Hearing Protection Act Reintroduced January 2019

January 08, 2019, 08:01 AM

Black92LX

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.

January 08, 2019, 08:07 AM

esdunbar

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.

January 08, 2019, 09:11 AM

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.

January 08, 2019, 09:23 AM

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.

January 09, 2019, 07:37 PM

Dwill104

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........

January 11, 2019, 05:11 PM

jaybird86

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.

January 11, 2019, 07:03 PM

sigfreund

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?

January 11, 2019, 09:05 PM

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.

January 11, 2019, 09:15 PM

gearhounds

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.

January 12, 2019, 11:36 AM

mossyoak1

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

January 12, 2019, 06:20 PM

Dwill104

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.

January 18, 2019, 08:26 AM

Kskelton

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...

January 18, 2019, 09:43 AM

rscalzo

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.

January 18, 2019, 01:24 PM

MKUltra

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.

January 23, 2019, 05:57 PM

Anubismp

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.

January 23, 2019, 09:11 PM

sigfreund

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.

January 25, 2019, 12:32 PM

smschulz

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.

January 28, 2019, 12:15 AM

MKUltra

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.

January 28, 2019, 01:54 AM

Gustofer

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.

June 05, 2019, 08:45 AM

Fredward

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.