bikemutt
Member
I wrote all my congress persons asking them to support the Hearing Protection Act. They all got back to me, this one stood out.
I'm just wondering what to think about his response.
What is the nature of suppressors that would allow criminals to use them with devastating effect?
The Act, as far as I know, would still require a background check to buy a suppressor. Then, you have to have a suppressor host, a gun, another item requiring a background check. I always thought background checks prevented criminals from acquiring guns (and suppressors). So now we're down to removing a $200 barrier to entry, and an 8 month wait, for someone who can't pass a background check.
I'm exasperated.
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.
The Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367, was recently reintroduced by Representative Jeff Duncan. The bill would remove suppressors from the list of items regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Current regulations, mandated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, require buyers of suppressors to apply for a permit from the ATF, pay a $200 tax, and pass a separate ATF background check. This legislation was also introduced in the previous 114th Congress as H.R. 3799, sponsored by former Representative Salmon.
While I respect and acknowledge that there exists a legitimate use of suppressors for hearing protection in recreational shooting, and the use of them for some legitimate sporting purposes, I would not cosponsor legislation such as H.R. 367. Suppressors, by their very nature, can be used by criminals with devastating effect. H.R. 367 would increase the availability of suppressors, as well as the potential for their misuse. I believe that enforcement of existing laws works to prevent gun violence while ensuring law-abiding Americans enjoy their Second Amendment rights.
I'm just wondering what to think about his response.
What is the nature of suppressors that would allow criminals to use them with devastating effect?
The Act, as far as I know, would still require a background check to buy a suppressor. Then, you have to have a suppressor host, a gun, another item requiring a background check. I always thought background checks prevented criminals from acquiring guns (and suppressors). So now we're down to removing a $200 barrier to entry, and an 8 month wait, for someone who can't pass a background check.
I'm exasperated.