Hearing Protection Act passes first hurdle...

The HPA was incorporated into the SHARE act and passed the initial vote in the House Committee of Natural Resources a couple days ago. Up next is a full vote in the House of Representatives.

Story:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170913/nra-backed-share-act-passes-committee

This would be great, but doubtful. Too much lost revenue and too many lost gov't. jobs. P_102.

I would agree if it was a standalone bill but being lumped in with the SHARE act I think it had a good chance.

I don't think the revenue loss will be that substantial. With 1.3 million suppressors registered in the US. That's only $26 million. That's a drop In the bucket. I don't own one and never will until the government bullsht to own one is lifted. They could still charge for the tax and I'd buy one. I think there a lot of sportsmen that feel this way.

Maybe my numbers are wrong, aren't tax stamps $200 and not $20? In an article 15 months ago about SilencerCo, they were selling 18,000 suppressors a month, had 65% market share and were growing 100% every year. Using those numbers, If you run the math I think you'll find that 2017 tax revenues from the entire market should be somewhere around $150,000,000 and close to $300,000,000 in 2018 if the growth rate stays the same.

P_102

I'd pay the $200 to cash and carry, no BS

Same here....

We will have to wait and see. If it passes the House vote I will get excited. But even then it could get stripped out.

Keep your fingers crossed

I understand and sympathize with your view, but suppressors, stripped of Hollywood BS, are simply **safety** devices that reduce noise output by 30 db and nothing more. Having them on the NFA is irrational and is based on factual misinformation.

Look, how many people have you met **in person** who have had hearing damaged caused by firearms? For me, the number is well over 100, and probably over 200. Firearms are a serious danger to hearing and suppressors are the best way to reduce the epidemic of hearing damage within the shooting community.

I've been willing to compromise on that for years. I'll put up the money but I want to walk out the door with it that day.

No, hearing protection is. That's just a silly justification

its dead now

Yep it’s been shelved indefinitely!

They are remaining mum on national retroprocity. My bet is it will die too!

I wish one of the major news organizations would show a supersonic round test with and without a suppressor. It would go a long way in dispelling the myth of what everyone believes a suppressed round sounds like.

Charlie

One word " movies " is why they think they sound like they do .

Why would they do that....they are the ones amplifying and advancing the agenda.....

Yes they are.

Not silly, both should be an option decided by the individual using the firearm. I wear hearing protection at the range where it is practical. In the field, I want to be able to hear what's going on around me. I want to be able to hear the birds and squirrels as they can be a good source of information and add to the enjoyment of the hunt. Not blow a hunt because I couldn't hear the deer/hog/whatever approaching from the distance or because I was fumbling with ear plugs just before taking aim and firing. I also don't want to get bit by a rattlesnake because I couldn't hear it's warning as I walk past or reach down to pick up my empties from bird hunting.

As it stands now, I have to choose hearing protection or none while I hunt and I go with none for reasons above and then some. At some point I'll probably have to start yelling 'WHAT?!!!' while cupping my ears like my dad does because I opted for no protection and can't hear well. But, that's okay because by that point I will have a lot of successful hunts where I didn't get bit by the big ol' rattler.

I'm a big boy who can usually take care of himself and don't need government or others telling me what's best for 'my own good'. Let me live my life and I'll deal with the consequences, good or bad.