NRA Applauds the Introduction of the Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367

Donald Trump, JR shoots the SilencerCo Maxim 9 integrally suppressed pistol
Donald Trump, JR shoots the SilencerCo Maxim 9 integrally suppressed pistol
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Fairfax, VA – -( The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded Congressmen Jeff Duncan (SC) and John Carter (TX-31) on Monday for introducing the Hearing Protection Act, an important bill that gives gun owners and sportsmen the opportunity to better protect their ears and hearing.

“Many gun owners and sportsmen suffer severe hearing loss after years of shooting, and yet the tool necessary to reduce such loss is onerously regulated and taxed. It doesn’t make any sense,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA.

“The Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act would allow people easier access to suppressors, which would help them to better protect their hearing.”

The Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367, would remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act, replacing the federal transfer process with a National Instant Criminal Background Check. The bill would reduce the cost of purchasing a suppressor by removing the $200 transfer tax.

Suppressors are often mischaracterized in Hollywood. They do not “silence” the sound of a firearm. Instead, they act as mufflers and can reduce the noise of a gunshot to hearing safe levels. Not only do suppressors reduce hearing damage for the shooter, they reduce the noise of ranges located near residential areas.

H.R. 367 would make it easier for gun owners and sportsmen to purchase suppressors in the 42 states where they are currently legal. Purchasers would have to pass a background check to buy them, and prohibited people would be denied.

“Gun owners and sportsmen should be able to practice their sport with the tools necessary to do so safely. This bill makes it easier for them to do that,” concluded Cox.

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:

  • 26 thoughts on “NRA Applauds the Introduction of the Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367

    1. Senator Crapo (R-ID) introduced a Senate version today.
      Better to get it through the Senate and then the House than the other way around. The hardest fight will be the senate. I believe in taking the harder fight first.
      And yes, these bills are virtually identical to Salmon’s bill from the past couple of years. Have to wait till they post the actual language to know exactly. Expect the effective date of any reimbursement to change, but nothing else of significance.

        1. Just fired off e-mails to both of my senators requesting their support and cosponsorship of this bill. Did the same last night on HR 367 to my U.S. Representative.

          Please contact you representative and senators and request their support on the measures. Let them know what their constituents want and expect from their elected officials.

    2. You may want to check the facts about hearing damage. I’ve been a shooter for more than 70 years. Nobody mentioned hearing damage until recently. Several years ago, my hearing ability declined dramatically. An Otolaryngologist said, “ I don’t know if it will be the next shot or the 2000th shot but, if you don’t protect what little hearing you have left, one of them you won’t hear. After that you can get a little dog to tug on your pant leg to let you know a phone is ringing.”
      I developed a burning interest about hearing protection. A safe noise level is usually stated to be 85 dB. The silencer you described is said to reduce dB level by a maximum of 35 dB. A 12 ga. shotgun, .45 auto, and 9 mm para dBs are around 165 dB. 165-35 leaves 130 dB, which is way up on the list of damage. A silencer may help reduce muzzle blast but does very little for sonic boom that is created by a projectile traveling faster than the speed of sound.
      Problem is, advice about hearing protection is only proven to be good or bad years after it is too late to matter. Hearing damage is permanent and accumulative.
      There is tremendous mis-nformation concerning hearing protection. Problem is, shooters think they are protecting hearing,when, fact, they may be doing more damage. There is electronic hearing protection that enhances ambient sounds, and reduce noise to safe levels. The missing information is ‘Attack Time.’ For example, a 30-06 dB is in the 165 dB range. By enhancing the ambient noise 50%, the muzzle blast is 247 dB at the nanosecond the gun is fired. Then, in a certain number of milliseconds, noise is reduced. The amount of time the ears hear 247 dB does tremendous irreparable damage.
      A law requiring Attack Time, as determined by a credible test lab would be extremely helpful to shooters. Attack Time information would help, not only shooters but people who work in noisy environments. Silencers, in my opinion, are not the answer and may mislead a shooter when it comes to hearing damage.
      To say a silencer will protect hearing just is not so.
      I wear a pair of hearing aids that cost more than a high dollar shotgun. I can read your lips if you look at me when you talk. With best regards, Leon Measures

    3. As always, write your senators and representatives to fully support this bill, (in the Senate when it arrives there.)

    4. They should not only strike down state laws that prohibit them (with significant penalties for prosecuting) you should be able to make your own, drive the prices down. And also encourage the development of integral suppressors.

    5. Freddy Lowe,
      I live here and you have it wrong. It is “The People’s Republic Of Communist Taxachusetts”!!!
      Just for the record! Also NH has very good silencer laws. As a matter of fact you can now hunt
      with a suppressor! I spoke to a person who has vowed not to stop until they are legal in all states!

      1. Please, please have them help us in Californastan. Once again common sense products will be continued to be banned in this ridiculous state.

        1. The only solution in Californiastan is to move away. Sacramento will keep coming up with laws to be challenged after the previous law was overturned. They have already hired Eric Holder to fight off any Trump laws that impact California.

    6. My hearing was destroyed when I was 17 by a Walther PPK/S .380. I’m 65 now. The ringing is constant and the word “what” is a staple of my vocabulary. A sonic would have prevented that. I support this new legislation 100%.

      1. Would that I could have had one when I went through Tank Commander School on my 105mm Main Gun. It was an ear drum buster deluxe and it also fluttered your eyelids like a venetian blind. Came home with one ruptured ear drum and tinnitus beyond belief and the VA only recognizes my tinnitus and not my hearing loss, I guess because I lived with it all of these years not realizing how bad it was.

    7. Suppressors are not silencers, all they do is Reduce the sound of the gun blast. It still goes bang it just won’t shatter your eardrum. It’s just that anti gun
      Loonies want to make everything about guns illegal
      Or restrictive. I hope the Bill passes and becomes law.

        1. Nope. That would be considered an unfunded mandate. No way I could feed one unless they bought me an automated reloader to feed it. The bill would not provide that funding.

      1. 3799 was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations by the House Judiciary Committee on 20151123. No action since. Interesting to note that 3799 called for refund of all transfer taxes ssubmitted retroactive to the day the bill was tendered on 20151022.
        Text on the new bill is not yet available, but I set up a congressional account to be notified upon any new action. Easy enough to do for those interested, and you can see if your rep is one of the current 42 cosponsors. The two main cosponsors of 367 were cosponsors of 3799, also. I would suspicion that they know 3799 died in conference and required retooling to pass, ergo 367. It would not surprise me if refunds of the tax stamp fee were eliminated given the huge, I mean HUGE number of form 4 submissions just in April, May, and June of last year. When supressor shops were delivering, daily mind you, truckloads of form 4s, that’s a lot of moolah that many representatives of both stripes are not going to want to cut loose of. I’ll just consider my submissions the cost of proving the desirability of this action and hope it convinces my congressional members to vote for without further restrictions.

      2. Had a big, long answer but lost it. 3799 probably died in a subcommittee it was sent to on 20151123. It allowed for transfer tax refunds retroactive to the day the bill was introduced on 201522.
        The same 2 congressmen that introduced 367 were cosponsors of 3799, so I suspicion that they know it died in committee. I can’t yet see the text for 367, so I don’t know if it provides for transfer yax refund, but I would bet it’s not retroactive to last June! Those last few months before the new rules took effect saw, literally, truckloads of form 4 submissions and attendant tax payments.

      3. Bills die with the change of Congress.
        H.R. 3799 expired, and it’s primary sponsor, Matt Salmon, of Arizona, retired.
        The new bill is expected to have basically the same language as the old one, but we haven’t seen it yet. Stephen is correct, they might remove the retroactive fee language, but if they leave it in, I assume the clock would start ticking at the beginning of this year at the earliest.
        For the nit-pickers, we all know “suppressor” is a more accurate and descriptive name for gun mufflers, but the law calls them “silencers,” so that’s how they are referred to in legislation and discussions of legislation.
        They do not eliminate the need for ear plugs of muffs – especially during range practice – but they do make other hearing protection more effective and reduce the damage done by a quick shot in the field when you don’t have time to get the plugs in.
        Suppressors are not a solution, they are an additional tool that can help protect shooters’ from hearing damage.
        This should be a good bill worthy of your support. If the language comes out and includes some terrible flaw, we will let you know immediately – as we get with sponsors to fix it.
        The biggest enemies of this – and all pro-rights legislation – are House and Senate leadership. To get them passed, we must get them through committees and onto the floor for votes. Leadership has not pushed them, and the narrow pro-rights majority in the Senate means Schumer and company can fairly easily block progress – if Republican leadership lets the bills move. Of course, until now, we have not had a president who would sign them, so pushing them would have been a political exercise. Now we can get them signed, so we need to focus attention on the Senate – fight the harder fight first – while pushing the House to move our bills through committees.
        If you have a pro-rights senator, encourage them to sponsor a Senate version of H.R. 367, and be sure your rep. is signed on as a cosponsor in the House.
        Jeff Knox –

    8. Please provide a list of the 42 states where it is legal to purchase a suppressor.

      We are guessing that New Jersey is at the top of the ‘illegal’ list….;(

        1. OK, we’re (guessing) up to five, so let’s add Connecticut, Assachusetts and…. Possibly New Hampshire who have some very weird gun laws.

          So, who’d we do…?

          1. Connecticut allows ownership of suppressors, but it prohibits center-fire semi-auto rifles and pistols that have threaded barrels. Go figure.

    Leave a Comment 26 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *