Lowa Zephyr Mk2 GTX

ASA Announces Reintroduction Of Hearing Protection Act: A Bill To Remove Suppressors From The NFA

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Suppressor Association (ASA) is pleased to announce the reintroduction of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) by Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) and Rep. John Carter (TX-31). This historic piece of legislation, which was originally introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) in the 114th Congress, will remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA), replacing the antiquated federal transfer process with an instantaneous NICS background check. The HPA also includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchase a suppressor after October 22, 2015, which was the original date of introduction.

“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “We are thrilled for the opportunity to work with Representatives Duncan and Carter, who have reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act in this new Congress. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working on the Duncan-Carter bill, alongside the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common- sense legislation.”

Also known as silencers, suppressors are the hearing protection of the 21st century sportsman. Despite common Hollywood-based misconceptions, the laws of physics dictate that no suppressor will ever be able to render gunfire silent. Suppressors are simply mufflers for firearms, which function by trapping the expanding gasses at the muzzle, allowing them to slowly cool in a controlled environment. On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20 – 35 decibels (dB), roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs. In addition to hearing protection, suppressors also mitigate noise complaints from those who live near shooting ranges and hunting lands.

Unfortunately, suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA regulates the transfer and possession of certain types of firearms and devices, including suppressors. Currently, prospective buyers must send in a Form 4 application to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax per suppressor, undergo the same background check process that is required to purchase a machine gun, and wait months for the ATF to process and approve the paperwork. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use.

The Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act will fix the flawed federal treatment of suppressors, making it easier for hunters and sportsmen to protect their hearing in the 42 states where private suppressor ownership is currently legal, and the 40 states where hunting with a suppressor is legal. This legislation will remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.



23 Responses to “ASA Announces Reintroduction Of Hearing Protection Act: A Bill To Remove Suppressors From The NFA”

  1. Gerard says:

    This legislation is so necessary. The restrictions on surpressors make literally no sense. As I explain endlessly to my friends, this has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with hearing.

    • Jack Griffin says:

      Mmm, it has everything to do with totally silent pews used for untraceable stealth assassinations… because that’s exactly what the hoplophobic Luddites that pen a large portion of anti-gun legislation believe based on their Hollywood education.

      Silencers out of vending machines. Ninja hit squads. Blood in the streets.

      Think of the children.

  2. Keith says:

    So want this to happen.

  3. Marcus says:

    Richard Hudson from North Carolina also introduced a bill in the House to allow concealed carry across state lines. Basically a national reciprocity. They whipped the votes and it will pass the House. They also believe they can get 60 in the Senate. Should be an interesting session.

  4. Jack Griffin says:

    Deregulate a muzzle-mounted hearing safety device that only works when affixed to an already-regulated firearm?

    *throws money at screen*

  5. Dellis says:

    This bill passing would also be a great boost for sales of suppressors. I am waiting now almost 7 months for mine to get approved!

    It would unclog some Fed agency and maybe that manpower can be used more effectively, say on the border watching for bad guys?

    • Ed says:

      Tansferring BATFE en masse to patrol duty along the Mexican border would be sweet justice for Operation Fast and Furious.

    • SSD says:

      If this bill becomes law it is going to fundamentally change the gun industry.

      • Luke says:

        Bold prediction, but can’t say I disagree. If this passes, every manufacturer should have integrally silenced versions of their lineup ready to go…imagine if the SilencerCo Maxim (assuming it works and is effective) had a ballpark price of $500, with no wait period.

        The prospects for .22 caliber alone have me all tingly.

  6. airborne_fister says:

    Here is the question. Why must i fill out a 4473 for a silencer/suppressor. When it cannot make a firearm go bang or help it go bang. Actually its just a hunk of metal until affixed to the muzzle of a firearm? I can buy a trigger group, no problem, and no background check needed, but a silencer/suppressor? Come on government, get with the times. I guess I shouldn’t complain to much. In my state ,of Indiana, you still cannot buy booze on Sunday!

  7. Mehmaster says:

    Is anyone thinking of the security ramifications? you can’t buy fertilizer without popping up on someone’s radar, for legitimate concerns. The only thing I have shot suppressed is a m110 but I have been around suppressed weapons up to a m240 and the idea of anyone being able grab a can off the internet or gander mountain is a little disconcerting. This is a unquestionable combat multiplier that increases the lethality of the gun.
    Our enemy is intelligent, flexible and extremely motivated to see us hurt. Perhaps the underlying issue isn’t freedom but money that is going to be made?

    • K says:

      Do you even freedom bro?

    • Jack Griffin says:

      What about the security ramifications of the Gunshow Loophole or the fact that you can buy a 100 round clipazine without a universal background check?!

      What about that?!

      I can’t help myself. “Increases lethality.” Pfft! But not as much as my RDS.

      Better regulate optics.

      We live in a world where bad guys supposedly have access to all sorts of Commando-esque secret M202 FLASH storerooms and yet recent attacks have been the usual virgin vests, AKs, single stack pistols, large trucks and the occasional machetes.

      These are not people interested in cans.

      • Mehmaster says:

        So if I understand your position, it’s basically that we can get all kinds of stuff to make our rifles more lethal so what’s deregulation on one more item. I’m curious how many more police officers would have died in Dallas if the gunman had a can to go with his cheap ass holosun. Admittedly the recent attacks in Europe other than bataclan have been amateur hour. I’m all for the right to bear arms but we as the gun community have to question the potential fall-out VS the priveleges gained. Again the idea that those that hate America are somehow stupid and won’t seize any EASILY available advantage is along the lines of president Obama’s “JV team” comments.

        • Reverend says:

          Troll? Right? Okay. Troll (walks away)

          • Jack Griffin says:


            “I’m all for the right to bear arms but…”

            Another prior service politician is born.

        • Bob says:

          Straight trollin’

          Anyone who say “I support the Second Amendment **BUT**”, doesn’t.

          • Steak TarTar says:

            I think hes being serious, and you guys are making a mistake for assuming that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a “troll”.

            • Kaos-1 says:

              He’s a troll. Who the hell says M…240. Its a damn 240. As in “get the 240 up” or “I need 240 ammo”.
              M…110, wtf.

              Sounds like somebody read an article about military small arms and picked a couple nomenclatures.

          • Washington says:

            So can I get my own MANPADS then since firearm rights are an All or Nothing proposition, which is not how fanatics behave or think at all

            I can’t actualize my potential achieve my own agency ensure my own well being etc without my own portable missle launchers

      • Ranger Rick says:

        So where’s these M202 Flash storerooms? God that takes me back ways.

        • Jack Griffin says:

          I know, right?

          I made a serious sad panda face the day I strolled into the LGS, told the fat guy with the 1911 behind the counter I was In The Industry (TM) and asked him to push the hidden button to open the secret heavy weapons vault. He just looked at me like he’d never head-shot’d a kidnapper in his bedroom with a HK91 from the hip or tore a phone both off the floor (with a man in it) and toppled it end over end like it was merely an empty trash can.

          Does the military not teach these things anymore?