Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has introduced the Hearing Protection Act of 2015. The act would remove suppressors and silencers from the National Firearms Act. In other words, there would be no restrictions (other than state ones) and no $200 tax anymore. You'd only have to go through a NICS check.
As someone who has both tinnitus and moderate 4000 Hz notch hearing loss, I fully support this bill. My hearing impairment came as a result of shooting firearms at earlier period in my life without hearing protection. My audiologist told me last week when she checked my hearing that I would need hearing aids in the future.
The NRA supports this bill and released this statement today:
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.The bill has not been assigned a number yet but I'll update this post when it does.
“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.
Michael Bane related a conversation he had with someone in the suppressor industry in his most recent podcast. The gist of it was that if suppressors had been invented now instead of the early 20th century, we would be required to have them and we'd be able to pick them up at a corner store.
I believe that is correct. I do know that I'll fight tooth and nail for this bill. I don't want today's younger shooters to have to deal with even moderate hearing loss.
UPDATE: The American Suppressor Association released a statement on the introduction of this bill. As you can imagine, they are very, very pleased with this bill.
It said, in part:
“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. “The removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act has been our ultimate goal since day one. For months, we have worked alongside Rep. Salmon’s office and the National Rifle Association to craft this legislation. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working with Rep. Salmon and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common-sense legislation.”UPDATE II: The number of the Hearing Protection Act of 2015 is HR 3799. You can quickly send a letter to Congress showing your support by using this PopVox link.
This bill is an excellent opportunity to turn the tables on the incontinent anti-2A weenies in both parties as well as all of the hyperventilating groups like the Insecure Mothers, Brady, etc.
ReplyDeleteAll the supporters have to is to say that this bill is For The Children(TM).
That then puts all of the usual suspects on the defensive for once. What kind of evil monster wants their children to become deaf from a loud noise of 150+ dB when a simple $200 suppressor would dramatically reduce that risk?
I couldn't agree more! Suppressors are NOT silencers as so many have come to think, due to propaganda and TV/Movie nonsense! I NICS check should be all that's required. A Suppressor sure would go a long way toward reducing hearing loss for not only policemen, but for citizens as well.
ReplyDeleteOne hopes this makes it through... Maybe it will knock the prices down a little bit...
ReplyDeleteOne hopes this makes it through... Maybe it will knock the prices down a little bit...
ReplyDelete(I don't see why a NICS check should be required. They're not guns. They can't do anything on their own.) As much as I hate to say it, I see little chance of this passing. Aside from the hearing protection and helping "the children", it would make ranges better neighbors and better preserve property values for folks living near big ranges. The stupidity out there is a big hill to overcome, though. Too many people think it's like the movies.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the Bill.
ReplyDeletehttps://popvox.com/bills/us/114/hr3799
Weru - thanks for that link. I'll make it hot in the body of the post.
DeleteI am interested in dissection of the preemption and "treated as registered" language and if the attorneys think it is enough for those states where registration is an affirmative defense to possession being crime...
ReplyDelete