Previous Post
Next Post

Silencerco Fight the Noise

Well not exactly. The bill the NRA-ILA is supporting is wonderfully titled the Hearing Protection Act. As written, it would extricate suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934. In other words, if the law is passed, you could walk into your local gun store, plunk down your cash and walk out with a SilencerCo Octane 45 for your FNX-45 Tactical. Or any other can that strikes your fancy. You know, just like they do in more civilized countries. NRA’s press release after the jump . . .

Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced its support today for the Hearing Protection Act. Sponsored by Congressman Matt Salmon (AZ-05), the legislation removes suppressors from regulations established under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

“Suppressors significantly reduce the chance of hearing loss for anyone who enjoys the shooting sports,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of the NRA and our 5 million members, I want to thank Rep. Salmon for his leadership on this important bill.”

Prevailing regulations requires buyers to send an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), pay a $200 tax, and pass an arduously time consuming ATF background check. Under Salmon’s bill there will be no application, no tax, and buyers would be required to pass the same National Criminal Instant Background Check (NICS) as law-abiding guns owners.

As a leading voice in the industry, the American Suppressor Association has provided valuable insight to the creation of the Hearing Protection Act.

“Suppressors benefit all involved in hunting and the shooting sports. It’s time to bring the law in line with modern technology,” said Cox.

It is currently legal to hunt with a suppressor in 37 states. 41 states allow private ownership of suppressors.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Indeed. It’s gun safety at its most literal, most useful. Yes, yes. Where do I sign?

      Unwanted side effect: Ugh, I have buy threaded barrels / muzzle devices for *everything.*


      • For once, a bill where the title ACTUALLY describes something that it does rather than quite the opposite! haha

        …this would be absolutely huge for the suppressor industry and for the consumers, as pricing would drop drastically and volume (that is, sales volume haha) would go up drastically. Although I imagine the established players would actually be pissed, because the sudden disappearance of ridiculous legislative hurdles would flood the market with new silencer manufacturers. With more options and without the $200 tax plus 9-month wait time, etc, demand would become a lot more price-sensitive and some advantage would go to companies that can pump out a high volume of product at low cost. We’d probably see some of the smaller silencer companies close up shop, as they may be profitable selling a handful of cans each month at $1,000 a pop but their one CNC machine just can’t produce the product high volume they’d need to survive selling cans at $99.95 a pop.

        • I think you are right, but I suspect most of the suppressor manufacturers will go out of business (or switch to SBR and SBS work) as the major gun makers start to field their own line of suppressors. And home hobbyists with access to simple lathes, CNC equipment, or improved 3D printers will start cranking out their own cans. To give you an idea of the likely cost drop, in New Zealand you currently can buy a .22 suppressor over the counter for under $50.

        • Yeah, there was an article on here showing online, eBay-style auctions for suppressors in NZ and many of them were selling for a couple of bucks. As in, like, under ten dollars. Considering how well oil filters and other, existing objects actually work as suppressors, I’d also expect to see a ton of disposable suppressors being used. Only works well for 500 rounds? Fine, whatever, it cost $6 and I’ll thread it off, throw it out, and put on a new oil filter.

      • @ Bill K. – that’s not necessarily true. The cans produced in the US are of a more durable, higher quality. The added expense and inconvenience of acquiring a suppressor in the US has focused the market on delivering a much more highly-engineered product. Even if lower quality (disposable) cans began to be sold in the US, many people would still be in the market for those higher quality (and higher expense) designs. In other words, don’t let an erroneous is no one to one comparison between the US and Elsewhere markets give you a false impression of the likely outcome.

        • Even given identical technology, material, and R&D costs, if a company can sell 500x more silencers with significantly less compliance-related expenses, the cost will go down a lot. And, frankly, I think you’re over-selling the technology. Even the majority of the nicest cans on the market are mechanically very simple. We do use better materials — Inconel, Stellite, titanium — because of that $200 tax stamp necessitating additional product lifespan, but the silencer designs are not unique to the US. I expect we’d see more, better technology (computational fluid dynamics work, pressure wave simulation, thermodynamics engineering, etc… very little of which is actually done today) producing silencers that still cost less by multiple orders of magnitude.

    • This is exactly the kind of common sense conversation to be having. In fact, this kind of law helps having any kind of conversation.

      • Say again? My daughter already busts my sh*t about not being able to hear everything. I’m 67, for chrissakes! I don’t hear all frequecies. Loud concert music: The Who. Jimi Hendrix. Elvis Costello and the Attractions. Local bands.

        And yes, shooting when I was young. Without knowing of hearing protection!

        Unfortunately, I won’t be around for her difficulties in her old age. YAY!!!

    • Not so quick! Why the hell should I need a background check to buy a suppressor? I already have to have one for any firearm Intend to use it on, just like an upper or any other non-serialized gun parts. This is more bullshit tiptoeing by the NRA. They need to get on board with the program – remove them from the NFA (FULL STOP). Its a firearm accessory, not a firearm.

      • I agree completely, as I’m sure pretty much everyone on here does and as I’d strongly surmise the entirety of the NRA leadership does. BUT… I think the likelihood that the bill actually passes and becomes law goes up almost infinitely by still requiring a NICS check on a suppressor vs. just entirely deregulating them and selling them like staplers. It’s probably a smart strategy decision if we’re attempting to actually make a change vs. just attempting to make some sort of political statement.

        • It also equally opens up the logical implication that any firearm component should require a background check. That’s the real issue with these things. Do you want uppers magazines, optics, etc to suddenly require background checks?

          Nobody wants Silencers (and SBRs/SBSs) off of the NFA more than me. BUT!!!, we should not let the exciting prospect of getting silencers off of the NFA blind us to the potentially much worse outcome. This legislation puts much more at risk for us than we would stand to gain.

        • I don’t think it will open up that risk. The public has always viewed silencers as scary things for assassins. That’s the only exposure anybody has to them thanks to Hollywood and the fact that they’ve been NFA’d out of normal use since 1934 (and were pretty new and uncommon before that time). We lump them in with any other metal object and know they are no more dangerous than a paperweight, but for the people who have to vote “yes” on this sort of a bill that isn’t the case. They don’t see them as anything even remotely similar to other gun parts or random, everyday objects.

        • Then imagine how they see upper receivers, and those god-forsaken tools of the devil himself short-barreled upper receivers!

        • @BDub don’t forget that you ALREADY require a background check to get a suppressor. All this does it take it off the NFA registry hoop jumping exercise. We’re not adding a new restriction, we’re just not removing all the old ones.

        • @BDub:

          I understand your concerns, they’re valid, and I agree with them. However, isn’t the reality today that supressors are already simple firearms parts that are regulated with background checks (NFA CLEO signoff)? Given that a NICS check is, by nature, “shall-issue” it seems like an especially helpful improvement for anyone who lives in the domain of a local petty tyrant who doesn’t want his subjects to have simple firearms parts.

          Furthermore, wouldn’t removing suppressors from NFA make it simple and legal for folks to manufacture their own suppressors or trade them through private sales?

          This seems like one of those “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” cases.

        • @Pwrserge — that’s a good point. I’d venture a guess that nearly everybody who hasn’t actually purchased a silencer does not realize that, when the tax stamp approval process is completed and you go to pick the silencer up from your dealer, a NICS check is done before it’s finally yours.

        • @ Pwrserge – I’m not forgetting. The background check is incidental to the NFA process. If Silencers aren’t on the NFA there is not purpose to the background check – it ceases to be a firearm. SBRs are on the NFA as well, and lower receivers require background checks because they ARE firearms, but buying an upper of any length does not, because they are not. Can’t you not see that taking silencers off of the NFA, but retaining the background check requirement opens up the obvious application of background checks to upper receivers, and indeed any and all firearms parts and accessories?

        • That would follow only if the NICS check requirement did not already exist. Since it does, you’re being paranoid. This would be a huge step forward for gun rights. It would be the first time any item was taken OFF the NFA. It would also be the first time a portion of federal gun control was effectively repealed. That victory alone makes the negligible risk you’re describing worth it.

        • Of course it is ludicrous that suppressors were ever restricted, but the fact is, that’s where we’re at. So, one step at a time.

      • Incremental ism is what got us here and it will get us back out. I would have accepted a 7 day waiting period only to come back later and press for no NICS and removal of sbr’s from the NFA. This is much better.

        • The psycho has always been there (your NICS check). The only change being suggested with this law is removing what used to be a much bigger, badder, second psycho (NFA regs) and replacing him with the candy.

          …I don’t know what the van is in this analogy though… 😉 …maybe it’s “progress” haha

        • It would leave one existing compromise in place and remove like a dozen others. You’d really rather lose out on getting those dozen eradicated because you won’t settle for anything less than all 13? Even though there’s no reason we couldn’t go after that last remaining one at a later time?

    • The main problem is that the movie industry (and other works of fiction) have portrayed suppressors (silencers in Hollywood) as evil object that only assassins use to do their assassinating.

      To the common person this entertainment brainwashing translates to: Only evil assassins (and heroic special forces Operators operating operationally) ‘need’ silencers. Everyone else that would want to own one must be up to evil doings.

      ‘They’ don’t get that suppressors are both common and lawful in some of the EU domains that they love, where is it either common courtesy, or required.

      • Yup, that is a problem. Which is why this bill and the accompanying announcement is a good excuse to (yes, I’m gonna go there) start a discussion with some antis and fence-straddlers about common-sense gun laws.

        IMO, this is the only way to ever gain back lost territory–we’ve got to stare into the screeching abyss of ignorant howls and cries and shovel facts into the void. Don’t be distracted by the anti-NRA vitriol and Republican-bashing. It’s not about politics, it’s about decibels. The more people understand what suppressors really are and what they really do, the weaker the opposition will become. It will take time.

        My approach has always been to avoid directly challenging anyone’s opinion. I respect their right to hate guns and to disagree with me. All I want to do is help them to make informed decisions by sharing very simple verifiable facts–not even statistics. Stuff like “here’s what’s in the NFA” and “this is what it takes to get a silencer” and “suppressed gunfire is still very loud.” I talk about me–my guns, my hobby of shooting, why I own what I do–because they can’t just tell me I’m wrong. Sure, they can ad hominem all day, but that just makes them a–holes. Or they can tell me why they don’t like guns, and I’ll listen. Because respect.

        I personally would like to own suppressors for two simple reasons: 1, so that if I ever need to use a gun in self-defense in my home it will be less likely to permanently damage my hearing and that of everyone else in my home who won’t be wearing ear-pro; and 2, so that when I introduce new shooters to guns and target shooting I can more easily and safely instruct them while they’re at the line (I have extra pairs of electronic ears for this now, but it would be much more comfortable for everyone to just use a suppressor). I personally do not own suppressors because of how onerous the NFA process is.

        That’s the very real personal value-proposition that this bill offers me. I can very easily explain that to anyone calmly and rationally no matter how shrill they become or how many babies they show me. To be honest, though, I’m sure most of my non-gun friends would be happy enough just learning a thing or two. For them something like this should suffice:

  1. As someone who just the other day forgot to put on hearing protection before firing my 223 rifle, I fully support removing suppressors from the NFA!!!

  2. Three words… Yankee Hill Machine

    and, somebody please peel the tape off of that beautiful little child, if I didn’t see that someone had provided her with a beautiful firearm, I would claim neglect.

        • I’m with Steve on this.

          Far to many of the little $%#@&*$@ need a full roll of duct tape on their yapping, screeching mouths…

          Preferably ‘EB Green’…

          As dear ‘ol dad told us as kids – “Children should be seen and not heard”…

  3. This is awesome and I am glad to hear such a bill is being proposed.

    But it has zero chance of passing with the rules of the Senate and Obama in the Whitehouse. I just hope this starts a movement until one day it passes when the right people are in office.

    • Unfortunately, in taking the Senate, and through attrition, the blue dog Dems are gone and with it, pretty much any chance of favorable firearm legislation.

      • Not a reason not to try. To reject the bill they have to talk about it. And the more silencers get talked about, the more likely inconvenient truths about them may slip out.

        If silencers were considered on their own facts and merits, in a vacuum of irrational fear, I can’t see how this would have any trouble passing (with the minor exception that I’d expect a lot more general opposition to the background check requirement).

    • Even with a pro gun house, senate, AND president, I can’t really see this passing. But, just like the antis and their “ban and confiscate guns from someone BECAUSE they want a gun” kind of bills, it’s the thought that counts for their constituents.

      It will be interesting to see, though, how the antis react when they hear EU countries, including their precious UK, allow the off-the-shelf purchase of said suppressors

  4. This would be great for many people, but wouldn’t help at all in states like CA, or NY where threaded barrels are “illegal-ish” and state law would prevent suppressors anyways.

    It’s a good start!

    • They’re still verboten in Illinois, too. I don’t know if this bill has a snowball’s chance, but it might lead to better state laws eventually. Or not. We tried to get a suppressor bill through the Illinois legislature this past year, using the NFA requirement to appease the hoplophobes and assure them that they’re still “highly regulated by the federal government.”

      I envy my brother-in-law in Missouri who has a suppressed 300BLK for deer and two-legged predators.

    • I heard there was some limited pre-emption built into the bill, but haven’t been able to find the bill’s text to confirm.

    • You are correct. Elimination of the federal law will have no effect on the numerous states that impose their own restrictions or outright bans. Or bans on threaded barrels (they are illegal illegal in California, not illegalish). So nothing much will change.


      • In terms of threaded barrels, we wouldn’t be able to have them for handguns with detachable magazines, but we can have them for semiautomatic rifles (and handguns, for that matter) without detachable magazines.

        I think suppressors are made “illegaler” by California, however. (Yes, I know it’s not a word. Yes, it’s meant to mock).

  5. I would go out and drop cash for atleast 3 right off the bat. One for 9mm, one for .45acp and another for 5.56. No reservations about it. And I don’t even have any guns with addaptors or anything. That would be purchased at the same time if I could manage. Hah

    I doubt it will pass though, not with Obama and the antis all over the place. But if there is anything I can sign or anything, let me know!

    This would be the first real “common sense” law to pass for quite a while. There is NO good reason (and only a coupke of really bad reasons) why suppressors should be regulated so heavily.

  6. Because this bill changes a tax, it can easily be put through by attaching it in the reconciliation process like the Dems did with Obamacare. Is Obama going to shut down the government because of a hearing protection bill? That would make him and the Dems look ridiculous in a way they would likely be unwilling to do.

    • Because it reduces tax income, by removing sound suppressor from the tax, if it is advanced via budget reconciliation it would have to have a ten year expiration, as any bill passed under budget reconciliation must not increase the deficit for more than ten years.
      It’s why the Bush tax cuts had a sunset provision.

      • Simple solution maybe? Put a point of sale tax on the price, maybe 5% or some such. Not an expert but that was my first thought. Tax goes to the US.

      • I don’t mind a 10-year sunset, it would be hilarious to hear arguments for not renewing it after 9, since all predictions of disaster would have fallen flat for 10 years. And wait, now, if we repeal ALL of the NFA, we could disband the ATF at the same time, and end up with a net tax savings! Gets better and better!

        • If that is the ONLY way to get it passed….I suppose we could accept it. You are correct it would be impossible to put that horse back in the barn once it’s out.

  7. Yep-for the children is the way to go. Protect that precious hearing. And I was just on a FB gun page where guys were whining about getting “too much” solicitation from the NRA. I get junk mail all the time-I just throw it away.

    • Wonder if those same guys who won’t join or cancel their membership because of mail do the same when their credit card companies and banks send them the same garbage over and over again….guessing not…

  8. I had no idea a few years ago suppressors were viewed in a dim light and so restricted. It’s such a ridiculous issue it would be humorous if it were not true.

    The lesson I get is this is exactly why we can’t allow laws to be enacted as they appear to be nearly impossible to be overturned, even when they are clearly wrong.

  9. “The bill the NRA-ILA is supporting is wonderfully titled the Hearing Protection Act. As written, it would extricate suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934. In other words, if the law is passed, you could walk into your local gun store, plunk down your cash and walk out with a SilencerCo Octane 45 for your FNX-45 Tactical.”

    IOW; just like it was pre-NFA`34 here in the U.S.

    And like it is in Finland, Sweden, France, New Zealand, Norway and the Ukraine.

      • Because even with the background check this would be a massive step forward. Incrementalism–not just for the antis.

        • I agree, it would be a massive step forwards, if it weren’t for the implications. That implication being, that we are OK with firearm parts and accessories having background checks – which I am not.

        • Why are you glossing over the bit about how multiple background checks on a silencer purchase already exist? This law would get rid of many of them, leaving only the easiest, cheapest, least onerous one. No more fingerprinting, no more CLEO sign off, no more lengthy paperwork, no more 9-month wait, no more $200 tax, no more FBI/ATF/initial NICS check, no more registration, no more storage and possession restrictions (e.g. if I buy a silencer and forget it in my car and the wife goes to the grocery store with it now in her possession, that’s a 10-year federal felony), no more restrictions to making your own silencer, etc… And what are we left with? Just a standard NICS check, which we already have to do to take a silencer home anyway.

      • To everybody complaining about the background check part, it is called a compromise. I am ok with compromising on this because it expands our rights, I am not ok with compromising to reduce our rights. It would be a massive jump to go from NFA to over the counter. We can work on getting them off the background check system later if we can prove they aren’t being used in crimes.

  10. Too bad the Rank-and-File RINO’s will never get behind this bill for fear it will endanger their shot at early retirement and a generous healthcare/pension plan

  11. Wow, thrilled to see this! Matt Salmon is my rep, and I’ve personally written him several times to request exactly this sort of deregulation of suppressors. So cool to see him sponsor a bill. As such, I’ll be calling this Speleo’s Bill (even if nobody else will). 😉

    • ” As such, I’ll be calling this Speleo’s Bill (even if nobody else will). ?”

      Yeah, but you just know some jerk will re-name it “Fool’s Bill”…

      (Not that I would ever… *cough*)


  12. Well, this RINO likes to shoot, and has experienced ringing of the ears by simply walking into the indoor range, grabbing my earmuffs, and walking back out to get the rest of my stuff, as my shooting companion took the bag into the range, before I got them. Betcha ringing has happened to a few Democrats in both the Congress and the Senate, they just won’t admit it.

    I’d like to see this Bill pass. Too bad it will be a while before I can take full advantage of it. It will still be expensive to replace barrels and buy silencers…,er, ah, suppressors. My home defense gun will be the first.

  13. To help the cause we as shooters that are interested need to be putting our voices and hearing status’ out there. If we’re to hope for effective policy change then we need to start a national conversation to keep the matter on the lips and minds of, unfortunately, the mainstream news outlets. Every range in the country where suppressors are legal should hold a “suppressor day” and invite the public to come out and see what the things are really about. Suppressor manufacturers that want to ride the wave and dominate an industry that will absolutely explode in annual sales instead of being drowned by a flood of junk need to get themselves on cable, local and network news supporting deregulation and drawing comparisons to how suppressors are regulated (or not) in countries like norway, sweden, new zealand, etc… where they’d really rather you use one if you’re going to be shooting. They need to get ready to market much less expensive suppressors and to demonstrate why theirs are superior to homebuild or cheap chinese-ish imports. We individuals that have lost hearing over the years due at least in part to gunfire need to be shouting it into social media. All of these things needs to be done with this new bill as the centerpiece.

    Finally, we can dream about completely unregulated suppressors but the reality is we won’t get them without background checks for the time being. Fine. We can take a page from the progressives run-book and go incrementalist on their booties. Slowly back the camel’s nose out of the tent. Once we have them off NFA then we can work through the courts to show that they’re in common use and that they’re not weapons in their own right, they’re no different than mufflers on a car, and see about getting the background check requirement lifted. Then we’ve got some leverage to start going after SBR/SBS/AOW and eventually MG. Just because it might not happen in our lifetime is no reason to not fight for it.

  14. Obama will veto such a law. Remember this is a guy whose administration decided to ban the further import of surplus M1 Garands and M1 Carbines from South Korea.

  15. Good thread to throw this in; I’m getting cocked to obtain a .308 (AR-style) with suppressor, what suppressor do I want today. My AAC isn’t rated for .308 power, intended for .300 Blk, I’m considering a direct mount, but have little experience with .308 cans.

    • What can do you have, Larry? I don’t know of an AAC can that is .30cal rated, but not up to 7.62×51?

      Precision rig: TBAC Ultra series, AAC Cyclone, 300 TM, Silencerco Harvester,

      Hunting: Silencerco Harvester, Griffin Sportsman DT, TBAC Ultra series

      Banging away: AAC SDN6, Silencerco Omega, Saker, or Specwar

      Avoid Gemtech

        • Breaking welds, loose baffles, and a couple of other things. Unless their workmanship has done a 180, I’d look elsewhere. Google will give you plenty of examples.

        • I’m considering a Dead Air can right now, hope you give us a review of yours. I didn’t want to recommend anything I didn’t own, or had at least shot.

    • The best silencer I have, and I have 4 of them, is Thunder Beast 30P-1. It is light and works great for up to .300 WM. It turns a .300 WM into a pussy cat ridding it of a lot of the recoil and noise associated with this caliber. With my rifle it actually reduced the group size although it changed the POI down 3.5″.

      One thing to be aware of is that it will not work on all rifles, at least not safely. I purchased a Kimber Mountain Ascent in .280 AI and thought I would just get an adapter to allow the already threaded barrel. I called a gunsmith that made adapters and he said it was a really bad idea. He said he could guarantee that at some point the muzzle would break off taking the the silencer down range with it possibly ruining it. The barrel on the Kimber is just too thin. He said that the most people do not appreciate the added pressure silencers add and he has personally witnessed this.

      The Kimber shoots extremely well without a silencer. In fact sub-MOA with the first load I tried. It is the only rifle I have ever sighted in that has done that with absolutely no changes made, not even adjusting the trigger. Strictly out of the box. However when using it even hunting with the brake I wear ear protection. A thicker barrel might be worth the carry weight to be able to use a silencer.

  16. This is a great idea, good for health of all citizens, and particularly for the young.

    Thats exactly why Congress wont pass it, except for some arcane rule later that they can do so themselves.

    • Foo, Google “Leaf Spring Crossbow” and you will drown in links to what Dyspeptic was mentioning a few days ago…

  17. This isn’t going to happen because the anti-gun idiots see suppressed firearms as “assassins weapons.” They saw it in a movie, and they are mentally incapable of differentiating fantasy from reality.

    • Not so sure about that Ralph. As I described below, the tide is turning. There is definitely a surge in supressor sales. All the gun stores around my area now sell them. I can rent them at most ranges. Kids all use them playing Call of Duty. The antis will fight it hard because it makes firearms even more fun. I am optimistic about seeing silencers and SBRs being removed from the NFA’s purvey within a generation.

      • Yeah, in pretty darn Dem-controlled Washington State here, we saw suppressors and then SBRs removed from the banned-by-the-state list in the past few years and opened up for purchase by WA residents in accordance with Federal NFA law…

  18. Seriously, where is my link to hassle my congress folk about signing up to support this?

    I don’t care about the $200 and the background check as long as it’s the instant NICS kind, I shouldn’t have to but I’ll take it if that removes them from the NFA.

    In fact take my $200 for the privledge of buying a suppressor and instead of dumping it into the gov’t kitty, apply it to stopping something that really kills children, childhood cancer

  19. I’m disgusted with how quick we all seem to be to compromise on this issue, while dangerously ignoring the implications and the problems this kind of compromise got us into in the first place.

    • True.
      By starting out this way, they do leave themselves open to an ’86-style gun bill(MG build date restriction for those that don’t know). They should have held out until negotiations actually started on it- if senate/congress even considered a hearing on it in the first place, anyways. Maybe if a pro gun president gets into office, we might see this, but I doubt it’ll get much further than the idea stage; like most anti’s gun bills

      • Antis win through incrementalism. We have to play the same. Since the background check is already part of the NFA PROCESS NOW it is not a compromise, it’s an incremental movement. First get them off the NFA then next we remove the background check requirement.

  20. In New Zealand, I understand, suppressors are unregulated, in the sense that they’re a regular, over-the-counter product. They may be as easy to buy as a book.

    Some rimfire models sell for as little as $20. With no age restrictions, either, copy that here and it’s entirely possible that twelve year old girls could hit an American Girl store pretty hard, and still have funds enough to suppress their pink camo Mossberg 702 Plinksters out of a weekend’s worth of babysitting money.

    That’s a guaranteed transition to hordes of hearing-preserved, adorably-attired, pre-teen assassins! You fools! Damn you, NRA! You’ve killed us all!

    • “In New Zealand, I understand, suppressors are unregulated, in the sense that they’re a regular, over-the-counter product. They may be as easy to buy as a book.”

      The Prez has already told us it’s nearly impossible to buy a book or healthy food easily…


  21. A suppressor is not a firearm, it is not a weapon at all.
    All it does is make a firearm safer.
    Buying one should require the same background check (none) as buying a scope.

    Give us a clean bill that takes suppressors out of the NFA. Putting background checks in the bill as a preemptive compromise is the sort of thing the NRA is famous for.

  22. This is truly fantastic! We are rapidly approaching a watershed moment with Silcencers. Most of the ranges and gun shops in my area rent them for customers to try and sell them. 5 years ago, they were nowhere to be found. Now they have their own prominent case in the front. If we can get them out of the ATF, it will be a huge boost for the RKBA.


  23. If you’re going to go to the trouble to change their legal classification WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST COMPLETELY DEREGULATE THEM? They are a muzzle device, and like any other muzzle device I should be able to look them up on a website, click “add to cart.” enter my credit info, and have it mailed to my front door.

    • The answer is because this is an NRA led proposal. And if we have learned anything about the NRA, its that they like to approach the bargaining-table with a compromise already built into there opening offer. Usually one that will backfire 10 years later.

  24. I love the name of the act… typical DC nomenclature. At least this I can get behind.

    Now if we could attach a rider that makes states lose funding if they institute laws prohibiting earplugs while riding motorcycles.

  25. This is a nice idea, but the bill is bad law. The preemption portion of the law violates the 10th Amendment and guarantees that this law as written will fail. The federal government cannot create laws that impede a state from using it’s general policing powers or collect revenue. This is just political grandstanding.

    • Um… what does this have to do with states? It’s talking about the federal laws from what I’m reading… states could (and many would) still regulate them.

      • From the text of the bill: “Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that, as a condition of lawfully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, imposes a tax on any such conduct, or a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement with respect to the firearm silencer, shall have no force or effect.’’

        The preemption portion of the bill prohibits states from states from creating laws that would ban silencer ownership or it’s possession. The preemption portion also seeks to keep states from implementing a a state silencer registry, or imposing a sales tax on silencers. The feds cannot interfere with the general policing powers of the state./

  26. It’s. High. Time.

    ‘Nuff said. Some countries, such a Finland, not exactly a bastion of firearms ownership as the memory of the Soviet invasion fades from the public consciousness, REQUIRE firearms suppressors.

    It’s all about peace and domestic tranquility!

    ‘Nuff said!

  27. From the ASA release:

    “The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA.

    —Well, guess what? A background check is a tax! By requiring us to process suppressors through FFLs, who have to keep records to exacting specifications under penalty of prison for making a mistake, you make the price go WAY UP.

    The more basic suppressors should sell for $10-100, and none should cost over $500. The usual fee for handling the 4473 on a firearm purchased elsewhere is now around $30. Hiram Maxim’s $2 silencer might cost $10 in today’s market, but if you require papers on it the price is going to be $50 or more. Just like the $200 tax and hideous NFA paperwork is making $100 suppressors into $600+tax suppressors.

    • You do realize we already have to do that, right? You cannot get a suppressor without going through an FFL. It’s currently NFA process plus 4473 & NICS.

      The exception here is manufacturing one yourself, where it’s currently only an NFA approval process and no FFL, and the passage of this law would make it no NFA and no FFL either.

  28. Good, let’s completely throw in the towel on this becase FedUp abd BDub won’t accept anything but total repeal.

    RMGO-like dumbshittery.

    • I’m merely raising a warning flag about the implications of allowing the background check requirement to be retained when and if suppressors are taken off NFA. That implication being, that is is acceptable that a firearms accessory/part require a background check to purchase or transfer.

      I fully grant that even with a background check, having access to silencers without any NFA requirements is a huge plus for all of us, but the implications of the precedent are staggeringly dangerous and regressive to our cause in the long run.

      But by all means continue drilling a hole in the bottom of the boat to let the water out.

  29. You can all copy the letter I wrote to my Congresswoman.

    Hello, I am contacting you, my Congressional Representative, to ask you to support H.R. 3799, the Hearing Protection Act. This legislation will simply reduce the burden of purchasing and ownership of sound suppressors for firearms, with the accompanied hundreds of dollars in taxes and multi-month wait, although background checks will still be required for purchase or transfer. Hearing loss is extremely common among recreational and professional shooters. Almost half a million veterans suffer from hearing loss. Sound suppressors are safety devices that make firearms safer to use by preventing hearing damage. They are widely used for legitimate purposes in such countries as Finland, Sweden, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. Gunshots are still extremely loud even with suppressors, but suppressors can be more effective than earplugs or earmuffs. They also reduce noise pollution. While Hollywood films have often portrayed them used for criminal conduct, this fiction does not reflect reality. They are very rarely used in crime. Please refer to Paul A. Clark’s article, “Criminal Use of Firearms Silencers”, in Western Criminology Review 8(2), 44-57 (2007), linked below.

    The legislation was announced today, and not much information is available yet. But further reading is available at these links:

    American Suppressor Association

    National Rifle Association

  30. Considering how the government considers it to be “trendy” to do everything the Europeans do (“We need more European-style gun control! Guns should be restricted when in the hands of ‘peasants’!”), I’m surprised suppressors weren’t deregulated a long time ago. IIRC, using a suppressor is considered to be good manners in many European countries that allow private gun ownership, as well as being a form of hearing protection (per the title of the introduced bill).

  31. Years ago I saw something in a magazine, don’t remember if it was an advertisement or an article, that featured a suppressor with a hatchet head attached to one end and I think some other attachments as well. The idea being it would be a multi-use survival kit tool (taken off the gun before being used as a hatchet, though). I dunno…seems like any suppressor sturdy enough to take that kind of abuse would be too heavy to use AS a suppressor though!

  32. If this bill passes what are the chances that we will be able to purchase suppressors imported from Europe and/or New Zealand, where there are several high quality manufacturers producing suppressors at much lower cost?

  33. The president and other Dems have been touting European-style gun laws for awhile now… so they should be on -board with this… right?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here