[S]enseless and overzealous suppressor restrictions currently block gun owners and sportsmen from practicing their sport with the safety tools they need. The Hearing Protection Act will help them by removing suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act and put a simple background check in place of the current transfer process.
To obtain a suppressor, an add-on that does nothing to make a firearm more lethal, a person has to commit to a process more invasive, time-consuming, and costly than the purchase of an actual firearm. The process includes submitting to a background check, paying a $200 non-refundable tax, providing fingerprints and photographs to the ATF, and enduring an application processing time that ranges from weeks to months.
The Hearing Protection Act’s prospects of advancing are particularly encouraging considering that in the last Congress Senator Bob Menendez introduced a bill that, under the guise of enhancing public safety, would have banned the importation, sale, manufacturing, transfer, and even the very possession of suppressors. Menendez, who was sentenced in January to 11 years in prison after being convicted on 16 counts of political corruption, disingenuously argued in 2021, “Gun silencers are dangerous devices with one purpose and one purpose only—to muffle the sound of gunfire from unsuspecting victims.” The reality is that suppressors are rarely used in crimes and, Hollywood fantasies aside, the science clearly demonstrates that suppressors absolutely do not “silence” firearms.
The Menendez bill was even more absurd compared to how our European friends treat suppressors. Though their firearms laws are considerably more restrictive than ours, European countries actually encourage suppressors as a matter of public safety and etiquette.
Clearly, the failed bill’s sponsors saw the legislation as supporting their overall effort to curtail and roll back Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Hollywood excels at creating amazing stories that entertain and move us, even when the details stretch the truth or break from reality altogether. That being said, we shouldn’t base policies on cinematic fiction, nor should we fall victim to fearmongering from anti-gun activists who would imagine that access to a suppressor would suddenly make assassins of lawful gun owners.
A suppressor is a critical safety device to reduce the impact of noise and protect against hearing loss. That’s why gun owners must reach out to their U.S. Representative and Senators in Washington and request that they support the Hearing Protection Act.
— John Commerford in Firearm Suppressors Are a Tool for Preserving Hearing
I wouldn’t bet a nickel on the GOP passing this.
Passing I would agree for now. Voting on it…..well we do have a much lower percentage of RINO’s and Neocons so it is the most likely to get a vote that we have seen up to now but I put it at a coin flip depending on what gets prioritized and which country starts shit after Ukraine/Russia finds whatever resolution it does (guessing Israel)
No. They do not have the stones. Too many wimps/RINOs in the GOP.
Even if it passed the house (with slim majorities) which is extremely unlikely to occur, I doubt it would get past the filibuster in the Senate.
Bottom line – it really doesn’t matter if the House GOP has the stones to pass it or not.
How about a continuous 90-day NFA amnesty EO for MGS, SBRs and Suppressors. That’s within the current law…. Does AG Bondi have the stones to push for that?
Thought the window for any further amnesty closed long ago and EO wouldn’t cut it? Awesome if it’s an option but thought that was repeal or gradual buildup of case law to strike down for any practical options.
From https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/undefined/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-chapter-3/download:
3.2.1 Amnesty registration.
When the NFA was amended in 1968, a 30-day amnesty period immediately following the law’s effective date was established during which persons possessing
unregistered firearms could register them in the NFRTR.
The 1968 amendments also provided for the establishment of additional amnesty periods not exceeding
90 days per period. To date, no additional amnesty periods have been declared. Requests for further amnesty periods have been denied, principally because additional periods could jeopardize pending ATF
investigations and prosecutions of NFA violations.
“How about a continuous 90-day NFA amnesty EO for MGS, SBRs and Suppressors.”
Machine guns are flat out, the 1986 ‘Hughes’ amendment *permanently* closed the door on future machine gun amnesties.
We have to legally attack the ‘Hughes’ amendment in court using the ‘Bruen’ ruling as a roadmap…
Amnesty is kinda like a pardon / get out of jail free.
The Hughes Amendment doesn’t prevent new machine guns from being made. See the glock switches, and for that matter, any law enforcement MGs. It “prevents” a civilian from registering one. It doesn’t prevent a civilian from making an unregistered MG (yes, that would fall afoul of the NFA and I am not advocating anyone do that….) and then during Amnesty, having it registered.
I would agree that attacking the Hughes Amendment (and the recent “as applied” court case that held it was effectively unconstitutional) is a step in that direction. I have neither the $$$ nor the stones to attack it personally.
In fact, the reason for the amnesty period in the 68 GCA (IIRC) is that the original 1934 NFA was found unconstitutional on 5th amendment ground (self-incrimination).
IIRC, the 4473 has also been found to be unconstitutional under 5th amendment ground for convicted felons.
Either way was figuring on continuously building on Bruen until we find a bigger stick. Really should start looking into NFA beyond destructive devices for when I move.
Good question.
Does the NRA support the Hearing Protection Act???
Have they sent letters to the Congress???
I know the NRA cares about hunting. But they don’t seem to care about the loud noise it creates. Is that because the NRA board made up of mostly old hunters, who can’t hear anymore?
Maybe this is a generational thing. The older generation doesn’t care and they lost their hearing
And the younger generation does care. Because they can still hear.
Worse than not caring the older generation treats their ailments like some badge of honor.
“I lost my hearing shooting pre-ban machine guns!”
“I can’t breathe any because I was weldin’ without ventilation for fifty years, cough, cough Go UNION!”
“I’m in constant pain all the time because I lifted with my back for fifty years like a real man.”
They all seem to be really proud of being stupid, sick, poor and dying early.
Just wait until it happens to you, junior, your tune will change.
Mine did…
Time catches up to everyone sooner or later. Not so much it’s lessons, both of you point that out rather well in your own ways. In case it doesn’t come across well, not an insult on either side just acknowledging harsh realities you both point out.
No. The largest party in Washington is the swamp party.
Their number one priority is to keep their grifts flowing and their number two priority is to restrict us.
Nuke DC now.
“Their number one priority is to keep their grifts flowing…”
A guy called Elon would disagree on that one, based on the screams from the Leftist-Fascist Scum ™ I’m hearing…
DC votes over 90 percent Democrat. Four out of the top seven wealthiest counties/independent cities in the country surround DC, and they all vote Dem. After the country was retracting post-financial crisis, the DC region was still growing. Deficit spending fuels their wealth and power. There’s a reason they’re freaking out over the bureaucracy downsizing and the slashing of grants that power activist NGOs. They figure if they can’t use the bureaucracy to attack the R-led executive branch, they’ll use the judiciary.
John Roberts is wrong as usual. Having an unprecedented level of attacks coming from federal judges is the break in the norm. They brought this on themselves. It’s time to begin impeaching judges.
BREAKING
“Department of Health and Human Services deletes Biden-era Surgeon General advisory declaring the Second Amendment a ‘public health crisis.’ ”
https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1902020325392474151
EXCELLENT: Admin DELETES Gun Control “gun violence webpage” As Gun Controllers Toys STRIPPED AWAY…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NBTh3A0LYU
In a statement to ABC News, the HHS said that the department “and the Office of the Surgeon General are complying with President Trump’s Executive Order on Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” (in the video above)
Ok, this is a confusing conundrum:
26 U.S. Code § 5845 – Definitions – defines that a ‘silencer’ is a firearm
but…
the Trump DOJ (via acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson) filed a brief in the GOA case arguing that ‘silencers’ are not ‘arms’ (i.e. firearms) (but rather ‘accessories – thus, I guess, not covered by the 2A). He wants to halt the case.
If ‘silencers’ are not firearms then why is there a 4473 and background check and a tax stamp requirement under NFA for a ‘suppressor’?
Is the DOJ making a distinction here between ‘silencer’ and ‘suppressor’? The GOA case was about ‘suppressor’ so I’m postulating that the DOJ brief is talking about ‘suppressors’ since that’s what the GOA case was about.
Yeah, probably/maybe going to be some cases over turned if the DOJ thing is accepted.
to many rino’s, will never pass
Trying to legalize a weapon of gang and criminal warfare is a fools errand. The vast majority of the public belive silencers completely eliminate the sound of a gun shot, thus denying the public, and LE information about where shots came from, preventing LE from quickly tracking and arresting criminals and gang members. Everyone already knows humans can determine, with high accuracy, the direction and location from which a gunshot emanates.
Better we spend time and money getting rid of ridiculous bans on magazines.