SILENCE! Hearing Protection Act Puts Suppressors Back in Play
Q: What’s the most common word at the shooting range? A: “Huh?”
American shooters who are still able to experience the entire upper and lower registers of their hearing, rejoice: The Hearing Protection Act is back in play. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry trade association, proudly welcomes U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo’s (R-Idaho) reintroduction of the Hearing Protection Act. The legislation, S. 2050, is co-sponsored by 14 additional senators, all of whom are aware that it is remarkably silly to treat a device that is nothing more than a muffler as if it were a fully automatic weapon. Instead, these 15 senators are asking to have silencers treated with the same level of regulation as handguns.
Excuse me?
Perhaps the confusion comes in because Hiram Maxim’s perfection of the full-auto design first envisioned by Leonardo da Vinci came right around the same time that Maxim invented the suppressor. Despite the fact that silencers are less useful as weapons than the muffler on your car–which at least has some heft to it and could cause damage if thrown–they’re still extremely tightly regulated in 42 states and illegal to own in the rest.
Come again?
The Hearing Protection Act, which was introduced by Sen. Crapo in previous Congressional sessions, would reclassify suppressors to regulate them like traditional firearms by removing them from the 1934 National Firearms Act. That would cease the overly-burdensome federal transfer process with an instantaneous National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check, making the purchasing and transfer process for suppressors equal to the process for a rifle or shotgun. The legislation would also tax suppressors under the Pittman-Robertson Act instead of the National Firearms Act, putting more funding into state wildlife conservation agencies.
What was that?
The Hearing Protection Act would not change any laws in states that already prevent suppressor use or ownership, nor does it eliminate background check requirements. Suppressors are legal to own in 42 states and 40 states allow them for hunting. Similar legislation, H.R. 95, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.).
A little louder, please? Sorry.
“This legislation to remove burdensome regulations surrounding an accessory to a firearm is long overdue. The firearm industry is grateful to Senator Crapo for his continued leadership to enable safer recreational shooting and hunting to be more accessible to law-abiding gun owners,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The Hearing Protection Act would reduce unnecessary barriers to what is essentially a muffler for a firearm that enables more accurate marksmanship and allows shooting ranges to be better neighbors. Suppressors were originally listed under the National Firearms Act over poaching concerns during the Great Depression, but that never bore out. They reduce the report of a firearm from a level equal to a jet taking off to one similar to that of a jackhammer. Firearm suppressors are a safety device designed to make recreational shooting safer.”
As my father used to say, “There are more horses asses than there are horses.”
Take even a cursory glance at Congress for confirmation.
The “members,” — another word for “pricks” — that are not in collusion with those consciously striving to eliminate ALL of our rights, are just too stupid to realize that they are being manipulated.
Sad, but true.
The only reason why sound suppressors were added to the illegal 1934 gun control act, was because some joker with the fish and Dept. Had a senator for a friend and told him to add suppressors to the bill as it would stop all poaching. What nonsense. During the Depression, many families were without food, starving, and took to poaching to feed their families. I serious doubt that they would spend any extra money ( which they didn’t have) to purchase a suppressor.. By the way, did all poaching stop forever? Of course not. There are poaching rings today.
Again this is what happens when you have politicians who know absolutely nothing about firearms and accessories passing illogical laws.
Suppressors were used by target shooters, plinkers and those who want to protect their hearing. I know two men in their 70’s who lost their hearing and had to spend $4,500 to purchase expensive hearing aides. If suppressors were available this would not have happened.
Also the 1934 gun control act should be repealed. This was passed because a fringe group ( sound familiar?) hated alcohol and told the politicians to band all alcohol and life would be peaches and cream. Of course, we know how that turned out. So much money was to be made running illegal booze, bootleggers popped up along with the mob. Underground bars popped up. Everyone went to them along with the politicians who voted for Probition It turned into a big joke. Soon gun battles over territory erupted. People complained to the politicians and said ” you have to do something”, (again sound familiar?) so the politicians and FDR passed the illegal 1934 gun control act, coping Hitler who said ” guns and gold are enemies of the state”, Several in FDR administration wanted to ban all handguns too. FDR banned private ownership of gold blaming the ordinary people for the depression, when it was caused by FDR buddies in the stock market and speculation.
The thing that eventually stopped the bootleggers and bank robbers was they got shot or were arrested and had long prison terms. Unlike today, where certain politicians want to defund- abolish the police. Maybe if they stopped listening to a bunch of loud mouth radical criminals and let the police do their work, crime wouldn’t be as it is.
And the Border Patrol has no more room for all the illegals coming up from Central America and are putting them on busses and planes and sending them to major cities. And so the crime rate goes up, Biden says they can’t be arrested or deported because they are “citizens”. And they blame the crime increase on law abiding gun owners.
Since we no longer have bootleggers riding on sideboards of cars, it’s time to repeal the illegal Hitler 1934 gun control act.
Support and protect your right to keep and own all types of firearms and accessories.
Don’t allow gun banning groups who are run and funded by Micheal Bloomberg, George Soros, the Chinese government, the U.N. and Russia to restrict and ban firearms in America.
Illegally passed NFA is correct. Just as all other anti-gun legislation is illegal, unlawful and constitutionally prohibited by the Second Amendment. The truth of the matter is that the government completely and totally lacks the lawful authority to regulate the firearms industry, and the reason for this statement being true can be easily understood by just the reading the following:
Under our system of law, once a document is amended, the new provisions, conditions and the directives of the amendment override and supersede all that came before it. And that furthermore, if there are any areas of conflict or dispute between what is in the original document and what is in the amendment, it is always the provisions and the directives of the amendment that shall and must prevail. In any and all contract dispute cases, this is how the courts have always ruled and continue to rule to this very day… And we must not forget nor overlook the fact that our Constitution is in fact also a covenant and has been considered such from day one. And so our U.S. Constitution is therefore in fact also subject to the same rules of contract law.
With that in mind, the Founding Fathers used a very clear command directive in the Second Amendment that was intended to override and supersede everything and anything that the government may attempt to rely upon for their claim of authority to regulate the firearms industry. And because only a new amendment can change the provisions of an existing amendment; Until such time as a new amendment is passed that specifically addresses firearms, the Second Amendment stands unaltered and as originally written and with its original meaning and with the force of its command directive that very clearly states, “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall NOT be infringed”. In fact, the use of the word “SHALL” or in the negative, “SHALL NOT” implies mandatory and compulsory and thereby removes and eliminates all discretion and also makes clear that it is not subject to any reinterpretation of its very clear meaning. The truth of the matter is that any anti-gun law or regulation seeking to prohibit or license firearms in America is in fact a direct infringement on the command directive contained in the Second Amendment. Furthermore, in the first words of the Second Amendment its very purpose is clearly stated… and there are clearly NO requirements for guns to have a so-called “sporting purpose”. In fact, ‘arms’ are any weapon that can be used for war by individual Americans to defend the country and the Constitution from outside enemies and/or from enemies within our country. And so even if the Founding Fathers would have ever in any way entertained the wild and crazy notion of including any such requirement for there to be a so-called “sporting purpose” attached to the Right of the people to keep and bear arms, I have no doubt that the only sporting purpose they would have entertained or in any way considered would have been the shooting of tyrants!
Understand also that history supports this notion that only by a constitutional amendment can the Constitution or any of its amendments be altered or reinterpreted or changed in any way. And one clear example of this is the fact that it took passing the 18th Amendment to ban alcohol in order to bring about the era of Prohibition. And that once the mistake of Prohibition was realized, it then took the passing of another amendment (the 21st Amendment) in order to put an end to Prohibition. Any new act that would have been passed by the Congress or any presidential executive order intended to end Prohibition would have been wholly insufficient to have lawfully accomplished this task as the 18th Amendment had made Prohibition “the supreme law of the land”. And that as a result of passing the 18th Amendment, this clearly made it a requirement that in order to make any kind of formal change in the future to the manner in which Prohibition was enforced or reinterpreted, that a constitutional amendment would first be required in order to proceed with changing or altering any part of Prohibition. The Constitution is very clear that only via the constitutional amendment process can the Constitution be changed. And the constitutional amendment process was put into the Constitution in order to guarantee that each and every state would have an equal vote and an equal say in matters having to do with any proposed changes or radical re-interpretations to the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers would have been of mind to accept and had intended that our Constitution could be altered and reinterpreted by the Legislature or the Supreme Court or by presidential executive orders, then they would not have included the very specific manner in which the Constitution could be amended by including Article V of the Constitution.
Much more could be said on why government lacks authority to regulate firearms. But in summary, regardless of what the government may rely on for their claim of authority, the amendment overrides, supersedes and trumps everything in the original document. And that is the argument that has yet to be made in any case involving individual gun Rights or firearms regulations.
I’ve always been fairly careful about protecting my hearing when making loud noises, I.E. shooting, flying airplanes, riding motorcycles, even doing carpentry. My hearing is still somewhat impaired, but several hundred thousand shots could have had rather less effect if I had only had suppressors. In France, I saw them for sale in gun shops everywhere and the French are known to appreciate them, since the sharp Crack! is diminished when shooting game or pests. Why can’t we understand this here?
I’m holding my breath in anticipation of this law passing a Democrat controlled House and Senate. Especially considering the idiot Republicans couldn’t manage to pass the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 when they had both houses and a willing President.
This is why we need term limits.
Damn straight we do! Good luck with that actually happening, though…
Its called “The Convention of States”, check it out. We the People can change the Constitution and make Term Limits and fiscal responsibility by the federal gov. REQUIRED! Check the website.
Unfortunately the Convention of States as written into the Constitution is not held to dealing with just one fact of the Constitution. The original Articles of Confederation were completely scrapped by the Convention of States even though the representatives were supposed to just make changes to the Articles.
A Convention of States can go wherever the elected representatives want it to go, even scrapping the existing Constitution.
Exactly, it opens the entire can of worms, not just the issue(s) you want changed…..
The use of locators by local PD’s to determine when and where a firearm has been discharged is the biggest objection to the use of lawful silencers. Personally, whenever I need to make a silent hit I tape an empty 2-liter root beer bottle to the muzzle and “Pffftt!” no muss, no fuss.
There are only a few big cities in the USA where locators are employed. And the locators in those cities have had absolutely no credible impact on crime. As a retired California police chief, I do not recall a single incident where a suppressor was employed in a crime in my community. The fact is, the majority of criminals prefer easily concealed handguns over long guns for their nefarious activities. The added length a suppressor adds to a handgun isn’t worth the slight gain of decibel reduction. I own two suppressors and an integrally suppressed 9mm pistol. With the exception of my .22 suppressor, mounted on my bolt action, shooting sub .22, a locator would have no problem registering the suppressed report. The “Hollywood”version of suppressed fire is laughable. The argument that deregulating suppressors will result in a nation of “hitmen” is as laughable as Hollywood!
I have diminished hearing in my left ear. Why? because I have thickening of my ear drum, the ear closest to my riffle muzzle. I’m 74 years old and hunted, shot rifle competition, and always used ear protection. Even so, it wasn’t enough to prevent my diminished hearing. Just like seat belts are now mandatory so should ear protection. It doesn’t take a genius to save your hearing but, you do have to be smart if you want to hear at 70 like you did as a teen.
Common sense that should have been done a long time ago. Having been hunting since my childhood and serving in The Military for 20 years, my hearing is so bad in my right ear that I have to have a special hearing test where they hook me to a computer and put electrodes by my temples and behind my ears. If I did one of the regular button tests in the soundproof box they would have to turn the levels up so much that I would hear it with my left ear on about half the test.
. The whole NFA list and The ATF should be done away at this point. They have been infringing on our God given rights that are reaffirmed in The Constitution for a long time. Looking back I can not think of 1 positive thing the ATF has done for law abiding citizens but can think of plenty examples where they have harmed people and trampled on their rights.
People should be held accountable for their actions who commit crimes using guns and stop infringing on law abiding citizens rights.
At least part, and maybe all, of the ATF should be disbanded, I agree.. How did they ever decide to link two vices to a right, which as you stated, and was upheld by a Supreme Court decision, that it’s a God-given right, affirmed by the Constitution? That indicates an unpatriotic bias against the 2nd Amendment from the get-go by the ATF, formerly BATF.. So many people think the 2nd Amendment gave us this right, but like you articulated, the Constitution (and the Supreme Court) did not confer the right, but merely affirmed it as a God-given right. That’s even a stronger emphasis in favor of the right, because how can anyone repeal a God-given right? No wonder the liberals want to deny the existence of God.
The one thing I don’t fully agree with in the article is the statement that suppressors enable more accurate shooting. I can see it might help folks who flinch in anticipation of the noise and maybe even from anticipating the recoil, since you need to use light, sub-sonic loads to optimize the suppressors affect of reducing noise. Most of this accuracy benefit would likely be restricted to handguns, since the added weight of an effective suppressor on the longer barrel of a rifle, would adversely affect accuracy. Firstly, the sub-sonic rounds would lack the same accuracy of a normal hi-power round. In addition, the weight of the suppressor would actually create a slight bend on the barrel, adding several inches in loss of trajectory to the first shot. Secondly, as each shot heats up the barrel, the bend increases, causing even more adverse affect on the accuracy. The bend in the barrel may not be visible, but I personally have experienced several inches of added drop at as little as 100 yards with a 30-06. Sighting in for the drop is still a stab in the dark, due the trajectory changing with each subsequent shot. This particular suppressor was made and registered by a friend who made it a college physics project, probably in the 50’s. I got to try it out in the 70’s while hunting prairie dogs. The sound reduction was impressive at the time, but the detrimental effect to accuracy kind of negated the practicality of it.
That said, the benefits of suppressors used on handguns would be a different story, The shorter barrel would not be able to bend as much as a rifle barrel, plus the sound level would show a more drastic reduction, In short, I don’t believe suppressors should be so regulated or even outlawed, whether for handguns or long guns, but their practical benefit, in my opinion, is limited to use on handguns.
Wow would I love this! I have a 60 db loss in both ears due largely to shooting, and have a constant ringing in my ears. I wear foam ear plugs in addition to my muffs and still notice problems when I shoot. Hollywood makes silenced guns out like they just produce a whisper instead of simply a less-loud bang., Perhaps a PSA encouraging the use of silencers would help.
If I can get a small film crew together and a sponsorship I will make that PSA! I would gladly do it. Silencer Central, would you care to help us out?
The only level of thinking our government uses, is crime, or things that they think the public is going to use against them, or to them…….If a gun is quiet, it is so a crime can be done and unnoticed. Safety never comes into the equation…
I, too suffer from profound hearing loss. I would purchase suppressors for my firearms if I could without bending a knee to the empire. It would sure help save the hearing of friends, family and fellow shooters. Maybe OSHA should get involved.
I’ve been shooting guns since I was 7 maybe 8 years old I now have severe hearing loss and have been since I was in my twenties iam 58 years old now so silences for guns would have been great My dad is 80 years old he served in the army for 23 years he taught me to shoot and the safety of shooting he to is almost deaf from shooting and artillery when in Vietnam so yes to silences
Thank you for your service🙏🏻