What ever happened with the Hearing Protection Act?

Status
Not open for further replies.
silencers are still a very niche thing to a subset of a subset of Americans

That has definitely been changing, as evidenced by the number of manufacturers putting out firearms specifically designed for suppression, and the exponential increase in available commercial subsonic ammo.

As well, probably close to half of the FFLs around here are paying the SOT to sling cans. 5 years ago, it was pretty rare to see suppressors for sale in gun shops. Many of them have an entire display case dedicated today. A friend of mine who is a local 07/02 working from his home has over 400 cans in his safes awaiting approved form 4s.
 
AlexanderA wrote:
The NFA, at root, is a tax law.

I disagree. If it were, it would be administered by the IRS - or at least another agency of the Treasury Department - not an agency of the Department of Justice.

Also, losing the $200 fee per device wouldn't be a "blip" on the budgetary radar.
 
The ATF was part of the IRS for many, many years. It was, relatively recently, moved from Treasury to Justice because its "enforcement" aspects came to overshadow the "tax collection" aspects.

And yes, the $200 tax is relatively insignificant in terms of the federal budget.

The constitutional basis of the NFA is under the taxing power of Congress.

All that is irrelevant. The point is that, conceptually, the NFA has a budgetary impact (however small), and thus can be amended under the streamlined "budget reconciliation" procedure. This could be crucial, since Sen. Orrin Hatch has just announced he would not be in favor of doing away with the filibuster. (Basically, all the Republicans would have to agree to do so at the beginning of the session.)

BTW, keeping the filibuster means that national concealed-carry reciprocity is dead for this session. We are then left with NFA reform as the only pro-gun legislation that the Trump administration can achieve for the next two years. The pressure will be heavy on them to deliver something in exchange for gun owners' support in the election.
 
Last edited:
Good luck with getting some reps./senators to go for this hearing protection. In some cases, such as here in Illinois, appealing to "Dicky and Ducky" to go for this is a waste of time and energy.
 
Of relevance to this thread is the new ATF White Paper that was leaked. Of note regarding this topic is the section on "silencers," which would hopefully give some support to the HPA.

Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized. At present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. The wide acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have created substantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATF to have a significant backlog on silencer applications. ATF’s processing time is now approximately 8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATF’s experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the GCA.

If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencer would be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to “any combination of [silencer] parts, ” as well as “any part intended only for use in” a silencer. Compared to the definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulated part, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completed silencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encountered by silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a part or combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would be useful.

General Geoff said:
I would not at all be surprised if the NFA costs the government more money to administrate/maintain, than the revenue they get from the tax stamps.

Interesting point. See the quote above about the resources ATF has devoted to suppressor registration/tax stamps.
 
We're doing it all wrong. We have to get non shooters upset that gun owners are getting away with not having "mufflers" on their guns. Just like loud motorcycles, why aren't the police making them install mufflers? lol

Probably be an easy sell anywhere there are gun ranges now being encroached upon by housing development. I can tell you from experience, at the NYPD outdoor range on Rodman's Neck in the Bronx, the sound of gunfire extends loudly all around the peninsular for quite a distance, and across the water for over a mile. I personally would not want to live with that on a daily basis.

Of course, it could turn around and bite you in the butt, i.e., laws requiring every gun to be "muffler" equipped.
 
You can look up the Bill # for the HPA and check its progress.

BATFE favors it. Reduces work load. Estimated to be revenue neutral, since the 11% firearms tax applies and increased sales will offset the foregone $200 tax.
 
gotta luv them (sub)committees
iu
 
There's plenty of other places to find info on the HPA other than here, and especially starting a new thread. I'm sure there are numerous threads already covering the topic.

On last week's Gun Talk podcast, Tom Gresham had SC Congressman Jeff Duncan ( co-sponser of the bill) on his show. He said he thought they had a good chance of getting it passed, but he's looking at a 1 to 2 year time frame. If you want a silencer, he recommended you go ahead and get the process started instead of waiting to see if the HPA passes.

You can stream or download an MP3 of the show here: http://guntalk.libsyn.com/
It's the 2-5-17 Part C show.

I heard the other day some locals are buying silencers, but not starting the paperwork - they're waiting to see if the HPA passes.

I advised a silencer newbie that they're taking a big chance - I think they may be optomistic AFA their time frame - asked him if it doesn't pass, they how much time have they wasted waiting for something that may never happen?
 
Last edited:
Now that we have a Republican dominated government, you might want to hold off on buying 4 or 5 suppressors, but I would not let the tax stamp issue keep you from buying a single or two. As basicblur noted, it still may not happen. There is no way to know, or if it does, when it will happen, in what form, and if it will become effective immediately (though the current version is for this).

If the current legislation moves forward, we will get our tax money back for suppressors bought after Oct 2016 (IIRC), but I would not count on that, either.

I did the trust and got a couple of suppressors. I thought the whole process was a pain in the butt. I still hunt with hearing protection because the safety is still needed with full power centerfire loads. However, I am HUGELY pleased I finally made the decision to get a suppressor. I have managed to send a couple of shots down range at some hogs without hearing protection and while the report was still loud, it was not painful. I wish I had gotten off my butt and gone through the process sooner.
 
Apparently too many people are postponing buying cans hoping for the HPA to pass. I just read that Silencerco laid off a bunch of staff due to not moving enough product. The leaked White Paper does make me think there's a loosely coordinated effort from within certain parts of the bureaucracy to get suppressors off the NFA. I am guardedly optimistic that it might happen within the next couple years.
 
Re: Post #37...''On last week's Gun Talk podcast, Tom Gresham had SC Congressman Jeff Duncan ( co-sponser of the bill) on his show. He said he thought they had a good chance of getting it passed, but he's looking at a 1 to 2 year time frame. If you want a silencer, he recommended you go ahead and get the process started instead of waiting to see if the HPA passes.''

To that I will add the ever changing future of politics. What happens if say, a future (D) POTUS in a gentile toss of red meat to his Left bans the product or at a minimum restores the previous process? What if it becomes a 'preban' vs 'postban' issue?

bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
 
Apparently too many people are postponing buying cans hoping for the HPA to pass. I just read that Silencerco laid off a bunch of staff due to not moving enough product. The leaked White Paper does make me think there's a loosely coordinated effort from within certain parts of the bureaucracy to get suppressors off the NFA. I am guardedly optimistic that it might happen within the next couple years.

Silencerco stated that after then June change with the Trusts and the fear the Hillary would be elected people were spending their money on firearms and not accessories.

However if this comes to fruition they aren't going to be able to hire people fast enough....however they are going to have to compete on price point which is something not often previously encountered in that industry.
 
I disagree. If it were, it would be administered by the IRS - or at least another agency of the Treasury Department - not an agency of the Department of Justice.


Used to be. From the BATFE Web site:

July 1972
Treasury Department Order 221
“The functions, powers, and duties relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives were transferred from the Internal Revenue Service to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms”

Birth of ATF

Under Director Rex Davis, ATF becomes an independent Bureau on July 1, 1972, reporting directly to the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Enforcement, Tariff and Trade Affairs, and Operations.

ATF’s jurisdiction increases through new legislation such as the Gun Control Act of 1968, Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 and Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.

November 2002
Homeland Security Act
This Act established the Department of Homeland Security and outlined responsibilities for fighting terrorism. As a result, ATF was transferred to the U.S. Department of Justice.

January 2003
Transfer of ATF to U.S. Department of Justice
Except for a brief period during Prohibition era, ATF and its predecessor bureaus functioned within the U.S. Department of the Treasury for more than 200 years. In January of 2003, ATF’s functions and responsibilities were transferred to the Department of Justice.

The Homeland Security Act split the missions and functions of ATF into two agencies: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) transferred to the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) remained with the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

And now you know the rest of the story.
 
Apparently too many people are postponing buying cans hoping for the HPA to pass. I just read that Silencerco laid off a bunch of staff due to not moving enough product. The leaked White Paper does make me think there's a loosely coordinated effort from within certain parts of the bureaucracy to get suppressors off the NFA. I am guardedly optimistic that it might happen within the next couple years.
Silencerco stated that after then June change with the Trusts and the fear the Hillary would be elected people were spending their money on firearms and not accessories.
However if this comes to fruition they aren't going to be able to hire people fast enough....however they are going to have to compete on price point which is something not often previously encountered in that industry.
I have never considered investing in a suppressor due to the hassle and extra $ in the current conditions. I can live without owning one, as I've never had them up to this point. However, if suppressors come off the NFA, I will definitely be buying more than one!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top