Representative Ben Cline (R-VA) has introduced the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) in the House of Representatives. The bill would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
The first suppressor, also known as a silencer, was introduced in 1892 in Switzerland by Jakob Stahel to kill cattle. Two years later, another Swiss inventor, C.A. Aeppli, patented a different design. The first commercially successful suppressor was introduced in 1902 by American Hiram Percy Maxim. He was granted a patent in 1909. Twenty-five years later, suppressors were heavily regulated by Congress under the NFA.
The NFA requires registration and a $200 fee for a tax stamp. Until recently, it took up to a year for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to approve an NFA application. Due to changes in methods, the ATF is now processing NFA applications in days instead of months. But what makes suppressors so dangerous?
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
Dead Air Odessa 9 Modular Suppressor | Rainier Arms | $ 759.00 |
|
|
Dead Air KeyMo Zero .30 Suppressor Mount - 1/2x28 | GunMag Warehouse | $ 87.99 |
|
|
|
Dead Air Armament 1/2-28 Piston for Ghost-M Multi-Caliber Pistol/Subgun Suppressor - DA401 | Palmetto State Armory | $ 76.99 $ 68.99 |
|
|
Dead Air MOJAVE9 Mojave 9 Modular 9mm Suppressor w/ 1/2-28 Piston | Shooters Choice | $ 1099.00 $ 1029.99 |
|
The answer is that suppressors are not dangerous at all and could be seen as a safety device. Thanks to Hollywood, there is a misconception that suppressors make a firearm totally silent. This belief is untrue. Suppressors do not make a gun silent. They cut down on the decibel levels of a firearm firing a bullet, which helps protect the user’s hearing. In many countries in Europe where guns are heavily regulated, suppressors are sold as accessories, and it is seen as rude to shoot without one.
The Hearing Protection Act (HPA) would remove suppressors from the NFA and make it easier for gun owners to protect their hearing. This session of Congress isn’t the first time the bill has been introduced, but this is the best chance for it to pass. It should make it through the House of Representatives without an issue. It has heavy support from the Republican side of the aisle, which has a majority in the House.
The Senate will be the real test for the bill. Although Republicans have a majority in the upper chamber of Congress, the Senate requires a super-majority for anything to pass due to the filibuster. This requirement means seven Democrats must break from their party line to vote for the bill. Democrats are heavily swayed by groups like Giffords, Brady, Moms Demand Action, and Everytown. All these groups have opposed the HPA in the past.
If the bill passes the Senate, it will go to the president’s desk to sign into law or veto. In years past, President Biden would have vetoed the bill without hesitation, but if the HPA passes during this session of Congress, Donald Trump will once again be the President. The President is expected to sign the bill if it makes it to his desk.
The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is celebrating the bill’s introduction. The ASA bills itself as the “unified voice of the suppressor community.” It represents the industry and users. The ASA is involved in a high-profile lawsuit in Illinois trying to force the state to allow suppressors for their citizens. It has been fighting for the deregulation of suppressors for years.
“The Hearing Protection Act is the epitome of commonsense legislation,” said ASA President and Executive Director Knox Williams. “Law-abiding citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing when they exercise their Second Amendment rights. The American Suppressor Association applauds Rep. Cline for his leadership and willingness to fight for the rights of gun owners across the United States.”
This bill is one of a handful of pro-gun bills being introduced in this session of Congress. The other pro-gun bills would abolish the ATF, repeal the NFA, and establish national concealed carry reciprocity.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Who is going to head the CDC, EPA and HHS? Educate them and let them testify in Congress supporting the bill. Let the Dems and Rinos beclown themselves on C-SPAN. (Again.) Some few new members may be teachable.
Suppresser are a 21 first century must in this day and age protecting your hearing is important while protecting the shooter’s around you. The ATF has made this about money and compliance when it is clearly a safety factor for all shooters. People have been watching to many movies silencers used in nefarious ways.
How about every new rifle comes with a suppresser to protect hearing and to make shooting more enjoyable at the range. That would be common sence in todays world like seat belts in cars, again it is all about money and compliance.
I read the posted copy of the bill. It mandates the destruction of any lists of silencers owners, a good idea, but what’s missing is directions for refunding the $200.00 tax paid per unit. It seems like we’re due a refund if this passes and is signed into law.
They also did not address the Trusts many if not all of us established when we purchased each unit, will they become null and void?
It’s a bit late to protect my pwn hearing, but it’s important for all the younger gun nutz coming along. Call or email your congresscritter.
Suppressors, SBR’s and machine guns are all in common use, owned by over 200,000, the SCOTUS’ rule for “in common use”. Thus, they are not “dangerous & unusual”, the requirement to be included in the unconstitutional NFA. THEREFORE, all three must immediately be removed from that POS infringement, by the courts. Congress is useless and corrupt, and won’t even pass this bill.
With the GOP in control of DC, it will be difficult for any of them to find an excuse to vote against it, and for Trump to sign it, if it makes it to him.
Though I doubt the Senate would get 7 Dems to vote for it.