Posted on 05/06/2017 12:04:24 AM PDT by RC one
A campaign on Capitol Hill to remove suppressors from National Firearms Act regulations is tracking but still has a long way to go before becoming law.
Guns.com spoke with industry insiders about the Hearing Protection Act on the eve of the 146th National Rifle Association Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Atlanta last week, who argued the measure has a fighting chance.
“The Hearing Protection Act is alive and well in both the House and the Senate,” said Knox Williams, executive director of the American Suppressor Association. “It’s made tremendous strides, but it still has a long way to go.”
The bill was introduced by GOP sponsors U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and Rep. John Carter of Texas in January and aims to deregulate suppressors as a safety measure to help promote their use in protecting hearing. Enrolled as H.R. 367, the proposal has 139 co-sponsors including three Democrats but no date for committee hearings.
A companion Senate measure, S.59, has 14 co-sponsors, all Republicans. One of the most recent lawmakers to sign on for the act in the is U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, joining fellow Sen. John Cornyn and 22 Lone Star State congressmen of the state’s delegation. The Senate is the crucial battleground for the bill’s passage, requiring 60 votes in a chamber where the GOP can only count 52 members.
Since 1934, the federal government has treated devices designed to muffle or suppress the report of firearms as Title II devices that required registration under the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record and mandated transfers that included a $200 tax stamp. The HPA would repeal this requirement and treat suppressors as firearms – which would allow them to be transferred through regular federal firearms license holders to anyone not prohibited from possessing them after the buyer passes an FBI instant background check.
While consumers, faced with the one-two punch of changes to firearms trusts brought about by 41F last year and the so-called “Trump slump” of decreased political urgency to make purchases, may be on the bench waiting for the HPA to pass in the hopes of getting a good deal on suppressors, some point out this could be flawed thinking.
John Hollister, product manager with Sig Sauer, pointed out that retail prices could rise on suppressors if the HPA passes due to the fact the devices are currently exempt from the same excise taxes imposed on other Title I firearms such as rifles and shotguns. Should suppressors be reclassified, they would trade the $200 NFA tax stamp on the end user for a 10-11 percent tax directly on the manufacturer.
In addition, in a post-HPA boon, raw materials used in the production of silencers could become more expensive as new makers vie for limited stocks.
“Right now, we are making stuff out of Inconel, Celite, cobalt– high-quality aerospace materials,” explained Hollister saying they “buy whole runs of that material” for the manufacture of suppressors built to “last a lifetime.”
I am untrained with guns, plan to take classes at some time in the future.
That said, what is the point of this measure?
Are they saying that ‘yes’ we should have access to ear protection when using certain guns, (perhaps at a range).
Okay, fine, makes perfect sense to me. So then go ahead and use the ear protection. Is there a law in place that is preventing this step?
“Silencers”....
This law is about suppressors, not ear plugs.
Thank you. If that’s the topic,(Silencers) I recall Don Jr. bringing it up about two or three weeks ago. I didn’t realize it was such a widespread concern.
You didn’t realize that advancing the second amendment was a widespread concern among republicans and conservatives? really?
Socialist Norway is way ahead of the US...
Besides, I just want to be legally be able to fool around with 2 liter pop bottles and subsonic 22LR plinking. BATFE and gov’ts have no legtimate interest in me doing so.
The first thing to be done in any hearing protection program is to reduce the noise level by implementing engineering controls. Ear plugs are OK but typically only reduce the level of the sound to your ears by 15-22 decibels. Supressors can reduce the level by 15-43 decibels.
I’m pretty sure it won’t be passed. This is too easy to demagogue and the spineless Rs won’t support it, to say nothing of the traitorous Ds.
If we want to chip away at the NFA we might do better starting with SBRs. It’s easily the most non sensical thing to have on the NFA. It’d be harder for bed wetters to demagogue it any more than they do already with guns in general.
>>“Silencers”....<<
Yeah, you know those things that bad-guy spies put on their guns that turn a loud BANG into a barely audible “whing” sound.
Good thing we have experts like fuxahauntus and pelosi to explain to people how weapons work.
What are the arguments for not passing this? Is it really about hearing protection?
If its heart and soul is 2nd Am. then we shouldn’t be pussyfooting around with non 2 Am. issues. If it really is about hearing, as a chronic tinnitus suffer, I’d like awareness to be a priority over legislation.
It seems to me that the “spineless Rs” owe the NRA a couple of touchdowns. The rats can bitch and moan about it all they want. It’s not as if they won’t be bitching and moaning about something else anyways. And suppressors protect hearing so it’s a health issue.
I live with the results of cumulative hearing loss in me and my family. When I hired tradesmen and they were working on my property around loud machines, I always offered free hearing protection; usually a new set of comfortable, flexible ear plugs. Not once has any of these macho idiots accepted the new-in-the-package gift.
You can lead a workman to save his hearing, but you can’t make him do it. Sorry, we don’t need any more laws.
I think it’s about finally going on offense and taking lost ground back. We have been losing ground on defense for too long. If we don’t go on offense now that we have the strength to do it, we are basically resigning ourselves to endless defense which is just not a winning strategy.
what are you saying?
The HPA would repeal this requirement and treat suppressors as firearms – which would allow them to be transferred through regular federal firearms license holders to anyone not prohibited from possessing them after the buyer passes an FBI instant background check.
...
They should make them available over the counter like ammo.
That sounds great but it isn’t going to happen. The HPA can happen.
I definitely agree but I don’t see that on the immediate horizon. The HPA has support though. it’s doable. I saw Ted Cruz just signed on to it as a co-sponsor in fact. Here in Ohio, we handled that CLEO sign off by making Ohio a shall issue NFA state. With the ease of obtaining an NFA trust, there’s not a lot of need for it though. I should have my latest suppressor coming any day now. I have been waiting over a year for it. It’s complete BS. They are legal and I am authorized to have one. Waiting for over a year is unreasonable and amounts to denying me my rights afaic.
That sounds great but it isn’t going to happen. The HPA can happen
...
That’s what I figure, but it would be nice to see them eventually get it right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.