Hearing Protection Act would declassify silencers so they’re no longer considered “firearms” under federal law
Are the silencers themselves weapons, or merely add-ons for weapons?
Context and what the bill does
Under federal law, eight different descriptions of devices officially count as a “firearm.” Seven of the eight descriptions are unambiguously weapons: from shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches, to rifles with barrels less than 16 inches, to machine guns of any length.
One of the eight descriptions, though, isn’t a weapon in and of itself but rather a weapon accessory: a silencer, used to mute the sound of a shooting.
Under both the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, silencers are subject to certain regulations, including a ban on interstate transfers between unlicensed people, a ban on interstate sales entirely, and a federal registry.
What the bill does
The Hearing Protection Act would remove silencers from the federal definition of “firearm,” allowing for interstate transfers and sales, and the purge of the existing registry.
It was introduced in the House on January 4 as bill number H.R. 95, by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC3).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that, even if you believe in strict regulations on firearms themselves, it is illogical to regulate silencers to the same degree.
This “is a commonsense bill that is important to all sportsmen and women across the country,” Rep. Duncan said in a 2019 press release when introducing a previous version. “Personally, I have experienced hearing damage from firearm noise, and I believe easier access to suppressors may have prevented much of this damage from early on in my life.”
“Bottom line, this bill aims to fix this health issue that has already been addressed by many other countries,” Rep. Duncan continued. “Now is the time to ensure sportsmen and women can have the safety and protection they need while hunting and shooting.”
What opponents say
Supporters argue that the status quo for silencers is already striking an optimal balance between Second Amendment supporters and public safety.
“This act is reckless and it’s a threat to public safety,” Americans for Responsible Solutions senior policy adviser David Chapman told NPR. “Right now the system seems to be working: it’s allowing for [silencer] sales to go up and we’re rarely seeing cops killed with these things. So why fix what’s not broke?”
According to numbers from the American Suppressor Association, eight states have banned civilian ownership of silencers entirely: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
Odds of passage
A January 2019 House version, also introduced by Rep. Duncan, attracted 78 Republican cosponsors but never received a vote in the Democratic-controlled chamber. For that same reason, its odds of passage this time around are again low.
A March 2019 Senate version, introduced by Sen. Michael Crapo (R-ID), attracted 17 Republican cosponsors. Despite Republicans controlling the chamber, the bill never received a vote in the Senate Finance Committee. A Senate version has not yet been introduced in the current Congress.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Want more? Follow GovTrack by email, on Twitter, and for our “A Bill a Minute” video series — on Instagram, or on YouTube.
Like our analyses? Support our work on Patreon.
