WL Gore & Assoc

SilencerCo CEO Josh Waldron on the Hearing Protection Act

My fellow Americans,

Tuesday’s Republican election victory was a tremendous win for our Second Amendment rights and it also marked a significant increase in the potential for the Hearing Protection Act to become law and remove silencers from the NFA registry. SilencerCo has been and will continue to be a vocal supporter of the HPA and advocate for it to become a priority in the legislative agenda for 2017.

As a member of The Suppressed™, you’ve likely thought to yourself, “Why are silencers still an NFA item?” SilencerCo has not only wondered this ourselves, but along with partners such as the American Suppressor Association, we’ve taken steps to support the introduction of legislation to remove silencers from the list of NFA items.

On October 22, 2015 the Hearing Protection Act was introduced. This piece of legislation is aimed at removing silencers from the NFA and instead having their transfer go through a traditional ATF Form 4473 – the same way you would purchase a standard rifle or pistol.

What does this mean for you?

No $200 tax stamp
No excessive wait times
No NFA trusts
No fingerprint cards, passport photos, or Chief Law Enforcement Officer notification
A simple process, just like when you purchase most firearms through your dealer

Even though the House, Senate, and Presidency will be controlled by like-minded advocates for the Second Amendment, bills take time to become laws and citizens should not be taxed for trying to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights. Between now and the passage of this bill, we encourage our customers to continue to support the industry and to take advantage of the following provision: The Hearing Protection Act also includes a provision for all people who purchase a silencer between the time the bill is introduced (October 22, 2015) until the day it passes – should you purchase a silencer during that time, you will receive a $200 tax credit to cover the cost of any new silencer tax stamps you pay for.

This bill was initially championed by Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) as its primary sponsor and since then has had multiple co-sponsors. SilencerCo, Rep. Salmon, and all supporters of the bill realize that this is a long-term effort and will not be something that happens overnight. With the help of people like you – The Suppressed – we will gain momentum and educate both the general public and lawmakers as to the true nature of silencers.

If you haven’t already joined The Suppressed, click HERE to add your voice to the cause and write to your Congressmen and women and Senators to voice your support for the HPA as a legislative priority for 2017.

Sincerely,

Josh Waldron
CEO, SilencerCo

Tags: ,

32 Responses to “SilencerCo CEO Josh Waldron on the Hearing Protection Act”

  1. Easy E says:

    Interesting. Does this cover purchases of those awaiting a tax stamp currently? I’d wager the answer to that is no.

  2. reverend says:

    Do we dare dream it? (says a prayer)

  3. Vince says:

    If only there could be a federal preemption to support suppressor purchases in states like California. Think about the possibilities…

    • Riceball says:

      I know, better yet, I wish there was Federeal preemption for the 2A in CA telling the state government that what they’re doing is unConstituional and they need to repeal their stupid anti-gun laws immediately.

  4. Gerard says:

    Supressors should never have been placed in the NFA, taking them off is just common sense, its an issue even non gun people understand

  5. Jon says:

    But everyone buying a silencer must be planning to either murder people or poach!

  6. jbgleason says:

    As counter intuitive as it may seem, I think the best chance of getting this passed is to keep it quiet. (See what I did there?) Lobby your legislators and all that but if the anti-gun folks get wind of the legislation they will lose their shit. They will mobilize to fight this with a passion and you can bet that will kill it fast. No self serving legislator, no matter how pro gun, is going to want to fight the fight if he/she thinks it is going to get waved around at the next election. Silencers just sound evil to the general public. Probably not going to change that anytime soon.

    • Concur. We live in a crazy, mixed-up country.

    • Mike says:

      Not necessarily. Mn legalized them with a Democrat controlled congress and governor. The plan is solid. Protect hearing. Seriously, i don’t understand why OSHA doesn’t require them for police, in public gun ranges or anhydrous a Preston may likely encounter gun fire at work. I’m surprised it’s not a separate charge when a person goes on a killing spree without one, not only did they endanger the lives of the victims but the hearing of those around. In an industrial setting, if machinery is too loud you can’t just require hearing protection, you have to take reasonable action to minimize the sound level ie. mufflers, sound curtains, acoustic tiles etc. It’s mandatory to have a muffler on your car but a gun muffler is illegal?

  7. PJ says:

    The Republican controlled government should pass this at the minimum to show actual support for the 2nd Amendment. As it stands most Republican politicians aren’t pro-gun and haven’t needed to be. Simply not being anti-gun has been enough to get an NRA endorsement for quite a while now.

    • AbnMedOps says:

      I don’t expect much legislative action from this Republican controlled congress. Certainly not on something that will be so predictably used against even before the first instance of criminal misuse.

  8. Would certainly be a stand-out victory for real common sense. From the other side of the pond, I’ll be crossing all my fingers for you guys for this one to go through. Could set a great precedent for future legislation along similar lines perhaps.

  9. SamHill says:

    This would be great.

  10. Chausser1814 says:

    This is not going to be very popular on this site, but here goes. This piece of legislation is typical of the crony capitalism and rent seeking that is ruining the country. This legislation has nothing to do with hearing conservation, but rather is an unmitigated attempt by the silencer industry to sell more silencers by reducing government regulations and taxes (both of which I agree we have way too much of). But to couch this legislation as a healthy hearing issue is blatant hypocrisy. I suggest if the industry was truly concerned about hearing protection they would propose, support, and fund legislation that requires every firearm sold in the USA be accompanied with a set of hearing protection devices (much cheaper than a silencer and far more effective) just like many entities now require new firearms to sold with locks. Should silencers be sold with less regulation and a less onerous tax? Absolutely. Should it be done under the rubric of healthy hearing? Absolutely not.

    • Nick says:

      I understand where you are coming from but I think that you’re mostly thinking of target or range practice. Hunting can require taking multiple shots on a target (hunting coyote for example) and your hearing will suffer as a result of unsuppressed shots. Wearing ear pro while hunting ruins your ability to hear subtle sounds and even the best ear-pro can be a bit disorienting while trying to quietly stalk while hunting.

      I agree that the suppressor industry is trying to lessen the barrier to entry in an attempt to sell more suppressors, but that said it is also cutting its own costs. The more people that will purchase will turn the market from a niche into a more broad market introducing lower tier manufacture, lowering costs and introducing a more open secondary marketplace.

      Regardless of why the industry is trying to fight for it I don’t see a single downside.

      • The Beef says:

        Look at this from the standpoint of protection of yourself or your family in your own home. Cracking off an AR in your home while wearing hearing protection does absolutely nothing to mitigate the hearing damage to every other occupant in your house. “Kids, put your ear pro on, we have an intruder!!” meh

    • SSD says:

      No, you’ve got that backwards. If they lobbied the government to require every gun to be sold with ear pro, that would be crony capitalism. That’s an additional law which certainly benefits an industry. This legislation, removes onerous government regulation, freeing up both industry and the consumer.

    • balais says:

      I would agree if there was no emperical evidence that silencers actually did reduce decibels (therefore, reducing potential hearing loss), however, thats not the case.

      if ze shoe fits, you mus vear it!

    • Hodor says:

      Don’t be silly. Even in many European countries where firearms are permitted, suppressors aren’t restricted and are sold over the counter, and even recommended or required, both for protection and to prevent annoying other people. It’s sad they they have better sense than us when it comes to these DEADLY ASSASSINATION ACCESSORIES.

    • Mike says:

      I would like to point out that someone posted a slightly uninformed disagreement with the topic and and the response from everyone was rational logical information. Way to go conservatives. Try disagreeing with a liberal and see how many logical polite responses you get.

    • Mike says:

      I would like to speak for someone that doesn’t have a voice in this and I’ve never heard mentioned. It may sound funny but think of a hunting dog. How many bird hunters have had their 8 year old dog completely deaf.

    • Mike says:

      People always mention the need for hearing game when hunting but I’ve yet to hear mention that often times other hunters are also in the field/woods and being able to hear voices, coughing or even vehicles could be a life saver. Manny times while hunting public land I’ve picked up on someone’s presence from a whisper in the distance and realized i wasn’t alone.

  11. Fox says:

    Hell, Why don’t we just go all the way? We now have the initiative, and the opportunity. I hope we also secure a way to eliminate voting fraud. Lest we forget the lessons learned from South Africa. “You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling”. Tom Hardy (Inception)

  12. citizenspy says:

    Why should hearing protection, of any kind, require a 4473?

  13. Badjujuu says:

    I say we start with ccw reciprocity for all the States.

  14. Sean says:

    I think this is a good idea, however if we are going to do this why not also add SBR’s on the list of things to remove from NFA items.