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]

The Winchester 94 pictured in the article was Teddy Roosevelt’s suppressed rifle.

[JoeFromSidney]

For obscure and unknown reasons, gun mufflers, also known as silencers, or suppressors, were included in the act

Not really mysterious. They were put in the law in an attempt to stop the poaching of deer. The idea was that without silencers, poachers could be heard and more easily caught by game wardens. And because of that stupid reasoning, we shooters have to worry about losing our hearing.

[marktwain]

Trump seems a genuinely quick study.

He seems to be coming up to speed on Constitutional issues, and there are some good people around him.

We need to keep reminding him and educating him.

I suggest putting well written items on his GreatAgain website where it asks for suggestions. Sure, most of what he gets will be rehashes, simplistic, or poorly thought out. But he is bound to have someone looking at this source for good ideas. Well reasoned and written suggestions might make it to him.

https://apply.ptt.gov/yourstory/

[marktwain]

“They were put in the law in an attempt to stop the poaching of deer.”

It was not mentioned at the time. Much of what the Roosevelt administration pushed was ad hoc, poorly thought out,and simply a grab for more power.

One of the major reasons the Depression lasted so long, is no one knew what way Roosevelt was going to jump next. No one wanted to put their capital at risk when it might be confiscated or taken by regulation at any moment.

Roosevelt was a disaster for this country.

[spintreebob]

Bank robbery is a federal crime for one, and only one reason. J. Edgar Hoover saw bank robbery as a way for his FBI to win the PR war and funding from congress. Prior to J. Edgar Hoover bank robbery was a local crime. Pre-FBI Federal Marshalls assisted state and local authorities. But it was always the Sheriff with primary responsibility for solving bank robbery.

J. Edgar Hoover and his ego trip are in the past.

We need to get on with the future.... a future where the centralization of government by Hoover, by FDR, by LBJ, by Nixon, by all of them is reversed selectively where it no longer makes sense.

IN 2016 a bank hold up is no different than a gas station or Waffle House holdup.

[marktwain]

Another objection to the “deer poaching” theory is that deer poaching was clearly a state issue at the time. At least the ganster story was connected to gangsters transporting guns across state lines to commit crimes. That has a little basis with Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, and Al Capone.

Deer poaching... not so much.

[marktwain]

“We need to get on with the future.... a future where the centralization of government by Hoover, by FDR, by LBJ, by Nixon, by all of them is reversed selectively where it no longer makes sense.”

---

Excellent points.

[DesertRhino]

Hiram Maxim patented his invention as a “silencer”. Scolding prigs and tacticool types aside, that is the true name. “silencers”

[Pollster1]

I strongly approve of deregulating silencers. I own several and use them for most of my shooting.

(1) It’s polite to shoot with a silencer. If I shoot a .338 next to you at the range without a silencer, you will notice. If I shoot with the silencer, you’ll probably come over to admire it and express your appreciation.

(2) It’s more pleasant to shoot with a silencer. Shooting anything large bore, .30 cal or bigger, is loud even with hearing protection if you don’t use a silencer. With a silencer, that’s no longer true.

(3) Shooting with a silencer is both more accurate and builds better habits - less tendency to flinch.

[Organic Panic]

I want a loudener to annoy hoplophobes.

[Swordmaker]

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

As an Economist, that's an easy question to answer. It's the law of supply and demand. The sellers of the suppressors have to be specially licensed by the Federal Government to sell them as do the manufacturers and importers. They have to keep impeccable records of the suppressors they manufacture, import, and sell, as well as records of who they sell the suppressors to. The numbers of such suppressors they can sell is extremely limited so the demand is very small. . . resulting in the suppressors that are made are usually hand made, rather than being assembly line in large number. Since they will be ordered single lot to order, they will be made one at a time by a skilled craftsman. . . and not made in large lots. All of this means higher costs and therefore higher prices.

[marktwain]

Loudeners are sold under their other name “muzzle brakes”.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

My scolding-prig-tacticool post had a point: most of the opposition to devices, which reduce the sound emitted from firearms, comes from the notion that they actually “silence” a firearm — for the convenience of assassins. If Hollywood portrayed these devices objectively, then people would know better. Even with a “silencer”, firearms make enough noise.

[Ozark Tom]

Reform of the Judiciary should receive the highest priority, in order to minimize contested efforts to reform everything subject to court deliberations. A Judiciary shifted toward decisions based on strict Constitutional reading is desired.

[Ozark Tom]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=O+brother+cows+floyd