Below the Radar: The HEAR Act Rears Its Ugly Head Again

Warning Take Action Call Protest
Below the Radar: Making America Safe and Secure Act of 2019

United States – -( From now on, when an anti-Second Amendment extremist says they want to “regulate” something, you can take it to the bank that what they really want is a ban. One prime example of this is legislation introduced by Senator Robert Menendez and Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman.

The legislation is the Help Empower Americans to Respond Act of 2021, also known as S 1131 and HR 2544. This legislation was also introduced in the 116th Congress. However, the reintroduction of this legislation is a chance to have a good discussion on two aspects of our Second Amendment advocacy.

In past coverage at, it was noted that this bill takes the Eric Swalwell approach towards modern multi-purpose semiautomatic long guns and applies it to suppressors. “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” to quote Dianne Feinstein, who is co-sponsoring the Senate version of this bill. This is a strategic benefit for Second Amendment supporters in a couple of ways (one of which is a bit of hardball), but it also presents a strategic conundrum.

The benefit is that, this is a ban on a firearm accessory that is already heavily regulated with just about every restriction short of an outright ban due to the provisions the National Firearms Act of 1934. This includes registration – which makes this bill an excellent exhibit to point to when explaining our opposition to other licensing and regulation schemes like the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act.

For those inclined to play a little reciprocal hardball, given the nonsense crap the Cuomo-James regime has pulled, Bloomberg stooges should be asked in hearings for any restriction, “Do you support an eventual ban on this firearm/accessory?” by state and federal lawmakers during hearings when they are under oath. If they say “Yes,” we can point that out to our fellow Americans. If they say, “No,” we can hold them to it.

This is a legitimate question many Second Amendment supporters ask themselves, given what we’ve heard going back to Nelson “Pete” Shields. But there’s nothing wrong with adding the option to hold anti-Second Amendment extremists accountable if they end up lying about their ultimate objective.

However, this bill also represents a strategic conundrum for Second Amendment supporters. Due to the fact that NFA restrictions have been imposed on suppressors for almost 90 years, there is not just a general acceptance of these restrictions among the general public, there is a perception that they are more dangerous. For many of our fellow Americans, all they learned about suppressors comes from Hollywood or from the scary stuff anti-Second Amendment extremists tell them, and when that fear is stoked, they tend to dismiss logic and reason.

Yet the Help Empower Americans to Respond Act shows that even the Hearing Protection Act may not be sufficient to protect owners of suppressors from the injustice of being punished for horrific acts they did not commit. Really, the only sure protection would be to treat suppressors like any other firearm accessory. But since we don’t want to lie to the American people, and we face a media double standard, we would need to be upfront about it.

Now, incrementalism, while a dirty word to some well-intentioned Second Amendment supporters, is a viable strategy. Furthermore, with the current composition of the Supreme Court, there is hope that a more favorable legal landscape could result in successful legal challenges to outright suppressor bans at the state level.

Second Amendment supporters need to contact their Senators and Representative to urge the defeat of this legislation. In addition, they need to support the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund to ensure that the current anti-Second Amendment regimes in the House, Senate, and White House are defeated at the ballot box as soon as possible. Whatever loyal Ammoland readers may think about Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s incrementalism approach has worked on concealed carry, and should be kept viable for issues like the deregulation of suppressors.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post,, and other national websites.

Harold Hutchison

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Mental health evaluations and term limits are in order for all levels of government, retroactively…


We will find, is that they are mainly psychopathic control freaks.


I like how you think.

Dr. Strangelove

Even pro-gun stars like Keanu Reeves misrepresent suppressors in the movies. In one of the John Wick films, he is shown in a shootout with another suppressor wielding bad guy, and none of the bystanders notice. Anyone who has ever fored a gun with a one knows that they are still quite loud, especially indoors.


The actor doesn’t have any say in the finished product or the way objects are portrayed. He is payed to portray a character, not a firearm accessory. The story dictated that “suppressors” are “silencers.” Complain to the writers, the producers, and the director.


And the Foley Artists (sound effects.)


I don’t remember the make of the can. It did have flats on the sides. It was on a SIG P220 in .45 ACP. It was quiet. I shot it in a small room into a foam bullet trap. It was movie quiet. I also shot a Ruger .22 in the same place. Astoundingly quiet. 40 years ago I was using an Uzi with a Sionics can. It wasn’t as quiet as the new ones, but it changed the sound to less than a .22LR non-suppressed rifle level.

Roland T. Gunner

I was a fan of Mitch Werbell back in the day, but I don’t have any experience with Sionics suppressors. They are practically antiques, and if they were ever state-of-the-art, it was not for long. They were just cool being American and associated with Gordon Ingram’s guns.

Roland T. Gunner

Koo-noh is one of the worst actors I have ever attempted to watch. His portrayal of an FBI special agent in Point Break ended around the halfway point with the video cassette melting in the fireplace.


It is as simple as this. If the subject is about guns and a demonkkkrat supports it, you know it is anit 2nd amendment. Pure and simple logic, which they are lacking.


TYRANNY is a “law” that makes a victimless act a “crime”. PERIOD. The USA has been a TYRANNY ever since the very first “law” was passed that criminalizes non violent victimless behavior.

Last edited 1 year ago by CourageousLion

Well said. The government has made itself the victim of every “crime”, thus abolishing the common law system upon which our society was based. Now government decides what is criminal, and what the punishment should be, then calls the result ” justice.”


A persons crimes against another person is a crime against the state. If the victim wants a pound of flesh, that is what civil courts are for. Like the OJ Simpson case. He got off on state charges, but lost in civil court.


So incrementalism is a viable strategy, Harold?

Full-on rape is bad, but you don’t mind LEO’s playing “just the tip” with you, your wife, your kids, your father, your mother, and your grandma?

I’ll keep on saying it: you’re broken, Harold.

If you’re getting raped, feel free to be strategic and diplomatic.I will continue to advocate strenuous and forceful rejection of the act.


State intervention invoking the 10th Amendment puts an end to this. Legislatures can exercise control over their congressional members by simply censuring them. Of course, if we trash the progressive 17th Amendment that goes a log way to putting the states back in control. Convention of States is our only hope. Without that and a Revival we are toast.

Ryben Flynn

Before the 17th, Senators were elected by the State Legislature instead of the Citizens. Is that what you want? A Democrat State would have all Democrat Senators, where right now 6 States have both a Republican and Democrat Senator.

“From 1789 to 1913, when the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, senators were elected by state legislatures. Beginning with the 1914 general election, all U.S. senators have been chosen by direct popular election.”


Appointed senators would obviously do what the “state” they are from wants. The founding fathers made it that way so that RETARDS can’t keep electing turds like Feinstein over and over into office.


How are “we” toast? Be willing to shoot any enforcers in the head that try to enforce this crap on you. When enough of them DIE, they might start realizing that a paycheck and pension just isn’t worth being a piece of shit. And yes, I have no doubt I’m on a “list”. I’m too old and pissed off to NOT be on a list.


Not one dime of my hard earned money to that crook, LaPierre. There are several other good, honest pro gun organizations out there who can get thtjob done. As it stands right now a LaPierre NRA is more of a liability than an asset.



Roland T. Gunner

The NRA’s “incrementalism” has gotten us the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Hughes Amendment. All their incrementalism at the federal level has been in the wrong direction.