New Hearing Protection Act same as old HPA; Both in Top Ten for Attention

ammoland ^ | 21 January, 2017 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-
On January 9th, 2017, the new Hearing Protection Act (HPA), H.R. 367, was reintroduced into the 115th Congress (2017-2018).  It was introduced by Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC-3).  It started with 40 co-sponsors. The HPA, unlike many bills, is short and concise. It takes silencers out of the National Firearms act, with its draconian regulation and $200 excise tax, and places them in the same category as rifles and shotguns.

Here is the text of the  Hearing Protection Act of 2017, H.R. 367:

A BILL

To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

 

SECTION 1. Short title.

       This Act may be cited as the “Hearing Protection Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. Equal treatment of silencers and firearms.

     (a) In general.—Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking “(7) any silencer” and all that follows through “; and (8)” and inserting “; and (7)”.

     (b) Effective date.—

          (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

[marktwain]

The bill treats silencers the same as rifles and shotguns. This keeps silencers legal in states that require federal regulation (there are quite a few!)

[Hugh the Scot]

Repeal the unconstitutional NFA

[grobdriver]

My dealer tells me this will likely pass and be signed - but only if it gets out of committee where the dems (bastards all) have a 50/50 chance of stopping it.

So, what committee will it go to?

[riverrunner]

A very good idea to address the hearing loss of millions cause by the 1934 GCA.

[grobdriver]

Duh - read the article.

has been introduced into the House Ways and Means Committee

I like, in particular:
As a tax item, it could be included in a budget reconciliation bill, which is exempt from the 60 vote filibuster in the Senate.

Meaning, Schumer-proof.

[marktwain]

It believe it goes to the Ways and Means committee.

It is a reform of tax law, after all.

[rgboomers]

Certainly, I hope the bill passes. However, one would still need a background check to purchase, and making your own would be a crime, if silencers are to be treated like a long gun. Still, it is an improvement.

[marktwain]

Making your own long gun is not a crime.

At least not federally.

Remember the 80% rule.

Remember “Ghost guns”?

[marktwain]

Making your own pistol is not a crime either, unless it is a contraband item.

[Paine in the Neck]

I’d like it if the word “silencer” were not enshrined in federal law. Can someone change that to “suppressor?”

[IYAS9YAS]

However, one would still need a background check to purchase, and making your own would be a crime

Why would it be a crime? I can make my own firearm without it being a crime. I just can't sell it.

[Paladin2]

I just want to be able to fool around with used pop bottles and subsonic 22LR without interference or giving $$ to The Man.

[marktwain]

If it passes as written, I do not see a problem.

You would have to worry about state law, though.

[rgboomers]

Then, I stand corrected. Thanks.

[TauntedTiger]

I was hoping the bill was going to treat suppressors like ear protection or a scope. Maybe high-power scopes should require a background check too? /s

[marktwain]

We have come a long way with incremental improvements.

Treating suppressors like rifles and shotguns keeps them legal in about 20 states.

Federally treating them as accessories would make them illegal in those 20 states.

This is an excellent step forward. Get 20 million silencers out there, instead of the current 1 million, then we will revisit the law.

[TauntedTiger]

I’m personally disgusted by how many background checks I’ve paid for. I bet the LE/FFL dealers would sing a new tune if the background check was free.

[TauntedTiger]

20,000,000 suppressors x $20 (background check) = happy FFL dealers. I’m sick of this boondoggle.

[marktwain]

I don’t pay any extra for a background check in Arizona.

What state is charging you $20? Half the states do not require a background check if you have a carry permit.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2016/10/where-gun-permits-are-alternatives-to.html

[TauntedTiger]

California. FYI - I’m one of those guys who think CCW permits are a boondoggle of epic proportions.