The HPA's next step, SHUSH.

[Royal Range USA]

A new Senate bill introduced in June by Senators Mike Lee and Mike Crapo would remove federal regulations of firearm silencers, classifying them as firearm accessories. This bill, known as the Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing (SHUSH) Act, would take the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), which is currently under consideration, a step further in protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen across the country. The bill has also been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Steve King.

What would the SHUSH Act do?

The current HPA bill, that has 154 co-sponsors, would be a victory for gun enthusiasts across the nation—eliminating processing delays in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and getting rid of costly tax stamps. However, the HPA bill would still include transfer requirements, that regulate firearm suppressors the same way as firearms. By taking the bill a step further with the SHUSH Act and reclassifying silencers as firearm accessories, the transfer requirements would be removed, making it easier for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearm suppressors over-the-counter.

 

In a press release from Senator Lee’s office regarding the introduction of the SHUSH Act in the Senate, Senator Lee states, “Suppressors can make shooting safer for the millions of hunters and sportsmen that exercise their constitutional right to use firearms every year,” going on to state, “The current process for obtaining a suppressor is far too expensive and burdensome. Our bill would remove these unnecessary federal regulations and make it easier for firearms users to protect themselves.”

Hearing protection for gun owners

In addition to removing burdensome taxes and processing delays, the SHUSH Act would protect the hearing of gun owners and hunters. Anti-gun advocates, such as Kristin Brown who works for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, have stated that “there is not evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.” However the American Speech Language Hearing Association has found quite the opposite to be true, reporting that firearm use can often lead to “high-frequency permanent hearing loss.” This hearing loss associated with firearm use can make hearing certain sounds of speech and pitches difficult for those that suffer from it. The SHUSH bill would be an important step in protecting the hearing of sportsmen and hunters around the country.

 

In the release published by Senator Lee’s office, Senator Crapo states, “By properly classifying suppressors as a firearm accessory our bill would allow sportsmen to have better access to hearing protection and preserve the hearing of sportsmen, gun owners and those who live near shooting ranges.”

Learn more about the use of firearm suppressors

If you want to learn more about how you can protect your hearing while participating in shooting sports and the laws surrounding the use of gun silencers in the state of Tennessee, contact our Nashville shooting range today to learn more! Our five-star indoor gun range in Nashville includes a knowledgeable staff, gunsmithing, a gun shop, and a wide range of educational training courses. We look forward to hearing from you!

 

Royalrangeusa.com

[Whisper]

Let's hope this is a serious bill and not just another diversionary way for the GOP to pretend to be pro-gun.  The HPA would already be enacted if the Republicans had any serious interest in it.  The fact that it hasn't been says a lot about the current administration's real feelings about gun rights.  Remember that Trump was a gun-banning Democrat before he decided it was more advantageous to pretend to be a Republican.

Cheers,

Whisper

[Royal Range USA]

I, not the company, tend to be of the opinion that it is precisely a diversionary bill. I am hopeful that the intent of the diversion is to say "Hey anti-gunners, we can make this a lot "worse" than the HPA, so fall in line!". But hope in one hand and..., well you know.

[E4 No More]

On 7/26/2017 at 11:20 AM, Royal Range USA said:

Hearing protection for gun owners

In addition to removing burdensome taxes and processing delays, the SHUSH Act would protect the hearing of gun owners and hunters. Anti-gun advocates, such as Kristin Brown who works for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, have stated that “there is not evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.” However the American Speech Language Hearing Association has found quite the opposite to be true, reporting that firearm use can often lead to “high-frequency permanent hearing loss.” This hearing loss associated with firearm use can make hearing certain sounds of speech and pitches difficult for those that suffer from it. 

Clearly a blithering idiot who knows absolutely nothing on the topic yet runs her mouth. Just ask the military how many service members and vets they treat and giver service-connected disability to due to hearing loss. I would be one of them.

[btq96r]

This bill will go old and die waiting for a committee hearing.

With this SHUSH act not even requiring suppressors/silencers to initiate a background check at purchase, I really can't see it passing.  Even I think they should be treated the same as any firearm for purchase.

Also, there is a provision in the House version that nullifies any state ability to " impose a tax on any such conduct" which would seem to be out of bounds with concurrent taxing system.  I don't think it's meant to approach sales taxes on a transaction of commerce, but NFA style taxes at the state level.  The same language also nullifies "recordkeeping or registration requirement with respect to the firearm silencer."  So, there are a few more strikes against it.

 

On 7/26/2017 at 0:35 PM, Whisper said:

The HPA would already be enacted if the Republicans had any serious interest in it.  The fact that it hasn't been says a lot about the current administration's real feelings about gun rights.

If Republicans are still thinking strategy in politics, and not just dealing with the day-to-day messes of their President, the HPA comes into the plans around in the after the first quarter of next year.  That way, they can force all those Senate Democrats running for re-election in red states into a quandary as they balance out the impulses of their base in the primary against their odds in the general.

The fact that they couldn't do anything of consequence legislatively so far makes me wonder if they are trying to follow the campaign plan anymore...if they even had one to action. 
 

[btq96r]

On 8/4/2017 at 10:37 AM, SWJewellTN said:

Clearly a blithering idiot who knows absolutely nothing on the topic yet runs her mouth. Just ask the military how many service members and vets they treat and giver service-connected disability to due to hearing loss. I would be one of them.

If we're speaking honestly, that's an occupational hazard, not a public health issue.  I would love to have a can for any of my guns without the hassle of the NFA process.   But pretending this is some epidemic we need to government to solve for our safety is a disingenuous as the logic that brought the NFA laws and others that followed to begin with. 

The argument in favor of legalizing suppressors sans NFA hassles is the intent of the 2nd Amendment being to allow the individual citizen to be as well armed as is needed for service in defense of the land is all the reason we need.  With the military and police making use of this equipment in the gear they issue, citizens should be allowed to as well.

Edited August 7, 2017 by btq96r

[Sunfish]

Very few taxes are lifted once they are in place. If you want someone to sponsor something in that crew you must sell it as free money. Meaning lift the wait keep the registration and taxes. Politicians only have one thing on their brain and no time for anything else. It doesn't make any difference if they are already rich they still want more. It's burned into their PC.   ( Power and Control )  

[E4 No More]

9 hours ago, btq96r said:

If we're speaking honestly, that's an occupational hazard, not a public health issue.  I would love to have a can for any of my guns without the hassle of the NFA process.   But pretending this is some epidemic we need to government to solve for our safety is a disingenuous as the logic that brought the NFA laws and others that followed to begin with. 

The argument in favor of legalizing suppressors sans NFA hassles is the intent of the 2nd Amendment being to allow the individual citizen to be as well armed as is needed for service in defense of the land is all the reason we need.  With the military and police making use of this equipment in the gear they issue, citizens should be allowed to as well.

No surprise that I disagree with you. I was commenting about hearing loss being connected to prolonged exposure to gunfire, (or just pick your poison: machinery, speakers, music, etc). As for a public health issue you can't comment either way absent a study, really. To my knowledge there has been no study: however, hearing loss is VERY prevalent so I don't need to have a study to reach the conclusion absent of any other data to the contrary.

[Capbyrd]

11 hours ago, btq96r said:

Even I think they should be treated the same as any firearm for purchase.

But pretending this is some epidemic we need to government to solve for our safety is a disingenuous as the logic that brought the NFA laws and others that followed to begin with. 

 

1.  Why?  They aren't firearms.  They are an accessory and should be treated as such. 

2.  No one is needing the government to solve it.  We need the government out of it.  You are backwards. 

[seez52]

Maybe the Consumer Product Safety Commission should get involved and require all new guns sold come with some sort of hearing protection which could include a can. Would help out a stagnating industry.

[gjohnsoniv]

57 minutes ago, seez52 said:

Maybe the Consumer Product Safety Commission should get involved and require all new guns sold come with some sort of hearing protection which could include a can. Would help out a stagnating industry.

I get where you're coming from, but they don't need to be involved. Next thing you know they'll be the ATF proxy making bull#### rules for "safety reasons."

[Wingshooter]

9 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

 

1.  Why?  They aren't firearms.  They are an accessory and should be treated as such. 

2.  No one is needing the government to solve it.  We need the government out of it.  You are backwards. 

Exactly right. A can should be an accessory. No different than a rail mounted laser, flashlight, muzzle brake, flash hider, red dot, scope, BUIS, etc...

[xsubsailor]

Heeere we go again.

Lawmakers on Tuesday debated the merits of a Republican-backed bill that would make it easier for individuals to buy gun silencers.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., introduced the measure in the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, the Hill reported. The provision calls for a less extensive and instant background check.

Duncan’s bill is reportedly dubbed the Hearing Protection Act. The debate was reportedly delayed after the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., in June in a park in Arlington, Va.

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., reportedly said it seems that sportsmen “have to choose between damaging their hearing and being able to hunt, shoot, target practice.”

Democrats said the bill is dangerous, and would make it more difficult to determine where shots are being fired in an active-shooter situation.

“We should not make it easier for anyone to obtain these weapons of war,” Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., said, according to the report.

David Chipman, a senior policy adviser of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a pro-gun control group, was invited to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands hearing, the Hill reported.

Chipman said the bill “would make silencers more readily available to criminals because for the first time in 80 years private parties could sell these guns without background checks on the internet and in gun shows and this has never been the case before.

The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm supports the measures, saying suppressors are “harmless and very rarely used in crime” and that the joint bill would end the “cumbersome and lengthy application process.”

A similar measure failed in 2015. But supporters are optimistic this time with President Donald Trump in office.

The GOP lawmakers say the bill aims to “cut through the red tape” of owning a suppressor and, if passed, would remove the accessory from the scope of the National Firearms Act. They also say it would replace the “outdated” federal application process with the “instantaneous” National Instant Criminal Background Check.

Critics point to a February 2013 situation in which fired Los Angeles police Officer Christopher Dorner killed four people in a series of attacks over 10 days that targeted law enforcement officials. They argue the fatal attacks might have been stopped earlier had Dorner not been using silencers.

“There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire,” Kristin Brown, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year. “There is evidence of a public health crisis from gun violence, and we think that’s where legislative efforts should be directed.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/13/republicans-push-gun-silencer-bill-democrats-fire-back.html

[Esko 270]

What do you guys think about share?