Hearing protection act

Not open for further replies.
I really hope this goes through even though I don't think it has a chance in hell. And that pisses me off. Do you know why? It pisses me off because we shouldn't even be having to go about it this way. We should be dictating to the gov what we as a collective group want, not the other way around. At the end of the day, we are their bosses and as taxpayers are their money base. Yes, I know they could raise taxes or lobby to print more money which in the end hurts us either way. I realize all of that and that's even more reason why we should be pushing back. If every NFA owner wanted change it would be pretty simple to have it done overnight. All it would take is every NFA owner to March on DC and shut the city down in some key areas and I bet we would have a voice pretty dang fast. The problem is you have too many people that are too damn lazy and then there are those that still think voting works. Sorry, I am a little jaded and am tired of getting trampled on in many ways, not to mention in ways in which the 2A is concerned. I say we organize a march to help push this thing through. Yes, I know people are busy but that's exactly what they are counting on to continue to cram crap down our throats. If you want change, it's time to start working for it and that means more than just writing your senator and expecting the NRA to fight your battles.

Who would be up for an organized march to DC?
Last edited:
Without the tax stamp and waiting period and other crazy restrictions they will be cheaper to make and sell. Also the market will grow for silencers causing prices to drop and more companies will start making them which means more competition, which means better silencers for less money. That sounds pretty good to me.
That's the way I see it too. If a firearm requires a 4473 but you can make your own legally, a suppressor only requiring only a 4473 would also allow you to make your own. I'm not sure that I'd attempt making one from scratch, but those "solvent traps" that sell for $50-60 seem like they'd be easy to machine.
It can, and has changed at the state level. Suppressors were illegal in my state only a few years ago. Today, we have full NFA allowance.

In Michigan, we got it by Attorney General Opinion, not legislation. The law says something about people must be appropriately licensed to own a suppressor and Bill Scheutte determined that the NFA paperwork process fulfilled that. While a 4473 may be argued to fulfill that under this law, a DIY suppressor with no 4473 would likely not.

Anyone thinking that items were included in the NFA for some reason should remember that originally all handguns were supposed to be NFA items! Add to that arbitrary barrel length restrictions. The reason anything was included in the NFA was to stop the people from having firearms, plain and simple!
Suppressors were added to the NFA due to poaching during the Great Depression.

I think the timing of this bill is poor due to the recent shootings, and that it doesn't stand a chance of passing.

That being said, I'm glad it's coming up at the national stage, and I'm glad it's one of my representatives.
I went ahead and sent an e-mail to my representative, Democrat Ben Ray Lujan (I don't dare call him honorable), regarding this bill:

Good Afternoon:

I am writing to you today to ask you to support the Hearing Protection Act introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05).

As it stands today, there are numerous hurdles to clear and red tape to go through in order to obtain a simple firearm safety device. I am referring to firearm suppressors (commonly known as silencers).

In many countries, such as New Zealand, France, and even the United Kingdom, suppressors are no more regulated than firearms themselves. In fact, their use and ownership is even encouraged to protect hearing and seen as a courtesy to neighbors, much the same as mufflers are with automobiles.

It seems strange that we, as a country, require a person to go through significant legal hurdles and a pay a prohibitive tax to own a common-sense safety device.

For these reasons, as a constituent, I would like to encourage you to support our neighbor, Rep. Matt Salmon, in bringing this common-sense gun-safety legislation to fruition.

Thank you for your time.

I wonder what kind of canned response I'm going to get...
The Hearing Protection Act

There is currently bill out in the House by Rep. Matt Salmon. It would take the silencers off the NFA list and make them into a regular firearm. So no ATF registration, no 200 dollar tax, no 6 month waiting time. Just regular, NICS, back ground check.
Can you please take few minutes and write to your representative and ask him to support this bill?

Here is a link to find your rep:

Last edited:
I sent my email. Here it is. Feel free to edit it and send it to your rep. We need all the help we can get to make this possible!!

I am writing you today in hopes that you will consider having a part in passing the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 3799) that was introduced by Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon. This Act will remove firearm suppressors from the NFA list. By allowing suppressors to be purchased without the wait for a tax stamp will help recreational shooters to maintain a safer environment while enjoying the sport of competitive and target shooting. Removing suppressors from the NFA will certainly have a positive impact on the Kansas economy as well. There are hundreds of people who would buy suppressor if it were not for the long drawn out FBI background check performed by the BATFE. The Government already performs a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check in order to ensure a person is allowed to own a firearm. It is my proposition that the same be done for firearm suppressors. Please give thought to your Kansas economy and show your support in favor of H.R. 3799 when it comes your time to make your decision. Thank you.
Love it!

Also would love to see SBR's no longer restricted. A 12" Marlin trapper in .44 magnum would be a great defensive gun against predatory animals.
Great email live13. Thanks. I hope we can get this passed. It will make silencers explode in popularity. Just need to stay with it and hope comommon sense prevails.
Hey good for those who contact their reps. I am not going to waste my time, my rep is about as anti gun as they come. He will probably send DHS after me if I dare send a pro gun letter.

For the rest of you in friendly territory, call, write, do what you can. I will forward this info to people in non communist controlled areas of the USA.
yes, spread the word, really hoping common sense will prevail!
I also wrote to popular you tube channels that do gun stuff and asked them to make a video in support of the HPA.
I just got an email from popvox. HR 3799 (The Hearing Protection Act) is the "most active bill on popvox" right now.
Anyone want to place odds it would be signed into law during this administration?

Put background checks into the mix and I'm quite certain it could get passed during this administration. As a stand-alone bill, not likely.
So, who here would trade universal background checks in exchange for for the relatively small silencer group's benefit? In any case, who here truly believes that the president would allow anything that makes silencers easier to obtain to become law? Even with universal background checks, semiautomatic bans, and full registration in trade, I seriously doubt he would make that deal.
I made some revisions to the sample letter above, and sent it to my Congressman as a health topic instead of a gun topic. He might read it that way.
I'd love to see them booted from NFA, but don't believe they should be classified as a firearm of any type. I can buy a lawnmower muffler in a blister pack hanging on the rack at the hardware store.... a gun muffler shouldn't be treated differently.

I've always felt that the health angle was the way to go on this. This is one instance where we can use the "they do it this way in Europe" argument to our benefit.
Appears we have allies in the Senate,
Dear Mr. barnbwt,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Hearing Protection Act of 2015 (H.R. 3799). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

As you may know, H.R. 3799 was introduced in the House of Representatives on October 22, 2015. This legislation would remove sound suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (P.L. 73-474) and ensure that purchasing a firearm suppressor is treated the same as purchasing a long gun. You may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should a Senate companion to H.R. 3799 or other relevant legislation be considered during the 114th Congress.

As a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe it is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.

It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has upheld the will of our Founders and re-affirmed the ideals upon which our country was established. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provides a greater guarantee that Americans' constitutional rights remain secure from federal government intrusion. I was proud to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting the fundamental right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This landmark ruling continues to have implications far beyond the District of Columbia. In the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago decision, the Supreme Court struck down the arbitrary gun ban in Chicago—thereby affirming that the Second Amendment protects Americans’ fundamental rights against state and local encroachment.

As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to harm innocent Americans. I believe that strictly enforcing the law—and imposing tougher sentences on career criminals and violent offenders who use firearms—will reduce violence more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, lawmakers should work to reduce violence by enacting policies that increase treatment options for those who are dangerously mentally ill—a common factor in many acts of mass violence that have occurred in communities across the nation.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to protect our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.


United States Senator
Not open for further replies.