GORE-Tex Professional

Support the Hearing Protection Act

As SIG SAUER’s John Hollister says, “Do it for the children.”  The Hearing Protection Act of 2015 (H.R. 3799) would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act.

Let your voice be heard, but not your firearms.



11 Responses to “Support the Hearing Protection Act”

  1. Easy E says:

    Would certainly be nice if this were to happen; and I do like the jab.

  2. Bill says:

    It would need to be a law that would strip any regulating from States. If they remove these from NFA better be ready for a stream of poorly planned poorly executed state regulations.

    • mike says:

      “We have to keep these deadly assassin’s tool out of our cities and away from drug dealers, murderers, and rapists. Won’t anyone think of the children?”

  3. Riceball says:

    It would be nice if this happens, no more tax stamp necessary to get a suppressor. However, even if this does happen, you can bet that they’ll still be illegal in CA, along with SBRs, and (possibly) semi-automatic rifles with removable mags.

  4. SN says:

    It’s a start, states with reasonable laws would do well and lousy states (CA/NY) would continue to ban any and everything.

  5. Ray says:

    Interestingly enough, it was the British equivalent of environmental protection agency that pushed for legalization of suppressor for Firearms certificate in UK.

    So basically if you have a firearms certificate in UK, you can have a suppressor without further paperwork. I don’t know if this is still the case tho.

  6. Bob says:

    Regarding the UK.

    Your certificate must state “moderator” but hearing protection on both range or especially hunting is a valid reason with no further payments or background checks etc. They do however have to state calibre (not multi) and must be seperately listed to any firearms.

    Big note is like firearms you must have a valid reason for having one on your ticket, posession without is an offence. Some European countries they are not regulated at all.

  7. Airborne_fister says:

    Well I am not a fan of other government agencies getting involved. But if OSHA or how ever it’s spelled. Were to get involved. Then they would be required. I can’t tell you how many times I got into a firefight. Or was a “SHOOTER” (couldn’t resist) and did not have ear pro on. Or was on top of an op as an “OPERATOR” trying to look “TACTILE” and not have my headset on because after about three hours of hiking up that damn mountain. My ears hurt and so did my head. Then the suppressed m110 would shoot. No problem. But if the m24 went off ouch was in my next sent of words. After the shot.

    • BillC says:

      Actually paused one time behind cover to put my surefire earbuds in. Got a strange look from the guy next to me. Just shrugged. Now I don’t have hearing loss, but don’t tell my wife that.

  8. James says:

    The ringing in my left ear agrees with this!

  9. Desert Lizard says:

    If the left calls semi-autos “assault rifles”, they’ll probably call a suppressed rifle an “assassin rifle”. 😀