Previous Post
Next Post

Remember the Hearing Protection Act? The first one? That was in The Time Before, back in 2017 when gun owners had visions of not only freeing suppressors from the National Firearms Act’s clutches, but also (gasp) maybe even national reciprocity.

Both of those ideas fell victim to politicians who never had an interest in making them happen, and jelly-like spines following the congressional baseball shooting. But that doesn’t mean treating suppressors like the common sense safety devices they are is any less a good idea today than it was four years ago.

And no, the current incarnation of the bill doesn’t have a ice cube’s chance in hell of coming up for a vote, let alone passing in the current political climate. But the gun rights side didn’t get to 50 states with (some form of) legal concealed carry and 21 with constitutional carry without navigating some setbacks. Anyway, another incarnation of the Hearing Protection Act has been introduced in both the House and the Senate and the NSSF would like to dish out some credit where it’s due . . .

The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the firearm industry trade association, proudly welcomes U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo’s (R-Idaho) reintroduction of the Hearing Protection Act. The legislation, S. 2050, is co-sponsored by 14 additional senators, all who endorse the legislation that would provide greater access to the firearm safety devices by regulating them in the same manner as a firearm.

“This legislation to remove burdensome regulations surrounding an accessory to a firearm is long overdue. The firearm industry is grateful to Senator Crapo for his continued leadership to enable safer recreational shooting and hunting to be more accessible to law-abiding gun owners,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The Hearing Protection Act would reduce unnecessary barriers to what is essentially a muffler for a firearm that enables more accurate marksmanship and allows shooting ranges to be better neighbors. Suppressors were originally listed under the National Firearms Act over poaching concerns during the Great Depression, but that never bore out. They reduce the report of a firearm from a level equal to a jet taking off to one similar to that of a jackhammer. Firearm suppressors are a safety device designed to make recreational shooting safer.”

Suppressors
Jeremy S. for TTAG

The Hearing Protection Act, which was introduced by Sen. Crapo in previous Congressional sessions, would reclassify suppressors to regulate them like traditional firearms by removing them from the 1934 National Firearms Act. That would cease the overly-burdensome federal transfer process with an instantaneous National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check, making the purchasing and transfer process for suppressors equal to the process for a rifle or shotgun. The legislation would also tax suppressors under the Pittman-Robertson Act instead of the National Firearms Act, putting more funding into state wildlife conservation agencies.

The Hearing Protection Act would not change any laws in states that already prevent suppressor use or ownership, nor does it eliminate background check requirements. Suppressors are legal to own in 42 states and 40 states allow them for hunting. Similar legislation, H.R. 95, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.).

Previous Post
Next Post

42 COMMENTS

  1. Never anything as courageous as a republican out of power.

    Thats why I care not at all who wins in government anymore. Democrats steal our rights and bankrupt us, Republicans stand around and watch.

    • Left lane, right lane. Both take you down the same path of dehumanizing institutions, practices, bureaucracies and eroded liberties.

      You can either understand history or you can trust the State to do what’s in our (We the People’s) interests. You cannot do both.

    • I hate to have to agree, but the lack of action in the first 2 years of Trump’s term was sickening.

  2. I was gonna marry a supermodel be an astronaut be cocaine in my toothpaste rich but the current atmosphere didn’t allow for it but I’d like credit and I’d like y’all to pay me for doing so.

  3. I’m so happy to see that the comment section isn’t falling for this crap anymore.

    Complaining about the Dems is so obvious and it’s a great distraction from the fact that the Republicans ALSO fail to protect gun rights on a regular basis and do nothing to further gun rights when they’re in power.

    Progressives are starting to call out people like Bernie and the Squad for talking a big game when they’re running but failing to push the establishment Dems when they have leverage. We need to do the same with supposedly PROGUN Republicans.

      • Meanwhile, here in CA…

        Suppressor possession is a felony and all the Dems in charge will never want you to have something that helps protect your hearing.

      • Warloc you got that right. The comedian Lewis Black referred to Congress as a bowl of sh@t looking at itself in a mirror. I don’t think he was too far from being correct.

    • “to push the establishment Dems when they have leverage”

      ? you expect aoc et al to have leverage over pelosi?

      • Yup. There have already been multiple instances where the “Progressives (The Squad)” represented a large enough voting bloc to stonewall legislation in exchange for progressive goals but chose not to. They refused to force a vote for Medicare for all, they spoke against increasing police funding but voted for it, voted for Pelosi’s speakership without extracting any promises, voted for the CARES act without any promises, etc. They continue to be completely silent any time Biden does something the Progressives hate.

        It’s the same thing as Republicans: they talk a big game while running but don’t do anything to fulfill those promises.

        Even though I totally disagree with their politics, I’d suggest checking out outlets like Jimmy Dore and Krystal Ball on Breaking Points. The whole Democrat civil war thing is very interesting.

        • “they talk a big game while running but don’t do anything to fulfill those promises”

          actually sounds more like there’s a whole lotta leverage going on in the background that doesn’t fit the present narratives.

        • “by design. to prevent the citizens from functioning normally as a nation. the ones behind this have thousands of years of experience and know exactly what they’re doing and know exactly how to do it.” – ant7

          is this what you’re referring to?

          I take it you’re not a big fan of the Tavor.

  4. Well the late night democRat lint lickers are going to have a field day with a Gun Rights Republican named Crap-o. Of course caution is advised because history shows anyone who falls for Gun Control fell for what is proven to be racist and genocidal crap.

    • Don’t blame the dems. Republicans controlled the house, senate and president last time the HPA was introduced. McConnell wouldn’t bring it to a vote and trump hates guns. Always remember, take the guns first, due process second.

  5. They will do this NOW!?!?

    This could have been done (successfully) during Trump’s first two years in office.

  6. “Suppressors were originally listed under the National Firearms Act over poaching concerns during the Great Depression, but that never bore out.”

    So far as I know, this is ONLY a reasonable CONJECTURE. There is no known record of any comments or debate in the deliberation to support it.

    So, why should we the PotG repeat it? It’s COUNTER-productive.

    Moreover, Wickard v. Filburn wasn’t adopted until 1942, 8 years before the NFA`34. That might be SIGNIFICANT.

    The $200 tax made silencers manufactured for sale in interstate commerce outright prohibitively expensive. So, instead of a mass-produced $20 product, a shooter in that 8-year era would have had to improvise his own silencer or have it made by a machinist within his own state.

    Given the nature of silencers (SBS, and SBRs) improvised or low-volume intrA-state manufacture WAS FEASIBLE; and legal (for 8 years). Did Congress really expect to suppress poaching by unemployed hungry citizens by including silencers in the NFA`34? Or, was their objective merely to harass gun owners? Or, was there not even a “rational basis” for including silencers at all?

    THIS ought to be our position. Congress intended to harass gun owners; that was it’s ONLY expectation. There can be no other basis – which we can rationalize in hindsight – to support including silencers in the NFA`34.

    Suppose lawyers familiar with this pre-Wickard v. Filburn era can sustain my thesis – that NFA`34 only affected manufacture and transfer in intERstate commerce. In such a case there would be a significant impact on our interpretation of Congressional intent for silencers, SBS and SBRs. There would be NO intention to tax “. . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”. These $200 taxes constituted absolute barriers to interstate manufacture and sale, thus producing zero revenue.

    (Likewise, it appears as though SBSs and SBRs were included to close a loophole on evading the $5 tax on handguns; but, when handguns were removed from AOW, that revenue-preserving rationale for SBS and SBR disappeared.)

    We ought to NOT CREATE any SURMISED “rational basis” – public safety – for silencers (poaching) or SBS/SBR which can’t be founded in the record Congress FAILED to leave behind.

    The entire pretext of NFA`34 was that of the “power to tax” in the absence of the power to “infringe” upon arms. That’s what they said; that’s what the record they left us. THAT is what we ought to hold Congress to today. And it is that record, seen clearly in hindsight – which can’t withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

    • I strongly suspect, no data just logic, that the go to poaching gun during the Great Depression (and now) was the .22 rifle.

      And honestly, who drinks diet A&W?

    • It is very likely to be nothing more than the same craziness we are currently seeing with the AR15, bumpstocks, and braces. Just a way to control people.

    • That is exactly what it was for. To restrict and limit civil ownership. That was a huge win for the feds, they wont let it go without a massive fight.
      None of the NFA act makes any sense today, its all infringement based on tax and slow paperwork.

      Just tell Biden the HPA is something Trump couldn’t accomplish and that dummy will try to pass it.

    • WHUT?!? Crapo sez it all. Don’t forget St. Donnie hates your hearing. Lexington & Concord in 5 4 3 2…

      • “Lexington & Concord in 5 4 3 2…”

        y’all have been saying that for decades. “red line” after “red line” has been crossed with no action – even a stolen election generated no response.

        which makes sense – a peaceful legitimate nationally democratic method of overcoming opposition is best.

        • I agree. We’ve been as bad as Qadaffi about the “This is my line in the sand” response since 1934. My kids call this the “All Talk, No Action” mindset.
          So when do we stand up and finally say FU, and No More? As inspiring as it is to read about one man/woman bucking the system to the death, that’s all that’s really achieved, a moment of inspiration.
          I don’t believe this battle will be won in the courts or by Legislatures, because both are corrupted beyond repair. Our system of government is corrupted by an inept, incompetent, unelected and malignant bureaucracy.

          Trump was wrong. DC isn’t a Swamp. DC’s a damned overflowing and backed up Septic Tank. You don’t clean a Septic Tank by draining it. You have to use and industrial Vac-n-Suck to suck the turds out. Draining it just leaves the shit in there.

        • “Our system of government is corrupted by an inept, incompetent, unelected and malignant bureaucracy”

          by design. to prevent the citizens from functioning normally as a nation. the ones behind this have thousands of years of experience and know exactly what they’re doing and know exactly how to do it.

  7. Might make someone’s leg tingle but has a Snowball’s chance in Hell. Waste of time and effort.

  8. Hats off to Senator Crapo who chose not to legally change his name as soon as he turned 18. You did the right thing, sir. Also, please let us pray to some deity that this bill passes. Amen.

  9. Perhaps shoehorning (porking) democrat favored bills with what we want has a better chance to pass.

    Point is, we need to stop playing fair.

      • 2 in chest, 1 in head “unfair” works for me. But I’m an (extremely slightly) left leaning conservative. Violence, therefore, is more in my wheelhouse than you “Thin blue line” types.

        • “Violence, therefore, is more in my wheelhouse than you ‘Thin blue line’ types.”

          probably. but if that “thin blue line” goes away you’ll get more violence than you’re expecting.

  10. The article says, “But the gun rights side didn’t get to 50 states with (some form of) legal concealed carry and 21 with constitutional carry without navigating some setbacks.”

    LOL, you mean 49 states. I’m sitting here in New Jersey, the state where NOBODY is allowed to carry concealed (or openly, either) except cops and politicians. Sure, on paper there is a process for applying for a carry license in NJ, but the only people who get ever approved are politicians (and criminals, because criminals, by definition, don’t obey gun laws). New Jersey courts have repeatedly struck down lawsuits from people denied carry permits who had already been victims of attempted murder, saying that attempted murder wasn’t enough to give them a “justified need” to carry a gun. The judge basically said to the victims denied their permits, “Attempted murder? Only ATTEMPTED murder? Come back when you’ve ACTUALLY been murdered, and then you can discuss your permit denial!”

    And “The Hearing Protection Act, which was introduced by Sen. Crapo in previous Congressional sessions, would reclassify suppressors to regulate them like traditional firearms.” Why should they be regulated at all? They’re an essential piece of safety equipment, so we should be able to order them through the mail without having to fill out Form 4473, pay a NICS fee (which is $16 in my state), and ask “Mother may I?” to the Feds.

  11. Ridiculous pointless political theater.

    The idiots couldn’t pass it with Republicans holding both houses of Congress and the white house.

    Idiots.

  12. I wish there were a way of getting more of the Democrats who oppose to actually have to answer questions as to why; I keep thinking of Tucker Carlson (in his finest moment) forcing Carolyn McCarthy to humiliate herself on TV just by asking her if she knew what features she was trying to ban and what they did. I feel like that could actually move the needle a bit, exposing to the general public how infrequently silencers are used in crime and the Democrats performing war crimes on logic to justify their positions.

    • “Democrats performing war crimes on logic”

      (laugh)

      to the left, whatever they want is logical, by reason of them wanting it.

  13. BAAA BAAA tRUMP AGAIN N GOP
    NOW DEMS
    TRY NORTH KOREA IN SEE NOW LONG Y’ALL LAST , KIM JUNKIE UN IS FULL OF IT ALSO BS

  14. Meanwhile in a good portion of socialist Europe you can buy a can over the counter!

    Hmmmmm, thought the Dems were Europhiles. Guess that’s only when it comes to entitlements & food!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here