Kimber Gun Rights Bulletin: President Trump Will Pass the Hearing Protection Act


In 1934, the Franklin Roosevelt administration passed omnibus gun control legislation, with massive infringements on the Second Amendment. The National Firearms Act was primarily designed to eliminate the private ownership of handguns. As that was too much of a direct assault on the Second Amendment for Congress, they removed handguns from the bill. The remainder of the act passed, creating a bizarre law with unintended consequences.

For obscure and unknown reasons, the Act regulated gun mufflers, also known as silencers, or suppressors. Silencers immediately changed from being a $10 accessory, available over the counter, to an item requiring a federal tax stamp costing $200 or around $3,600 in today’s money.

Actually, it’s worse than that. In 1934, a day laborer would earn $1 a day. The silencer tax was about the yearly pay of a minimum wage worker of the time. It was not a tax. It was a prohibition.

The rest of the world didn’t share America’s self imposed prohibition on gun mufflers. In the rest of the world, silencers were regarded as a useful accessory, something that the neighbors appreciated because it reduced noise pollution.

In Europe, silencers are far less regulated than they are in the United States. In New Zealand, a 12-year-old can walk into a hardware store, pay $20, and walk out with a perfectly serviceable commercial silencer.

Inflation has whittled away at the prohibitionist tax on silencers in the United States. $200 dollars is now 28 hours at minimum wage. People understand the damage done to unprotected ears by close proximity to gunfire. Silencers have become essential safety equipment in many circumstances.

A growing movement has risen up to place silencers in the same regulatory environment as ordinary rifles and shotguns. It removes the prohibitory tax and the burdensome, unnecessary regulations. Legislation has been introduced in Congress by Matt Salmon (R) Arizona.

The Hearing Protection Act keeps the federal regulation that many states refer to when they require federally sanctioned ownership for legal possession of silencers. That regulation becomes the same as for ordinary rifles and shotguns.

When legislators are informed of the bizarre history of U.S. regulation and prohibition of these safety devices, they have no problem passing corrective legislation. Josh Waldron, one of three founders of the American Suppressor Association, says that when legislators become informed, 90 percent of both Democrats and Republicans vote for the reform legislation.

The Hearing Protection Act will pass. It only needs to be presented to Congress and signed by President Trump.


Gun Watch


  1. avatar Brian says:

    I’m not getting my hopes up, but if/when it happens, I will be buying three or four!

    1. avatar Joe says:

      Probably a pipe dream, but if we’re talking New Zealand prices…I’m getting a dedicated can for each one of my firearms.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        Don’t forget the cost of a new threaded barrel, especially for pistols.

        1. avatar Harold says:

          Yup, and in the great Fascist State of California you cannot install nor have a threaded barrel on a handgun with a normal mag release, otherwise it is an “assault weapon.” And, of course, silencers are illegal by state law as well.

    2. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      Removing them from the NFA is a great idea. It will NOT make thrm 20 bucks. The 200 dollar stamp would go away. The products will still be regulated like fire arms so the FFL will still be required to sell them. Alsonthe same crazy shipping and record keeping overhead associated with fire arms would be in place.

      1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        BUT you can legally make your own! CHEAP!

  2. avatar Jp says:

    That would be awesome. Always waned a can on my ar.

    1. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

      Same. They make ones that fit over A2 birdcages, right…

    2. avatar KURT Robert INGALLS says:

      LOL….I hear ya…..but the first time you shoot 3-400 rounds with a can you’ll look at the condition of the weapon and cry….good lord they dirty up an AR real fast…….but, it motivates us to find a better way to clean them, I guess….LOL 🙂

      1. avatar Maz2331 says:

        Hey, I clean every 100 or so rounds anyway… so no worries here!

  3. avatar bobmcd says:

    Headline failure. The President does not “pass” laws. Congress passes a bill, which the President can then sign into law.

    Schoolhouse Rock aside, I very much hope that HPA gets passed and signed, as the first of many such laws.

    1. avatar Brian says:

      Semantics. He can push laws, which is more or less the same thing.

    2. Headlines should be kept short. It could have read “President Trump will cause the Hearing Protection Act to be passed by Congress and signed into law”, but the shorter version works better as a headline.

      1. avatar bobmcd says:

        “President Trump will sign the Hearing Protection Act”

        “President Trump supports the Hearing Protection Act”

        “President Trump favors the Hearing Protection Act”

        “President Trump wants the Hearing Protection Act”

        Words matter. I refuse to be a low-information voter.

        1. avatar Dave says:

          I know we all have better things to do with our time then ridicule the author of this story on punctuation, and presentation of story topic. I mean come on what do we have a bunch of English High School teachers out there reading these posts all that’s incorrect English we’ve got to do something about that can’t have anyone using incorrect English we have to ban it sounds familiar?

        2. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Dave, do you really think that encouraging someone to communicate more clearly and accurately is the same thing as banning the exercise of a basic human right?

        3. avatar Missouri Mule says:

          Thank you!

      2. avatar OneOfTheGoodGuys says:

        It’s not as simple as you make it sound. Check out The Legal Brief.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        Except not even close to accurate. Let’s talk about filibusters.

  4. avatar Brian says:

    Industry wins, the people win, heck, even the feds win since the sales tax on the massive (compared to now) volume of supresssors sold would more than make up for the $200 per tax revenue. I’m still not holding my breath!

    1. avatar matty 9 says:

      Last May a buddy mentioned “Ya know, Trump might be our next president”.

      To which I replied: “I aint gonna hold my breath”.

  5. avatar pg2 says:

    It’s still amusing when people point to FDR as some great president of the past…the same man who normalized the communization of the USA.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      And put tens of thousands of law-abiding Americans in concentration camps.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        So… Typical Demokkkrat then…

        1. avatar Chadwick says:

          Well yeah pretty much. He was a good socializer that’s for sure. Not much has changed for the D in that regard.

      2. avatar Katy says:

        Quiet, you. We don’t talk about that.

        FDR saved America, won WWII and single-handedly ended the Nazi scourge. While we strip names and topple statues of those who owned slaves, can you imagine the embarrassment of the Democrat establishment if word got out that a few people of Japanese ancestry were held against their will? We’d have to redesign the dime!

        1. avatar rman says:

          hence the need for the 2A….

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          FDR is the reason Presidents are limited to two terms… 🙂

          (Can you imagine *still* being stuck with Bill Clinton?)

      3. avatar rman says:

        But but but….that can’t/ever happen in this country!

        John Q Liberal
        Director, Second Amendment Haters Association

    2. avatar Lcsw says:

      Public schools push him as some savior of America. Few people do objective research on him or his policies. We are still feeling the negative effects.

    3. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Only because he was president during two back-to-back crises of great magnitude is he remembered as a “great president”.

      I am sure Herbert Hoover was a better president but because his term coincided with the start of the Depression his name will be forever tarnished by it as the one who caused it nevermind the fact that Roosevelt didn’t end it, WW2 did.

      1. avatar YAR0892 says:

        At least FDR had the good sense to tell the military that he wanted to win and kept his nose out of the how… Mostly…

  6. avatar stateisevil says:

    I’ll believe it when Congress passes it and sends it to him. The Republicans just hate the 2nd amendment less than the Demonrats.

  7. avatar passthebrass says:

    As a welder, I have always wanted to build one. Really looking forward to this possibility.

    I know I can build one now, but to hell with the wait and expense.

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    Next up The SBR Ownership Act.

    1. avatar matty 9 says:

      Nope! Next up, The repeal of the NFA.

      I know, I’m dreaming. For that I really won’t hold my breath

  9. avatar JustMe says:

    The problem is that liberal states will respond by banning silencers. The result is two Americas: one with a full second amendment, and another with only shreds of it left behind.

    1. The solution to that may have to wait for a Trump Supreme Court. The Court will rule that bans on firearm accessories are an unconstitutional “chilling” of our Second Amendment rights.

      1. avatar TexTed says:

        Dean, you’re doing an awful lot of presenting your opinion as if it was fact. It isn’t — it’s just an opinion. You don’t know if Trump will pass the Hearing Protection Act, or if he’ll push for it, or if he’ll sign it. You THINK he will, but that doesn’t mean he will.

        And you don’t have any basis for saying “The Court will rule that bans on firearm accessories are an unconstitutional “chilling” of our Second Amendment rights.” You don’t know what the court will or will not do. Only thing you know is what you HOPE the court will do, and what you THINK the court will do.

        Remember, you’re not writing for “My Opinion About”, you’re writing for “”, so if you’re going to go stating your opinions, please phrase them as such.

        1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

          I think Dean gets a pass (well, not from me) because, I presume, he has some pro-2A accomplishments to his name. Myself, as someone who really got into guns around 2010 and who was not aware of the people involved in the movement prior to that, I haven’t seen anything of substance from this guy since then. Sure, I see his open carry articles now and then, along with his wildly inaccurate economic predictions, but that’s about it. And now this article. Which is nothing more than I guess, but presented as if Trump was in office already, just minutes from signing it. Is this what passes for journalism these days? Again, Dean needs to include a disclaimer that says: Opinion, or Just guessing here, or I don’t know what I’m talking about but here’s some wild predictions anyway…

        2. avatar Dave says:

          I thought for a moment that what was stated in the article was fact. After researching on the interweb looking for anything that Trump has said going about making suppressors a common gun part and not an NFA item I couldn’t find anything. So I guess it is an opinion? Or has there been talk about this? I hope this goes through however what is your fact based on?

        3. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

          It’s pure click-bait. Nothing but wishful thinking. Maybe Trump will sign such a bill once he has it in hand, but Dean’s article is nothing more than an opinion / a guess. But he presents it as if it were fact.

    2. avatar Lcsw says:

      NJ already does. A trip to PA and leaving it at a friend’s in PA is simple though.

    3. avatar CS says:



    4. avatar JJ48 says:

      Yeah, but one of those states is already promising to secede, so that’s one less to worry about.

      (Serious question: If California actually went through with secession, could we demand the USS Iowa and other museum ships back?)

    5. avatar Mark N. says:

      Silencers have been illegal in California for many years, and a change in federal law will have no effect on that law. The odds of a court holding such a ban to be unconstitutional is, in my view, pretty remote, given that AR bans–bans of actual firearms as opposed to mere accessories–have been upheld by two Circuit courts, and unless there is some split of authority (also unlikely), it is not an issue that is likely to be taken up under the narrow rules for a grant of review by the Supreme Court.

  10. avatar rc says:

    Well, my hopes on this have been sky high since Trump won the election and the GOP held congress…please let this happen!

  11. avatar Shire-man says:

    NPR, too, laments this and others will pass.

    The most optimistic anti spin they could put on any of this was “…if Congress makes it a priority…”

    So happy. So happy.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Are you ready for some serious more happy?

      Limbaugh just announced Ted Cruz had a full hour meeting with President Elect Trump and speculation is Cruz is being considered for… wait for it…

      Attorney General of the United States.

      (Drain that swamp!)

      1. avatar TexTed says:

        Wha? Wasn’t that going to be Chris Christie’s job? Wow, how far his star has fallen…

        I’d rather see Cruz on the Court as Scalia’s replacement, but AG is a pretty darn good spot too. Would hate to lose him in the Senate though, he’s still got two years on his term and I don’t know where we’ll find another Cruz to replace him. Green Eggs and Ham!

        1. avatar matty 9 says:


        2. avatar Geoff PR says:


          The next SC justice that retires or expires means there’s nothing stopping Trump from nominating Cruz to SCOTUS in a few years after AG Cruz successfully indicts Hillary, Huma, Cherl Mills, the Clinton Foundation, etc…

  12. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

    Better get your threaded pistol barrel now because when this passes the run on barrels and suppressors is going to clean out the stock of those items immediately.

    1. avatar Rincoln says:

      As an avid silencer owner, I can say this is already true. Not enough threaded barrels exist (unless you’re happy with a plastic gun).

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Don’t sweat it. The Chinese will be happy to ship us as many as we want in short order…

  13. avatar Joe R. says:


    Full auto firearms for everyone.


    Because I trust you.

    And because the 2nd Amendment is there in case you need to “throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” [Declaration of Independence] IT’S GONNA TAKE FULL AUTO ARMS, AND LOTS OF SH_T THAT GOES BOOM. It’s NOT going to require permission from your neighbors, there was likely less than a 20% popularity in the notion of the original Revolutionary War. Don’t expect your wet-sh_t neighbors to help you out if need be.

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      I am still trying to figure out why I would ever want a full auto firearm, except for the giggle factor. If your goal is personal protection, full auto is probably the worst thing that you could use these days, thanks to its ability to blow through magazines in a couple seconds, with most of the shots missing the target, and endangering everyone else in the vicinity. Silencers make sense – from a hearing protection point of view. And, maybe SBRs. Full auto does not. Rather, it would seem most attractive for gang bangers doing drive by shootings, where intimidation is more important than accuracy.

      1. avatar rman says:

        Gang bangers would still have to pass a background check unless they buy it off the street (newsflash: it’s already happening). The bigger need for full auto is to be as well equipped as a Government very capable of stripping citizens of freedom hence the need for 2A as noted by our Founding fathers. Don’t think it could happen here? Ask a Japanese citizen during WWII….

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        Thankfully, Bruce, “you can’t figure” does not equal “I can’t have”, and it shouldn’t. But in the us against them argument, you are them.

        1. avatar That's right (you're not from Texas)... says:

          +100 – Well stated Joe R.

      3. avatar pwrserge says:

        If the local Demokkkrats decide to demand “room to destroy” you’ll find me on my front porch layered with sandbags and shouldered up to a 240G. The lawn in front of me will be littered with multiple bands of claymores.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Progressives keep bleating the US – Mexico wall will cost too much. They might have a point.

          How about a 100 meter-wide minefield instead?


        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          That’s what Mexico has on its southern border, have you seen it? Fences, guard towers, it’s fing Beirut. And they only have 1/4 the border with Guatama. Kind of like a double standard, or as we say in America “fing bullsh_T”.

        3. avatar marco says:

          So serge, does that mean you’re backing liberalization of destructive devices as something Trump should do then?

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          I think the entire NFA is a grossly unconstitutional pile of vomit. Next question.

        5. avatar marco says:

          Alright, next question:

          What is the going rate for a claymore anyway?

        6. avatar Pwrserge says:

          ~$120 brand new in the box.

  14. Sure-bring it on. My only question is “will sign”…forgive me if I’m skeptical. I’m just happy I don’t have to spend ALL my meager cheque on guns FOR NOW.

  15. avatar million says:

    would it be subject to filibuster in the Senate?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The GOP has every reason to nuke the filibuster. It’s a privilege, not a right.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Would using the budget reconciliation process like the way they rammed the ACA down our throats work?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh, it absolutely could. The reality is that anything can pass by a simple majority. You just need to push hard enough.

        2. avatar thatoneguy says:

          Since it would directly involve tax receipts (assuming the $200 stamp is going away), then it should be easy to get this past a filibuster on cloture.

      2. avatar thatoneguy says:

        If the GOP expects to keep the senate until this nation comes to an end, then they might not have any reason to keep It around.

        However, if the GOP ever thinks it might lose the senate, they have at least one reason to keep it.

        Meanwhile, instead of trying to kill the filibuster, I’d rather them try to kill the 17th amendment. The state governments should have some say in how the federal government is run.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I somehow doubt that the GOP will lose both the House and Senate any time soon. If both happen, it will be Civil War time anyway.

        2. avatar Dave says:

          They said Trump had no way the ability to win the Republican nomination for president and then they said he had no way of winning the presidency so be careful what you say anything’s possible at this point LOL. I would like to see the Senate and the house controlled primarily by the Republican Party that would be amazing our government would flow like a well-oiled machine.

        3. avatar Stinkeye says:

          The Republicans can’t even run their own party like a “well-oiled machine”. Did you not see any of the primary campaign this year?

        4. avatar Dave says:

          Yes of course I watch the debates but you have to realize that Donald Trump himself is it has not been supported by a lot of the Republicans because they are part of the corrupt bull crap that’s been plaguing our government for the last 25-30 years. He is the human hand grenade to these career politicians he’s going to cut a lot of their paychecks by a substantial amount and they’re spending allowances and no more taxpayer money going to gun control or gun prevention from people to buy them and these gun buyback programs they’re going to go away too. What I’m saying is Trump would have run as an independent and had said that in the initial debate but you can’t win as an independent you have to pick a party so he went with the conservative party because they agree with a lot of his beliefs however he is very very anti-government as far as Government controlling the people instead of We the People controlling the government I mean we do pay their salaries LOL.

  16. avatar Swilson says:

    This is the one reform that I think has the best chance of passing, as well it should. The HPA addresses an actual firearm-related public health concern.

    While I’d love nothing more, I remain doubtful that national reciprocity will be passed. Too many politicians and “advocacy” groups will cry states’ rights.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      No city or state has the “right” to ignore the full faith and credit clause of the CotUS.

  17. avatar Burley says:

    how about this: instead of adding regulation, just redact portions(or all) of the NFA. No need to make it complicated. Simply state in no uncertain terms that the portion of the NFA about “gun mufflers” is now null and void. Then we can say that we are simply restoring constitutionality. Extreme, I know, but simple, effective and less easily abused.
    No laws regarding hearing protection devices(mufflers, silencers, suppressors) would be the best for everyone involved. No more federally mandated meddling in an issue that is clearly protected with the words “Shall not be infringed”!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      While your proposal is excellent on paper, it fails to account for existing state entanglements which the author stated.

      Let us say that Louisiana only allows for ownership/possession of suppressors that a person acquired according to the federal process. What if, as you propose, fedzilla totally eliminates the process — treating suppressor purchases the same as salad bowl purchases? Of course you could rationally claim that purchasing a suppressor just like a salad bowl satisfies the federal process, since there is no process. But would Louisiana honor that argument? That is anyone’s guess.

      If states did not honor that argument, then everyone in those states would have to wait for their state legislatures to catch up and decriminalize suppressor ownership … which would probably fail in some states.

      On the other hand, if fedzilla simplifies the process such that our only requirement is passing a background check before purchasing a suppressor from a Federal Firearms Licensee, that would almost certainly satisfy the federal “process” requirements of states.

      Now, if U.S. Congress is really smart, they would pass a Hearing Protection Act that allows people to purchase suppressors without any process just like salad bowls, and also allow people to purchase suppressors from Federal Firearms Licensees with a background check to satisfy any state requirements that have not updated to allow free purchase of suppressors.

      1. avatar Burley says:

        I get it. We are so mired up in paper work that only more paper work can cover all the collective asses.
        How about something else entirely: an attorney general that will prosecute every governor and state assembly member that won’t immediately restore constitutionality for firearms(and other things, like catching rain in a barrel) in their state? Surely there is a process by which the Constitution can be held as the law of the land in regards to matters explicitly spelled out in it. Surely there is an actionable level at which infringing on explicitly enumerated and protected individual rights can become criminal, ESPECIALLY to elected and appointed officials sworn to uphold the law!?

  18. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I am looking forward to the day when just about every new handgun and rifle includes a threaded barrel as a standard item!

    Meanwhile, we will have to retrofit all the existing handguns and rifles. Speaking of, roughly how much would a gunsmith charge to thread a revolver barrel or a rifle barrel for a suppressor?

    1. avatar ACP_arms says:

      Unless the revolver has a enclosed/shrouded cylinder, gases going out the cylinder gap would be louder then the muzzle.
      A tip-open is the only option for a revolver with a can.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Watch for a resurgence of that old Mosin gas-seal revolver design from the revolver companies.

        And watch for an explosion of American creativity with new patents for suppressed revolvers…

  19. avatar Joe T says:

    It will never happen. That’s a ton of tax money that American firearms enthusiast’s willingly shell out to the US Goverment. They are not going to give that up.

    1. avatar million says:

      then possibly the horse-trading will still include a suppressor tax.. just much less than $200.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Joe T,

      I think your argument fails to hold water.

      How many suppressors do people buy each year in the U.S.? Maybe 50,000? (How many people are willing to go through the ATF tax stamp process, wait for 9 months, and pay the $200 tax? Not that many.) So the ATF collects something like $10 million annually in tax revenue. However, the ATF also incurs a HUGE expense to collect that tax revenue because they have to review, approve, and keep records of every application. I would be surprised if the suppressor acquisition process nets any money at all for the federal treasury.

      Now, how many people would purchase suppressors if the Hearing Protection Act becomes law? I would venture a guess of at least 1 million per year. (I would immediately buy between two and four suppressors!) If the feds apply their usual 10% excise tax on suppressor sales and the average suppressor comes down in price to $100, the feds would collect $10 million dollars at almost zero expense. And if suppressor prices stay in the $800 range as many are now, the feds would collect something like $80 million annually, still at almost zero expense.

      Thus, I think the Hearing Protection Act, if it subjects suppressors to the nominal 10% excise tax on firearm purchases, will net a LOT more money for the federal treasury every year. That alone should be reason enough for fedzilla too pass the Hearing Protection Act.

      1. avatar Gun owning liberal (yes they do exist) says:

        I know if they are no longer subject to the BATF stupidity, I will make a couple for my guns. I already have some hearing loss, I don’t need anymore.

        That is assuming the price point doesn’t come down on factory made units.

        Adding a threaded barrel to my handguns isn’t that big of a deal. One of the things I check before purchase is availability of threaded barrels and how hard is it to change the barrel.

  20. avatar Dan says:

    With the materials being relatively cheap, and the claimed $20 cost in NZ, does this mean supprrssor prices will drop? What makes them so expensive today? License for manufacture of nfa items? Our cost is automatically $200 plus whatever the manufacturer charges for said can. Could we expect to walk out the door with a can for less than our today’s cost to entry?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “What makes them so expensive today?”

      Titanium is very expensive and both Ti and inconel alloys are *very* difficult to machine.

      A $20 .22lr can is aluminum and is effectively ‘shot out’ after a number of rounds…

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I’ve tried to explain this repeatedly but most people don’t listen.

        Alloys of Ti cost a boatload right off the bat if they’re well made. The cheaper Ti, Stainless and Hastelloy (you won’t see that much in cans, if at all) all come from China and Chinese metallurgy SUCKS. The billets they make often have serious flaws in them.

        So that’s part of the price. The second issue is the amount of engineering that goes into these things. A modern can is meant to last for multiple lifetimes if properly cared for. That’s not easy to do and it’s not cheap.

        The third issue, as you rightly point out, is the machining. Just the machines to do that are millions of bucks a pop. That’s a fixed overhead cost that has to be built in to the price of each unit sold.

        The forth issue is the welding that is done. For all practical purposes Ti and Stainless, the two components of most cans, cannot be joined by a weld when we’re talking about a can. I won’t get into the weeds on it but welding the two together forms compounds that are very hard and very brittle. You end up with embrittlement of the weld and extremely low ductility of both the weld and the surrounding area. To date there is no filler metal that solves this problem. So, some engineering goes into figuring out how to put the thing together in a way that these welds are not made. On top of that, most mufflers are welded by hand to X-ray quality specs. TIG welders that can do Ti at that level come at a serious premium but far less than a machine that will do the weld for you. The welder might cost you $50/hour. The machines will run you North of $6 million each and then you have to have it calibrated, programmed and train someone to run it. God help you if you ever need to have it serviced.

        Fifth and finally, a company like TBAC or Silencerco simply doesn’t sell a lot of these things due to current law. They invest massive amounts of money in items 1-4 and they need to make a profit. With low sales numbers they can’t make their money on volume so they have to make it on each item. Keep in mind that when a car company totally retools to put out a new type of car/truck the first one off the line costs them tens of millions to make. They still sell it for tens of thousands because they expect to sell a lot of them. If they only could sell a few hundred a Ford F-150 would cost what a Bugatti Veyron costs. It’s all about supply, demand, overhead and profit margins. The less units moved the higher the margin on each unit must be to make a profit or even just break even.

        Oh, and let’s not forget all the special licenses a company making stuff like this needs from the BATFE. A minor cost in comparison but an overhead cost nonetheless.

        1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Hey! Stop posting all the technical crap I was going to to get into! You’re making me feel lazy.

    2. avatar marco says:

      It most certainly will lead to a drop in suppressor prices.

      With a concomitant drop in quality as well.

      There’s a $200 barrier to entry, that isn’t even paid to companies.

      There’s nearly no market for oil filters, etc. at that price.

      So because of that, and because you can’t replace a muffler easily or quickly, the robustness is a major consideration. So companies compete on noise reduction (yay!) but also on quality because waiting 9 months for a milk jug doesn’t make sense to most people.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        The cost will come down and the quality will remain the same.

        No one in their right mind wants a shitty can. If they’re paying their welders $15/hour they’re getting bottom of the barrel and I’m not going to trust that I’m not attaching a small grenade to the front of my gun.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          If suppressors are removed from the NFA, I guarantee there will be plenty of folks happy to use a dirt-simple $20 muzzle thread to oil filter thread adapter and just change out a $5 oil filter every 100 or so shots.

          Me, I’m eyeing a 2 liter soda bottle with a bit of duct tape on my beater .22lr rifle.

          I bet it would make a *bonk* sound…

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          A two liter or a really well made heavy duty party balloon will get you two shots from a .22LR rifle. Don’t ask me how I know this.

          As for an oil filter… yeah, cheap ass people might go that route… but I hope they don’t plan on shooting suppressed much, being able to see their target or doing much work with anything other than sub-sonic .22. My buddy got one of those adapters and was pissed when he realized it basically doesn’t do jack for anything that’s not subsonic .22.

          Spending money to have less fun with your guns and not be able to see your target… that will get old, even for cheap people, really, really fast. Yeah, I’ll take that $300 GemTech/Silencerco/TBAC/Surefire when the prices drop and leave the oil cans to the people who don’t know what they’re doing. Besides, look at the lubes people are using in those things. I don’t want that shit vaporized for me to breath or going into my gun. Suppressors are dirty enough to deal with without making it worse with vaporized and burnt [formerly]liquid hydrocarbons being added to the mess.

          Then there’s the added problem that in most cases going that route will turn most modern semi-auto pistols into a single shot pistol because an oil can adapter has no option for a Nielsen Device. You can see that here with this guys who just got their new toy…

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:


          Egads. I was *not* suggesting using a used oil filter…

  21. avatar Higgs says:

    My question is this- would this change allow us to manufacture our own silencers legally?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      You already can. Form 1 it.

  22. avatar FlamencoD says:

    I hope it passes, and then somehow brings the crazy prices of silencers down to a reasonable level. The registration and $200 tax sucks – but what I can’t wrap my head around is why silencers cost an arm and a leg, and more than many decent AR-15s. It’s ridiculous. It’s a threaded tube with some baffling in it. Make them affordable. They should cost about $100 or less for basic models, not 5x-10x that amount. Until they are decently priced, I probably won’t get one. I’ll keep hearing pro by my bedside until then. I could get another gun for the price of a can. Hard to fork out my hard earned dough for that.

    1. avatar pyratemime says:

      The low sales volumn is what makes them cost so much. Once they are easier to purchase economies of scale kick in and new manufacturers who don’t have the hideous expense of being NFA qualified shops will spring up causing more competition and lower prices as well.

  23. avatar strych9 says:

    Hopefully this actually happens. I have no problem with the cost of a modern can the way things are but the extra $200 so that I can wait 9+ months for approval of something the BATFE has already approval proved me for repeatedly is beyond obnoxious.

    Of course removal from the NFA would drop prices drastically when mufflers become a commodity item, so no complaints there.

    If nothing else, remove them so that we can prove they’re not a big deal.

  24. avatar pyratemime says:

    Does the HPA include a mandate that the ATF destroy all records on suppressors currently owned with a strict time table and personal criminal liability for failure to comply by those charged with such record destruction? If not it should.

  25. avatar John Dennis says:

    Do something about ITAR so companies that manufacture suppressors can sell their products to civilians in other countries.

    1. Thanks for reminding me. It is in the works. Deserves a separate article.

  26. avatar TexTed says:

    There’s one small problem with all this. The HPA was introduced in 2015 in the last congress by Matt Salmon of Arizona. He can’t introduce it in the new congress because … he retired. He’s gone.

    So while it is a minor technicality, it’s still potentially a big technicality. The HPA needs a new champion. It needs a new sponsor.

    TAKE ACTION! I recommend you all look through the list of cosponsors ( and see if your representative is on the list (and is still in office). If they are, then write to them and ask them to introduce the bill immediately. I’ve already checked, my rep isn’t on the list.

  27. avatar Hannibal says:

    It would be nice (I’m always forgetting to throw out old oil filters and maybe I could get some use out of them) but… well, I’ve doubted everything in the past year so who knows.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      No, no, NO!

      Do *NOT* use an used oil filter!

      New ones can be about 5 bucks (on up).

      If you want to run it ‘wet’, use water…

      1. avatar Barricade says:

        Serious question: Instead of water, could you not use the lubricant they sell in Lowes for running cabling? Seems like the viscosity, and overall consistency of the gel would work better than water in almost all aspects. It’s a water based lube (I’m not convinced it isn’t non-sterilized KY jelly actually, but I’m not willing to find out either).

        I’m only talking about the oil filter crowd using them on 22lr.

        BTW: I forget the part number at the moment, but the fuel filter from NAPA, will supress standard 22lr, almost as well as subsonic. There is a definite difference, but the fuel filter does a fantastic job, and so far has lasted through several hundred rounds.

        Or…so I’ve been told anyway…

        Also, am I the only one who thinks that supressed weapons sound like a large (long snouted) animal sneezing?

  28. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    The only problem with this incrimentalization of restoring gun rights is that all we’ll ever accomplish is knocking the low hanging fruits from the tree. The more we strip away particularly unpalatable portions of a law, the harder it is to remove the original egregious legislation in the first place.

    I am all for removing silencers from the NFA. *HOWEVER* we shouldn’t have an NFA in the first place. How many of you here are ‘okay’ with government regs on FAs or DDs? Why? Because someone, somewhere might do something bad? Why do we allow ourselves to be hamstrung by the actions of criminals? I committed no transgressions against another, so why am I being punished?

    It isn’t about being an ideologue, or a purist. It’s about basic tenets of freedom. Stop punishing people for crimes they never committed.

  29. avatar Darkwing says:

    Wake the frell up sheeple, Tramp, sorry Trump, is not the president YET but he is you new G-D

  30. avatar That Guy says:

    Once (IF) this is done I would also love to see the price of a tube and baffles to drop. I know I’m cheap but $400-$1200 for a can is crazy. Like this article stated: $10-$20 dollar accessory should not have inflated that much. I would however be comfortable picking one ( or several) up if they were priced like accessories.

  31. avatar justaman says:

    As a life long recreational shooter I am now mostly deaf. Had this law not been enacted I
    might still have my hearing. I only started using hearing protection about 35 years ago but I guess the damage was done by then. My hearing aids cost me $3000. with no help from insurance. A suppressor would of been cheaper. The ear muffs were not a common thing back then.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      I grew up in the seventies so I know exactly what you’re talking about. The only time you ever saw a pair of earmuffs was in an indoor range where the pressure would literally cause severe damage if you didn’t use the muffs it was painful to stand inside a indoor range and have two or three people shooting at once. The same thing goes with the fire department now they all wear hearing protection and have for about the last 20 years but back in the eighties my father Road right next to the engine on the tower truck 424 years and only had it hearing protection for 8 of those 24 years and was totally death in his left ear and damn near death in his right. Yeah this is a safety matter this is sand less of an irritation to your neighbors if you’re an active shooter and you have property you may have neighbors that don’t want to hear gunshots going off all day long and I can completely understand that from their point of view this will help immensely with that. And for ranges that constantly get complaints about the noise this would resolve those issues as well. I’ve heard many stories on this website and on other websites about outdoor private gun clubs being closed down for noise pollution because you get a neighborhood that didn’t exist prior to the gun club opening its doors but all the sudden they pop one up a couple blocks away and now you get all these noise complaints and then the next thing you know the city’s shut you down or the county rather. This really does need to pass we need to really push this issue with our new president. It’s a safety issue as well if you can’t hear what your instructor or your father or your mother is trying to tell you while learning how to use a firearm that could be very dangerous having it much quieter around the range will let people communicate to the people their training much easier and less mistakes are able to happen and just all around better safer quieter and funner you don’t get all sweaty from them here much I hate that you’re at the range for about 4 hours shooting and you come out of there and right around your ears your soaking wet. Of course I live in Florida. LOL

      1. avatar justaman says:

        I used to use old cigarette filters shoved in my ears. Don’t work so good.

  32. 3852 299151Basically wanna remark which you have a quite good internet internet site , I enjoy the layout it in fact stands out. 689229

Write a Comment


button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email