “detachable magazine,” and many more;
2. Add an incredible number and type of firearms to the list of assault
weapons;
3. Enacts a total ban on “assault weapons” unless it is “otherwise lawfully
possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons
Ban of 2018”;
4. Enacts a total ban on “large capacity ammunition feeding devices”;
5. Enacts manufacturing requirements for “assault weapons” and “large capacity
ammunition feeding devices”;
6. Enacts new storage requirements for people who have “assault weapons”;
7. Criminalize the exercise of Second Amendment rights and
constitutionally-protected instruments;
8. Imposes new firearm transfer requirements;
9. Mandates law-enforcement reporting of “assault weapon” transfers or
attempted?? through NICS;??and,
10. Provides for grants of federal funds for useless “gun buyback” programs.

Use the FPC Take Action Grassroots form below and tell your representatives why
they should oppose H.R.5087!

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/oppose_hr_5087_assault_weapons_ban_2018

Posted on November 15, 2017

OPPOSE HR 4052 – THE MAGAZINE BAN

SEND A MESSAGE USING THE FORM BELOW!

* HR 4052: High Capacity Magazine Ban

* See similar bill S??1945.
* Position: Strongly Opposed.
* Author:??Rep. Esty, Elizabeth H. [D-CT-5]

HR 4052 is a blatant attack on the Second Amendment.

It would outlaw any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

This is insanity!

Millions of magazines will be confiscated by government forces from law abiding
gun owners!

We must stop this RIGHT NOW!

Tell your representative that you strongly oppose HR 4052 and send them an email
today.

Link to sign petition:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/oppose_hr_4052_the_magazine_ban?utm_campaign=1114hr4052&utm_medium=email&utm_source=firearmspolicycoalition
??

Posted on September 12, 2017

SPORTSMEN’S BILL OFFERS A VEHICLE FOR DEREGULATING SUPPRESSORS

Gun Owners of America has alerted you this year to great legislation in Congress
that would protect your ears and hearing while you spend time enjoying your
Second Amendment rights.

Today, that effort took a step forward.???? A House subcommittee heard testimony
on HR 3668 — a “sportsmen’s bill” which, among other things, will make it easier
for you to purchase firearms suppressors. The bill also makes a lot of minor
corrections to federal gun law.

But the sponsor of this bill — South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan– took a major
step forward when, earlier this year, he agreed to amend his sportsmen’s bill
with provisions to protect gun owners’ hearing.

He did this by including language that removes suppressors from the licensure
requirements of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) — meaning that you could
purchase suppressors for your firearms without paying a tax or submitting to a
waiting period.

For that, we commend Rep. Duncan.

Now, Congressman Steven King (R-IA) is prepared to take this legislation a step
further, offering an amendment to completely remove all federal regulations on
suppressors, both under NFA and under the 1968 Act and the Brady law.

This means that you would be able to purchase a suppressor without a background
check.

King’s amendment is based on his Hearing Protection Act bill (HR 3139).

King’s plan is a fantastic idea, because if suppressors are to be removed from
the federal licensure requirement, what sense does it make to continue requiring
the government’s permission to purchase one?

The King amendment would essentially treat suppressors as any firearms accessory
(scope, magazine, etc.).

Congressman King is expected to offer his amendment when the sportsmen’s bill
comes up in committee for a vote on Wednesday.

Obviously, not every congressman will have an opportunity to vote on the King
pro-gun amendment this week — only members of the committee will. The
opportunity to vote on the King language in the entire House may come later.

So that’s why GOA activists all over the country should begin contacting their
congressmen now, in favor of the Hearing Protection Act (HR 3139).

Doing so will help create a “buzz” in favor of the King amendment when it is
voted on this week.

And that’s why I am urging you to either email your congressman, Rep. Mark
Amodei (R), or put in a phone call at the DC office: (202) 225-6155.

Your message is simple. All you need to do is urge Rep. Mark Amodei (R)??to
cosponsor and support the Steve King bill (HR 3139), which removes suppressors
from federal firearms regulation.

This will go a long way to showing support for the Steve King amendment when the
Committee on Natural Resources takes up the Duncan bill this week.

In Liberty,

Erich Pratt
Executive Director

P.S. After you contact your congressman, please take the opportunity to keep GOA
on the frontlines by Doubling Your Dollar, at no extra cost to you.

Posted on July 20, 2017

HOW TO BUY A SUPPRESSOR

Whether you???re a rifle aficionado, pistol enthusiast, or both, suppressors
just might spoil you rotten. I can speak for most suppressor users when I say,
???Once you shoot suppressed, you never go back.???

Why? While a suppressor doesn???t completely silence the noise of a gunshot, it
reduces the sound to tolerable, and often hearing safe, levels. A day at the
range is a lot more fun without being subjected to the sound of Thor???s Hammer
every time you pull the trigger. Additionally, suppressors tend to smooth out
recoil. While energy is energy and recoil is still present, suppressors dampen
the feel. Since their purpose is to tame the sudden release of hot gases from
the muzzle, you???ll feel a much more mellow sensation.

Also see:??A Beretta 92 and the Sound of Silence

Suppressors??are regulated both by federal and state government, so you have to
consider two sets of rules when purchasing one. While that may sound confusing,
the process is actually fairly straightforward.

Let???s consider the state issue first. As of today, suppressors are legal to
own in 42 states, and in 40 of those, you can use a suppressor for hunting. You
can quickly determine your state???s status by visiting the American Suppressor
Association.

If you live in a quiet state, then you can move to step two, the federal
process. As part of the National Firearms Act of 1934, they are regulated, so
you have to get a permission slip from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives (BATFE or ATF for short.) While there are some forms to fill out,
the process isn???t all that difficult. It???s just more of a nuisance that will
set you back some time and two hundred dollars.

You???re eligible to buy a suppressor from a dealer if:

* You are at least 21 years of age
* You are a resident of the United States
* You are legally eligible to purchase a firearm
* You pass a BATFE/ATF background check
* You pay a one-time $200 Transfer Tax

You can buy the suppressor as an individual or as an authorized member of a
trust or corporation. Whichever method you choose, the process ends the same.
The ATF will return a copy of your Form 4 with a colorful new tax stamp
attached. That???s your permission slip, and you need to keep a copy of it with
you whenever you have your suppressor with you. You won???t be able to take
possession of your new suppressor from the dealer until this tax stamp arrives,
and that takes a really, really long time. Right now, the ATF is taking 10 – 12
months to process the forms. Be prepared to wait.

While it looks like there are a lot of steps, and there are, remember that your
suppressor dealer will help you navigate this process. Let???s explore the
process for both individual and trust purchases.

BUYING AS AN INDIVIDUAL

Since suppressors are regulated, when you buy as an individual, you are the only
one entitled to possess that suppressor. You can???t loan it to a friend, let
your brother or sister take it to the range without you, and if you die, no one
else can legally use it. It???s kind of like a driver???s license. It???s for
you and you only. If you give it to a friend, possession of your license
doesn???t entitle them to drive.

1. Fill out the ATF Form 4. This is your application form and, when approved, a
copy will be returned to you with the tax stamp attached. You???ll need to
submit two copies with your application, one for the ATF to keep and one they
return with the tax stamp affixed.

2. Include standard passport photos. These are easy to get. You can take them
yourself if you crop and print them to the proper dimensions or you can get them
done at most any local shipping store.

3. Fingerprint cards. You???ll need to submit standard FBI FD-258 fingerprint
cards. Many local police departments will do this for you but call first to make
sure. I got mine done in the booking room of the county jail. That was an
interesting experience, but it worked.

4. Include a check or money order for $200 payable to the BATFE. That???s your
permission slip fee, and you have to pay it for each suppressor you buy. Yes,
it???s highway robbery, but there???s the federal government for you.

5. When your Form 4 comes back, you need to send a copy to your local Chief Law
Enforcement Officer (CLEO) for their records. Your dealer can help you find out
who that is and where to send the forms.

BUYING AS A TRUST (OR CORPORATION)

You can set up a firearms ownership trust or corporation and have that legal
entity purchase your suppressors and own them. While it???s more of a pain to
set up, the benefits are that multiple people can be members of the trust or
employees of the corporation, and therefore can legally possess suppressors
owned by the trust. I have a trust set up for my family so any of the four of us
can take a suppressor to the range. If I get hit by a meteor, the trust
continues to own the suppressors, and other trust members can continue to use
them. Many lawyers offer firearms trust creation services. Also, suppressor
companies and the Silencer Shop offer turnkey trust creation services. It???s
surprisingly easy to do.

The process for a trust purchase is almost identical to that of an individual
purchase, but there are three differences as follows.

Each authorized member of the trust needs to complete an ATF Form 5320.23
(Responsible Person Questionnaire.) Since the trust is filling out the Form 4,
the ATF now wants to have documentation for each member of the trust
individually. This is a recent change.

When sending the application package to the ATF, you???ll need to include a copy
of the trust documentation itself, or, in the case of a corporate entity, a copy
of the articles of incorporation.

When your tax stamp is returned, you???ll need to send both the Form 4 and all
of the Responsible Person Questionnaires to the local Chief Law Enforcement
Officer.

AN EASIER WAY

While the process sounds like a pain, and it is, enterprising companies have
made it easy. Since most of the requirements are relatively simple but
time-consuming chores, the folks at Silencer Shop have automated the process
using modern technology.

If you buy a suppressor there, they will handle pretty much everything for you.
Just complete an online application form to start the process. Then, using their
app on your smartphone, you can quickly take your own passport photos which are
captured and uploaded to your application packet managed by the Silencer Shop
team. For fingerprints, you can visit one of their hundreds of local dealers
nationwide and capture your own fingerprints using their automated kiosks. Your
prints are also uploaded and added to our application packet. Pay your tax stamp
fee online, and the Silencer Shop folks will manage your entire application
process. The best part is that if you want to buy another suppressor, your
prints, photos, and application information are already on file, so the process
is almost entirely automated. Gotta love innovation!

THE HEARING PROTECTION ACT

You might have heard rumblings of the Hearing Protection Act. As the name
implies, this proposed legislation aims to eliminate all of these onerous
requirements to buy a suppressor. In many places in Europe, you can buy them
over the counter at a hardware store, so why not here? The act is very simple
and nets out to this. If you are legally eligible to buy a firearm, you can buy
a suppressor – without all the ATF application paperwork.

While we???re all anxiously awaiting passage of this law, remember that it takes
Washington 75% of eternity to get anything done, so if you want a suppressor, I
wouldn???t wait. Early iterations of the bill had a clause for the refund of
recently paid tax stamp fees. While there???s no guarantee, there???s good shot
that if you spend $200 today, and the bill passes soon, you might get that money
back. Even if you don’t, it might be worth the $200 to enjoy the benefits of
shooting suppressed now.

by Tom McHale??

Posted on July 11, 2017July 11, 2017

NEW AND IMPROVED SUPPRESSOR LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS!

As you know, Gun Owners of America strongly opposes all types of gun control —
including the National Firearms Act and the NICS background check system.

And now there’s a bill that will deal a major blow to both of those ugly marks
on the Second Amendment.

Senators Mike Lee and Mike Crapo, along with Representative Steve King
introduced the “Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act” or SHUSH Act in both
Senate and House (S. 1505 and H.R. 3139).

But you may be thinking: Isn’t there already a suppressor bill in Congress? Yes,
there is. It’s the Hearing Protection Act which was has been introduced back in
January.

But the new SHUSH Act expands firearm freedom further than the Hearing
Protection Act ever did.

The SHUSH Act would not only remove suppressors from the NFA,??it would legally
treat suppressors as a firearm accessory, which means you could buy a suppressor
as you could buy a scope — without a background check.

The fact is that suppressors are little more than elaborate metal tubes. There
is no reason — other than blind hatred of gun owners — why these devices should
be regulated at all.

So let’s make some noise on Capitol Hill about the SHUSH Act. Contact your
Senators and Representatives to urge them to cosponsors S. 1505 and H.R. 3139.

In Liberty,

Jordan Stein
Director of Communications
Gun Owners of America
Follow me on Twitter: @jordankstein

P.S. GOA is working hard in the halls of Congress to get more cosponsors for the
SHUSH Act. But when you flood their offices with emails, it makes congressional
staffers listen a little closer in our meetings. So please contact your
legislators –??Sen. James Settelmeyer (R), Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D), and
Rep. Mark Amodei (R)??– in favor of the SHUSH Act now.

Posted on June 13, 2017

SUPPRESSOR DEREGULATION BILL GAINS MOMENTUM IN THE HOUSE

A year ago, amending the provisions of the overbearing and unconstitutional
National Firearms Act would have been considered “a long shot.”

And yet, here we are. ??A free-standing bill to remove suppressors from the act
— dubbed the “Hearing Protection Act” — has 146 cosponsors, including several
Democrats.

That bill is H.R. 367.

Now Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC) has included the Hearing Protection Act in
a larger “Sportsmen’s” bill, which is expected to shortly move in the House.

This second Duncan bill is only in working draft form right now and has not been
introduced as a free-standing bill.

This draft bill is expected to be considered in committee this week, which means
that suppressor legislation could soon be moving to the full House.

The reality is this: ??Foolishly, the antiquated Depression-era National
Firearms Act treats hearing protection devices like suppressors as though they
were machine guns.

There is a full-scale FBI background check, together with fingerprints and a
$200 transfer tax — all for a “health protection” device which is little more
than an elaborate tube.

And frankly, this foolishness is perpetuated by a myth: ??that suppressors
completely silence the sound of firearms, and, hence, are the “weapon-du-jour”
for Mafia hit men.

The facts are different. ??In fact, in places like Norway, where guns are
strictly regulated, the use of hearing protection is actively encouraged.

Please help me ensure that hearing protection for hunters and shooters is
encouraged here, as well.

Urge your congressman, Rep. Mark Amodei (R), to cosponsor H.R. 327, the Hearing
Protection Act.

GOA’s Legislative Action Center automatically sends “thank you” letters to those
Representatives who have already cosponsored the bill — and urges those who are
not on the bill to cosponsor it right away.

Finally, your letter will provide your congressman with an excellent Fact
Sheet??– highlighting the health benefits from using suppressors — that has been
prepared by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

Thank you for taking action.

Sincerely,

John Velleco
Director of Operations

P.S. Help put the Second Amendment on offense by becoming a GOA Patriot Member
today! ??And urge your congressman, Rep. Mark Amodei (R), to cosponsor H.R. 327,
the Hearing Protection Act.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTS NAVIGATION

Page 1 Page 2 Next page
Search for: Search

posts.freedomparts.com Open in urlscan Pro 192.124.249.4 Public Scan

Form analysis 1 forms found in the DOM

GET http://posts.freedomparts.com/

Text Content

posts.freedomparts.com Open in urlscan Pro
192.124.249.4 Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM