Congress Needs to Pass the Hearing Protection Act Introduced by Matt Salmon

This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) eliminate the $200 transfer tax on firearm silencers, and (2) treat any person who acquires or possesses a firearm silencer as meeting any registration or licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer.

Congress Needs to Pass the Hearing Protection Act Introduced by Matt Salmon
By Allen Tharp

By Allen Tharp

Almost everyone I know is a gun owner and avid 2nd Amendment supporter. Many of those regularly practice and hone their shooting skills at a range or other suitable place. It would make no sense to own a gun you have never fired because part of responsible gun ownership is becoming intimately familiar with your weapon. So it goes without saying that gun owners not only have the Constitutional right to own guns, they have the right to practice with them.

The unfortunate and completely unnecessary downside to all this practice on the shooting range is that many regular shooters eventually wind up with severe hearing loss. Hearing loss from these cases is unnecessary because there is a simple solution. The solution is to reverse the law passed in the 1930s by Congress outlawing gun suppressors. Suppressors are more effective than many ear plugs and do not limit audible awareness the way ear plugs do.

As happens so often, while presumably attempting to do public good, Congress did public harm. They passed a law that made no sense, and the law should be repealed posthaste. Prohibiting a device that protects hearing is absurd. Suppressors do not make guns more dangerous—they make them safer for gun users and others nearby.

Many states strictly prohibit gun suppressors; and in the remaining states it takes a lot of time, investigation, and a $200 fee to obtain this protective device.

I want to make sure everyone is acquainted with H.R. 3799, the Hearing Protection Act of 2015. I encourage you to contact your Congressional reps to gain their support for this important bill. They need to know that we want this bill moved out of committee for a floor vote.


Rep. Matt Salmon  [R, AZ-5]

Introduced on Oct 22, 2015

Co-Sponsors

D-1  R-54

55 total co-sponsors show all

Status

This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on Oct 22, 2015, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole. The majority of bills never make it past this point.

Summary

Hearing Protection Act of 2015 This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) eliminate the $200 transfer tax on firearm silencers, and (2) treat any person who acquires or possesses a firearm silencer as meeting any registration or licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such… Read More

Bill Summary

Hearing Protection Act of 2015

This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) eliminate the $200 transfer tax on firearm silencers, and (2) treat any person who acquires or possesses a firearm silencer as meeting any registration or licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer. Any person who pays a tax on a silencer after October 22, 2015 may receive a refund of such tax.

The bill amends the federal criminal code to preempt state or local laws that tax or regulate firearm silencers.

Congress needs to pass the Hearing Protection Act introduced by Matt Salmon.

 

This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Please honor attribution.

One Response to "Congress Needs to Pass the Hearing Protection Act Introduced by Matt Salmon"

  1. Sherry Hauner  April 6, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    There shouldn’t be any question as to why this SHOULD be passed. I have hearing loss, including tinnitus, and wear hearing aids. Even with the ear protection, which is annoying, it is still distracting when others are on the range practicing. If it is legal for suppressors, more could practice without the distraction there, and further, those like me who have hearing loss, sure as heck should not have to be subjected to further hearing loss!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.