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 – -(Ammoland.com)- 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.

About:
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: www.nra.org

0 0 votes
Article Rating
26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeff Knox

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.
Jeff

Jeff Knox

Crapo’s bill is S. 59 by the way.
Jeff

Stephen C. Gregory

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.

Leon Measures

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… Read more »

Stephen C. Gregory

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

RayJN

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.

Jeff D. Taxa.

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!

Jim S

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

Idadho

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.

William Waggoner

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%.

JS

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.

M Reyna

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.

Gil

Next up automatic guns will argued for reduce carpal tunnel syndrome.

Stephen C. Gregory

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.

Ray

So is this different from H.R. 3799? Or I guess my question is will this cancel H.R. 3799?

Stephen C. Gregory

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,… Read more »

Stephen C. Gregory

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… Read more »

Jeff Knox

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… Read more »

Fredy Lowe

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….;(

Rock

Along with probably NY, Cal, Ill, Md and a few other communist operated “NON US CONSTITUTIONAL STATES”…

Shawn Alexandre Grammont

Maryland allows private ownership of silencers.

Fredy Lowe

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…?

Ralph

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

Wild Bill

, My analysis comes to a screeching, grinding halt at the words “Connecticut allows…”

Robert

It never ceases to amaze me how lazy some of us have become. Please provide, give me.
Here ya go Fredy, some links for your perusal. You’re going to have to read them yourself. I ain’t doing it all for ya.

http://americansuppressorassociation.com/education/

http://www.advanced-armament.com/Ownership-Information_ep_42-1.html

There are lots more.( think google) So there are your lists that you asked for.

Amos Arocho

Excellent!,is very important for us,thanks!