"Hearing Protection" bill introduced!

Lycanthrope

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Posts
6,197
Likes
1,186
Points
503
Location
Bismarck
If they can push some of this stuff through, gonna be a great 4 years for sportsmen!

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is pleased to announce the reintroduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) and Rep. John Carter (TX-31). This historic piece of legislation, which was originally introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) in the 114th Congress, will remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), replacing the antiquated federal transfer process with an instantaneous NICS background check. The HPA also includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchase a suppressor after October 22, 2015, which was the original date of introduction.
“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “We are thrilled for the opportunity to work with Representatives Duncan and Carter, who have reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act in this new Congress. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working on the Duncan-Carter bill, alongside the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation to advance and ultimately enact this common-sense legislation.”
For the full release click HERE:
 
Last edited:


labhunter66

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Posts
549
Likes
27
Points
168
Anybody that has heard a suppressed firearm knows things are not like the movies. Before voting on this bill, every member of congress should have to listen to a suppressed weapon so they can know that they are not "silencers" in the movie sense. The best thing about this is that you could then, hopefully, just go into the store and buy one and not have to wait the 3-6 months for it. I think it would also introduce more competition and hopefully force the prices down a little bit.
 

Retired Educator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2016
Posts
3,226
Likes
183
Points
273
Location
North Dakota
I have no reason to be against the use of suppressors but find it a stretch to use Hearing Protection as the primary reason for the change. For me purchasing and using Ear Muffs or some other form of hearing protection would be much cheaper and can be used with every firearm I own. Installing a suppressor on every firearm is a stretch.

Not against suppressors, but don't stretch the reasoning is what I'm thinking.
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,240
Likes
1,973
Points
648
Location
Mobridge,Sd
It is the reasoning its also not just for you the neighbors do not have to hear the noise either
 

Lycanthrope

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 6, 2015
Posts
6,197
Likes
1,186
Points
503
Location
Bismarck
I have no reason to be against the use of suppressors but find it a stretch to use Hearing Protection as the primary reason for the change. For me purchasing and using Ear Muffs or some other form of hearing protection would be much cheaper and can be used with every firearm I own. Installing a suppressor on every firearm is a stretch.

Not against suppressors, but don't stretch the reasoning is what I'm thinking.

Why do you think people buy suppressors? That is the main benefit....
 


espringers

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Posts
8,173
Likes
881
Points
428
Location
Devils Lake
according to the movies... its to prevent the neighbors from hearing when you sneak up behind people and shoot them in the back of the head in an apartment. pretty sure that's why all of my friends have them anyway. :;:huh:confused:
 

H82bogey

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Posts
1,890
Likes
15
Points
216
Location
Bismarck
I hope so "common sense" gun control gets passed. This would be a great start!!!
 

labhunter66

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Posts
549
Likes
27
Points
168
I have no reason to be against the use of suppressors but find it a stretch to use Hearing Protection as the primary reason for the change. For me purchasing and using Ear Muffs or some other form of hearing protection would be much cheaper and can be used with every firearm I own. Installing a suppressor on every firearm is a stretch.

Not against suppressors, but don't stretch the reasoning is what I'm thinking.

That is 100% of the reason I bought one for my AR. When I'm out coyote hunting or shooting prairie dogs I want to be able to hear what's going on around me and not have to wear cumbersome ear muffs to protect my hearing. I might not buy one for my deer or elk rifle because I don't know if the extra length or weight would be worth it for those guns given that I'm only planning on shooting one round while hunting and I still bring muffs to the range because others don't have suppressors. If it's a stretch to using hearing protection as the primary reason for the change, what do you think the primary reason for the change is?
 

Obi-Wan

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
7,496
Likes
2,526
Points
678
Location
Bismarck
Do you use hearing protection while hunting?

You can use the same suppressor on multiple guns they screw on and off easily. The one I am waiting for is for a 308 or smaller.

Now you can by a barrel with the suppressor built into the barrel for a 22 Maybe with this legislation they might start making them for other calibers because they will be available to a very large pool of buyers.

I have no reason to be against the use of suppressors but find it a stretch to use Hearing Protection as the primary reason for the change. For me purchasing and using Ear Muffs or some other form of hearing protection would be much cheaper and can be used with every firearm I own. Installing a suppressor on every firearm is a stretch.

Not against suppressors, but don't stretch the reasoning is what I'm thinking.
 
Last edited:

SupressYourself

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Posts
2,012
Likes
420
Points
333
Location
Not where I'd like to be
I have no reason to be against the use of suppressors but find it a stretch to use Hearing Protection as the primary reason for the change.

Suppressors only do two things:
1. Reduce the sound
2. Reduce the recoil

Would you rather they push it as the "Shoulder Protection Act" or the "Make Guns Cooler Act"?
I've shot suppressed for years, and I don't think it's a "stretch" at all. Being able to shoot without the hassle of ear protection and not worry about losing my hearing is mainly what I'm after.
Also, as this is worded, it may even appeal to some liberals, which will be required to get it passed.
 
Last edited:


luvcatchingbass

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Posts
3,510
Likes
237
Points
313
Location
SE ND.
If you go to a shooting range which would you prefer from other shooters if you remove your hearing protection to talk to someone. Unmodified, muzzle brake, or suppressor? I can see this being a valid reason as well, even though I don't go to public shooting ranges myself.
 

Lycanthrope

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
May 6, 2015
Posts
6,197
Likes
1,186
Points
503
Location
Bismarck
Suppressors only do two things:
1. Reduce the sound
2. Reduce the recoil

Would you rather they push it as the "Shoulder Protection Act" or the "Make Guns Cooler Act"?
I've shot suppressed for years, and I don't think it's a "stretch" at all. Being able to shoot without the hassle of ear protection and not worry about losing my hearing is mainly what I'm after.
Also, as this is worded, it may even appeal to some liberals, which will be required to get it passed.

bill...
I already sent HH a message and encourage others to do the same. Ditto for the CC reciprocity
 

lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,957
Likes
2,965
Points
748
Location
Cavalier, ND
according to the movies... its to prevent the neighbors from hearing when you sneak up behind people and shoot them in the back of the head in an apartment. pretty sure that's why all of my friends have them anyway. :;:huh:confused:
:;:exactly
PS except for the friends part everyone knows lawyers don't have friends just past clients grin
 
Last edited:

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,240
Likes
1,973
Points
648
Location
Mobridge,Sd
bill...
I already sent HH a message and encourage others to do the same. Ditto for the CC reciprocity


sending emails for 2 years now hopefully something will get done. this was the 2nd most viewed bill last year so people are watching
 

Norske

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
600
Likes
5
Points
143
Location
Moorhead, MN
I volunteer at the 100 yard indoor rifle range in West Fargo. There's still the sonic boom of any bullet fast enough to break the speed of sound. Since the entire range is concrete, we can hear the crack. But it's a lot quieter than the sound of a 25-06, which seems to penetrate even the best of muffs. Muffs are effective around my 45-70, but internal organs get shaken by that one.
 


Retired Educator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2016
Posts
3,226
Likes
183
Points
273
Location
North Dakota
As I stated earlier, I don't have a problem with suppressors. They do what they are designed to do, reduce the noise of the gun. The point I was trying to make is the hearing protection angle. The average citizen who is not a gun owner or shooter, I'm thinking, really has no interest in your hearing. Gun haters would prefer that you go deaf, or more precisely, hope that you shoot yourself.

I'm thinking that a more realistic approach is to show the non-gun owner where they would benefit from suppressors. Gun ranges wouldn't bother them as they wouldn't hear the shooting. In cities where Canada Geese are becoming a problem, perhaps shooting would be allowed closer to a housing development if you weren't waking the residents up at 6am. Find a way to show how suppressors benefit everyone.

I agree with all the benefits to you and me, I'm thinking of finding a way for Joe Blow citizen to see the advantage to him. You cannot argue that facts are usually not very important to some people it's the perception that they believe. If they perceive that suppressors are a benefit to them they are more likely to support a change.
 

svnmag

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
16,880
Likes
2,397
Points
773
Location
Here
I'm still worried they'll become mandatory.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 166
  • This month: 136
  • This month: 121
  • This month: 110
  • This month: 105
  • This month: 88
  • This month: 84
  • This month: 79
  • This month: 76
  • This month: 76
Top Bottom