SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    Hearing Protection Act Reintroduced January 2019
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Hearing Protection Act Reintroduced January 2019 Login/Join 
Raised Hands Surround Us
Three Nails To Protect Us
Picture of Black92LX
posted
https://www.thefirearmblog.com...on-act-reintroduced/

quote:
BREAKING: Hearing Protection Act Reintroduced to Congress
Posted 2 days ago in Breaking News, NFA / Suppressors / Class III by Matthew Moss with 118 Comments
Tags: American Suppressor Association, hearing protection act, HPA 2019

Hearing Protection Act
The Hearing Protection Act has been reintroduced to Congress by Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. The American Suppressor Association describe the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) of 2019 as “an enhanced version of previous” legislation introduced to Congress in 2015.

The HPA (2019) was introduced on the first day of the 116th Congress by Rep. Duncan who said:



The Hearing Protection Act is a commonsense bill that is important to all sportsmen and women across the country. Personally, I have experienced hearing damage from firearm noise, and I believe easier access to suppressors may have prevented much of this damage from early on in my life. Bottom line, this bill aims to fix this health issue that has already been addressed by many other countries. Now is the time to ensure sportsmen and women can have the safety and protection they need while hunting and shooting.

The previous legislation was introduced by Arizona’s Rep. Matt Salmon, who has since retired from politics. In January 2017, Rep. Duncan and Rep. John Carter co-sponsored the reintroduction of the ‘Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 367)’.

In a press release Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association (ASA), said that the ASA believes:

that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights. With anti-suppressor legislators now in control of the House, the path to passage of the HPA is now exponentially harder than it was before. It may take years, but we at ASA, along with Rep. Duncan and his tremendous staff, will not stop working until we get suppressors out of NFA where they belong.

The ASA explains that HPA (2019) broadly seeks equal treatment of suppressors and firearms and aims to:

remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.

The bill has not yet been registeredon Congress’ online archive but you can read the bill in full here.


Sure wish it would pass but I don’t see it happening.


--------------------------------------
Everybody’s got a blank page. A story they’re writing today. A wall that they’re climbing. You can carry the past on your shoulders.
Or you can start over.
Regrets, no matter what you goin’ through. Jesus, He gave it all to save you. He carried the cross on His shoulders. So you can start over.
~NF RealMusic~
 
Posts: 20439 | Registered: September 06, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The guy behind the guy
Picture of esdunbar
posted Hide Post
Not a chance, but this is how it works. You don’t introduce a bill and get it passed right away. It takes years of banging your head into the wall, then hopefully one day the stars align and you can push it through. But for the Vegas shooting, we might have gotten it done.

I’m glad to see the ASA continuing this process and encourage everyone to support them.


E.S. Dunbar
________________________________
I'm confused...wait, maybe I'm not.
 
Posts: 6943 | Location: Toledo, Ohio | Registered: April 19, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
The Fed gets $200 each time a suppressor is transferred to a non-dealer recipient. Does anyone here think that the government will give that up, despite the fact that they would help hearing health immensely? That other countries already do it without a massive crime wave? That use of suppressors in the commission of crimes is virtually nonexistent?

No, much as we want it, or the sense it makes, it won’t be happening.




" I'm very discreet. I have no code of ethics. I will kill anyone, anywhere. Children, animals, old people, doesn't matter. I just love killing."
Krombopulos Michael
 
Posts: 10230 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
^^^^^^^^

I'd be fine with building the $200 into the price of the suppressor if I could get one without the BS approval process.
 
Posts: 7909 | Location: The Red part of Minnesota | Registered: October 06, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Let’s see. The HPA didn’t even make it to the floor of the House when the Republicans were in charge for 2 years, so what are the odds that it will suddenly do much better now that the Democrats are in charge? Anyone laying down money?

Not a snowballs chance........
 
Posts: 1888 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
recovering ammoholic
Picture of jaybird86
posted Hide Post
Yea, lol.

Can't / Won't get it passed owning House/Senate/Presidency, lets put it up to a Dem controlled House, who will bury it in committee and then campaign on how we put it forward.

No chance in hell.


---------------------------------
How's your cardio?
Nature, alas, made only one being out of you although there was material for a good man and a rogue.” -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche
 
Posts: 1014 | Location: Overrun in Northern VA | Registered: January 01, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Um, … I don’t know.
Maybe they would support the bill and add something like an amendment banning >10-round magazines at the last second in hopes that no one would notice until after it’s passed. Isn’t that what happened to being able to register new machine guns?




“I can’t give you brains, but I can give you a diploma.”
— The Wizard of Oz
 
Posts: 39735 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I run trains!
Picture of SigM4
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
The Fed gets $200 each time a suppressor is transferred to a non-dealer recipient. Does anyone here think that the government will give that up, despite the fact that they would help hearing health immensely?


You’re working on the assumption that the cost of all the stamps each year more than pays for the NFA Branches expenses and then turns a profit. I’d suggest that it probably doesn’t.

Point of fact. In 2017, the most recent year that data is available here (page 12), the total number of taxable transfers (Form 1s and Form 4s) is 224,756 for a total take of $44,951,200. Knowing what we know about the spending habits of the federal government I’d be surprised if the NFA Branch operated annually for that amount. The ATF’s budget as a whole for 2017 was $1.258B.

The cost of the stamp isn’t the cash cow that folks think it is.



Success always occurs in private, and failure in full view.
 
Posts: 4426 | Location: Willow Park, TX | Registered: April 14, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SigM4:
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
The Fed gets $200 each time a suppressor is transferred to a non-dealer recipient. Does anyone here think that the government will give that up, despite the fact that they would help hearing health immensely?


You’re working on the assumption that the cost of all the stamps each year more than pays for the NFA Branches expenses and then turns a profit. I’d suggest that it probably doesn’t.

Point of fact. In 2017, the most recent year that data is available here (page 12), the total number of taxable transfers (Form 1s and Form 4s) is 224,756 for a total take of $44,951,200. Knowing what we know about the spending habits of the federal government I’d be surprised if the NFA Branch operated annually for that amount. The ATF’s budget as a whole for 2017 was $1.258B.

The cost of the stamp isn’t the cash cow that folks think it is.

I never said they turn a profit, I said they won’t give up the $200 per transfer.




" I'm very discreet. I have no code of ethics. I will kill anyone, anywhere. Children, animals, old people, doesn't matter. I just love killing."
Krombopulos Michael
 
Posts: 10230 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of mossyoak1
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
The Fed gets $200 each time a suppressor is transferred to a non-dealer recipient. Does anyone here think that the government will give that up, despite the fact that they would help hearing health immensely? That other countries already do it without a massive crime wave? That use of suppressors in the commission of crimes is virtually nonexistent?

No, much as we want it, or the sense it makes, it won’t be happening.



My thoughts exactly


“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson
 
Posts: 460 | Registered: March 19, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I think people are kidding themselves if they believe the reason that the HPA isn’t going anywhere is just because the government wants to give up the $200 fee. The reality is that, whether it’s right or not, the majority of people associate silencers with criminal activity. That’s something that’s been drilled into everyone’s conscious by movies and TV. Whenever you see a silencer in the media, it’s being used to silently kill another human being. You almost never see a silencer depicted as being used by a hunter or Target shooter to protect his or her hearing. The Dems and many squishy Reps have visions of the next Las Vegas shooter mowing a bunch of people down “silently” and no one knowing where it’s coming from.

The chances of ANY loosening of NFA in any near future is about zero. No Democrat, and most Republicans, is going to stand up and publicly state that everyone should have easy access to a machine gun or a silencer. Not happening.
 
Posts: 1888 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by MNSIG:
^^^^^^^^

I'd be fine with building the $200 into the price of the suppressor if I could get one without the BS approval process.


I don’t think the $200 is the big hold up, but if it was just keep the $200 “tax” for them... just don’t make us wait a year to own them...
 
Posts: 776 | Location: Arizona | Registered: January 31, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
When you fall, I will be there to catch you -With love, the floor
posted Hide Post
quote:
The ATF’s budget as a whole for 2017 was $1.258B.


The personnel that handle the form 1 & 4 doesn't include that many of the overall AFT employee base. Maybe 80 examiners? Support staff? Using databases and recourses already in place.

While not turning a huge profit, I'd bet they aren't losing money on the process either.


Richard Scalzo
Epping, NH

http://www.bigeastakitarescue.net
 
Posts: 5135 | Location: Epping, NH | Registered: October 16, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
There are 26 examiners. The NFA stamps bring in $31.8 MM annually. If you figure wages and benefits run $80K ( or more ) per examiner you are at a little over $2MM in employee costs. Add infrastructure to handle the requests and its unlikely anyone except the examiners themselves are making any money on this deal.
 
Posts: 24 | Registered: January 09, 2019Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'd be fine with paying 200 and getting it over the counter. As much as I'd love no regulation maybe a instant NICSish check so the examiners still keep their jobs?

With the Dems in I can't see this passing but fingers crossed.
 
Posts: 1916 | Location: Pnw | Registered: March 21, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
It has nothing to do with revenue for whoever gets the registration tax. If the suppressor rule was changed to an instant check, registration, and a $200 fee for over the counter purchase, the gummint would make multiple times the amount of money that they do now on the NFA registration. I myself would probably buy at least two more suppressors that I will not do as things are now. Such a change wouldn’t do anything besides increasing revenues except make gun owners happy and the antigun crowd livid.

It’s the last reason why nothing is likely to change.




“I can’t give you brains, but I can give you a diploma.”
— The Wizard of Oz
 
Posts: 39735 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
quarter MOA visionary
Picture of smschulz
posted Hide Post
quote:
....make gun owners happy and the antigun crowd livid.

It’s the last reason why nothing is likely to change.



This says it all, unfortunately. Frown
 
Posts: 16720 | Location: Houston, TX | Registered: June 11, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The background check is a farce anyway. Its a standard NICS level check done online by an ATF examiner when they process the paperwork. No different than the one your dealer does for a 4473. The whole process is just a stall tactic.
 
Posts: 24 | Registered: January 09, 2019Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Staring back
from the abyss
Picture of Gustofer
posted Hide Post
The whole process is a farce.

It should take about five minutes for anyone with half a brain to go through the application, verify that everything is up to snuff, and send out the stamp.

Yet...it takes them more time than a pregnancy.

Roll Eyes


________________________________________________________

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy." Winston Churchill
 
Posts: 16295 | Location: Montana | Registered: November 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The better chance is a pending SC case concerning regulation. The complaint was that BATFE writes, in effect, laws without the benefit of Congressional approval. The original law said buyers paid a fee and were registered, period. All the rest is added on crapola. If the case goes our way, a suppressor could be purchased at the store, with a fee paid and 5x8 card filled out and mailed to BATFE. Probably won't be resolved favorably, though, as it would impact too many agencies, such as EPA.
 
Posts: 14765 | Location: Lexington, KY | Registered: October 15, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    Hearing Protection Act Reintroduced January 2019

© SIGforum 2019