President Trump will Pass the Hearing Protection Act

Gun Watch ^ | 16 November, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In 1934, the Franklin Roosevelt administration was able to pass omnibus gun control legislation, with massive infringements on the Second Amendment.  It was the National Firearms Act.  The law was primarily designed to eliminate the private ownership of handguns. That was too much of a direct assault on the Second Amendment for Congress, which removed handguns from the bill. The remainder of the act passed, creating a bizarre law with unintended consequences.

For obscure and unknown reasons, gun mufflers, also known as silencers, or suppressors, were included in the act. Silencers immediately changed from being a $10 accessory, available over the counter, to becoming an item requiring a federal tax stamp costing $200.  The tax stamp required an intrusive and time consuming application process. $200 in 1934 would be $3,600 today.  As another measure, $200 was 5.7 ounces of gold in January, 1934.  That was by legislative fiat.  In December of 1933, it would have been 10 ounces of gold.  If you use gold as the standard, 5.7 ounces of gold would be worth $7,400.  It was common for a day laborer in 1934 to be paid $1 a day.  People worked long days, six days a week. The tax on a silencer was about the yearly pay of a minimum wage worker of the time. It was not a tax.  It was a prohibition.

The rest of the world did not share America's self imposed prohibition on gun mufflers.  In the rest of the world, silencers were regarded as a useful accessory, something that the neighbors appreciated because it reduced noise pollution.

In Europe, silencers are far less regulated than they are in the United States.  In New Zealand, a 12 year old can walk into a hardware store, pay $20, and walk out with a perfectly serviceable commercial silencer.

Inflation has whittled away at the prohibitionist tax on silencers in the United States.  $200 dollars is now 28 hours at minimum wage instead of a year's worth of labor.  People understand the damage done to unprotected ears by close proximity to gunfire.  Silencers have become essential safety equipment in many circumstances.

A growing movement has risen up to place silencers in the same regulatory environment as ordinary rifles and shotguns.  It removes the prohibitory tax and the burdensome, unnecessary regulations. Legislation has been introduced in Congress by Matt Salmon (R) Arizona.

It The Hearing Protection Act. It keeps the federal regulation that states refer to when they require federally sanctioned ownership for legal possession of silencers in many. That regulation becomes the same as for ordinary rifles and shotguns.

When legislators are informed of the bizarre history of U.S. regulation and prohibition of these safety devices, they have no problem passing corrective legislation.  Josh Waldron, one of three founders of the American Suppressor Association, says that when legislators become informed, 90% of both Democrats and Republicans vote for  the reform legislation.

The Hearing Protection Act will pass.  It only needs to be presented to Congress.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
 
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

It is a matter of priorities. It is hard to defend the insane American regulation of gun mufflers.

[dfwgator]

Eh?

[jazminerose]

Guns don’t kill, silencers do!

It’s about time we got rid of this foolishness.

[CodeToad]

It’s an easy sell, really. All those outdoor gun ranges that are noise problems could simply implement silencer rules. Counties and cities could easy enforce them.

[umgud]

Will it preempt state laws?

[FateAmenableToChange]

If they’re $20 other places, why do they cost $500-$1200 here even before I pay the tax stamp? Grrr.

[RandallFlagg]

Was my picture prophetic?

"We won."

[IronJack]

Similarly, knife laws are almost as absurd. Switchblades are forbidden in many jurisdictions. Double-edged "Arkansas toothpicks" are also. Even knives with a "clip edge" are outlawed in some places. No folding knife with a blade longer than 4 inches ... Etc..

What kind of stupidity is that?

[Jeff Chandler]

why do they cost $500-$1200

Because government intrusion has distorted the market.

[DouglasKC]

Question about silencers: Do they interfere with performance??

[RandallFlagg]

Do they interfere with performance??

Mine doesn't.

[Jeff Vader]

article is incorrect, silencers were not part of 1934 NFA, they were added to NFA in 1938. They were added incorrectly and as such are not subjected to the cross state line notification forms like mg, sbr and sbs are required to do. I expect sloppy writing from the msm, it would be nice if experts actually knew the subject

[snooter55]

Well, sho would be nice. Count me in for this “common sense” legislation !

[patriotred]

It can, but usually not by much. This can be both a positive/negative impact.

[arl295]

In New Jersey, a BB Gun or Sling Shot carry the same regulations as a hand gun

caught with one without a proper license or CCW, and you are facing 10 years mandatory sentence

Insanity

[antidisestablishment]

No, they actually turn everyone who uses them into a silent assassin with 100% accuracy.

In other words, yes, they do affect the weapon's performance, but the effects are manageable. Makes practicing at an indoor range actually pleasant.

[shanover]

How about repeal of the NFA. Maybe the best chance in our lifetime. Screw the gun grabbers and snowflakes.

[Paladin2]

Along with fooling around building mufflers freedom, I want my incandescent light bulbs back too.

[Paladin2]

So, your are calling partly fake news here. Good Call!

[redfreedom]

Where we live someone is always firing a weapon of some sort, mostly a rifle. And it’s all hours of the day and night.

I do not have a problem with this. None, zero. We live in the woods, and I’d rather know when someone is firing a rifle. Typically it’s hunting or varmint control.

I see not using a silencer as a good thing, whereas if someone is shooting a weapon when I’m out in the woods, I will know enough to keep out of that persons way.

Also, we do not allow hunting on the same lot our home is on for obvious safety reasons. For those wondering what, it’s to reduce the possibility of someone taking aim at a deer with our home as a backstop in case he misses.

The same applies to criminals. I’d rather hear the gunshots going off at the liquor store for plenty of obvious reasons, such as a warning to call the cops, such as a warning to stay away, or as a notice to draw my own firearm and take care of business.

And then we have poachers. These folks will still ply their trade, silencers or none, but having them makes it easier. Easier to take a deer out of season just about anyplace.

So personally, I’m against silencers.