The battle for suppressors has been raging for a while now.
Suppressors are hugely important for stifling the sound of the blast upon a firearm’s firing. These incredible additions to firearms provide shooters the ability to fire constantly and consistently, all without the fear of losing their hearing because of the blast.
Although suppressors are incredibly important and arguably necessary for hunters, sportsmen, and everyday civilians, the masses are having a difficult time being able to obtain these accessories.
That’s because suppressors are currently under heavy regulation, and require a lot of paperwork and waiting time to obtain one.
However, slowly but steadily, the tides are changing on the regulations of suppressors. According to Guns.com:
Battle lines are being drawn early in a sweeping new sportsmen’s’ package introduced in the House earlier this month that includes language from the Hearing Protection Act.
The bipartisan measure, the Sportsmen Heritage and Recreational Enhancement or SHARE Act, blends popular initiatives to safeguard and expand hunting and fishing rights and practices across public land with one to drop suppressors from National Firearms Act regulation. South Carolina Republican U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan, the sponsor of the bill, has been working with Democrats within the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus to try and garner support from across the aisle.
“It concerns me enough that we’ve talked to them about it,” Duncan said. “At the end of the day, I hope they will embrace it.”
Going beyond the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove silencers and suppressors from NFA requirements that include a $200 tax stamp, the SHARE Act would mandate the more than 1.3 million already registered be deleted from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ records within 365 days of the bill becoming law. Further, while states would not be required to allow their sale or possession, they would be barred from establishing their own potentially prohibitive taxes or registration requirements on legal devices.
In the end, suppressors would be treated as firearms – which would allow them to be transferred through any regular federal firearms license holders to anyone not prohibited from possessing them after the buyer passes an FBI instant background check.
The proposal includes a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchased a suppressor after Oct. 22, 2015, though makers of the devices would be liable for a 10 percent Pittman-Robertson excise tax, as they are currently on all modern firearms.
In addition to the suppressor language, the bill would open the 11.7 million acres of land controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to concealed carry and protect travelers crossing state lines with firearms. Other facets would cut the ATF’s authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition as “armor piercing” and how regulators classify some shotguns, shells and rifles as “destructive devices” under the NFA.
Thankfully, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is embracing this measure. Unfortunately, gun control activists are not onboard, and are opposing the measure’s suppressor language. As a result, they are directing as many people as possible to sign a petition against the proposal.
Gun control activists are of the opinion that the NRA is simply using “hearing protection” as a guise to get around laws enforcing gun safety. They remain adamant that the goal of the proposal is to sell suppressors to criminals and domestic abusers without a background check.
Colorado Republican Doug Lamborn, who is a co-sponsor of the Hearing Protection Act, will be reviewing the proposal in January.