Gun control groups have a complicated relationship with the truth. Consistently, they maintain that their crusade against the Second Amendment is an effort to augment safety in America. They claim that they are not against the lawful use of firearms, but that they just wish to restrict who has them, when they may be used, what kind of firearms are allowed to be owned and in what manner they are kept.
But other than that, they are super supportive of the Second Amendment…
Gun control fanatics routinely call for bans on scary-looking guns and scary-looking cosmetic features for guns. They have had varying success banning barrel shrouds, pistol grips, bayonet lugs and flash suppressors as well as those ultra-scary “high-capacity” magazines… because, as everybody knows, it takes 11 rounds to be dangerous. 10 rounds in a magazine, apparently, cannot kill.
One such laughable dearth of logic is seen in the left’s hatred of suppressors (also called “silencers”). Suppressors are tubes attached to the end of a barrel that allows the bullet to pass through baffles which help eliminate a sizeable amount of the noise.
Since Congress submitted to hysteria and approved the National Firearms Act of 1934, suppressors have required considerable government oversight to obtain. In addition to a $200 tax stamp for transfers (a tax meant to render the device cost-prohibitive in Depression-era America), citizens wishing to exercise their right quietly must also submit a form that takes months and months for the government to approve or deny.
Once one obtains permission from the almighty government, then one can fully be allowed to purchase a simple noise-reducing device.
Soon, however, that may change. Over the past few years, Second Amendment advocacy organizations have highlighted the need to eliminate suppressors from the NFA requirements so that enthusiasts can shoot without sustaining damage to their ears or otherwise polluting the area with a cacophony of deafening booms.
Second Amendment organizations are vehemently pushing for the Hearing Protection Act which would eliminate suppressors from the NFA. The NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the American Suppressor Association as well as a plethora of other organizations are pushing the legislation and making it a top priority for 2016.
“It could be a really big deal for the gun industry,” said SilencerCo CEO Joshua Waldron, who also holds positions at the NRA and the American Suppressor Organization. “We’re gaining momentum. The best part about this bill is we didn’t understand how much support we would get from all of the organizations: NSSF, NRA, Congressional Sportsman Foundation. It’s really a strong push because in essence everybody understands what suppressors really are.”
“They make hunting and shooting safer. That’s an issue that everybody can get behind on both sides of the table.”
The suppressor is essentially the same technology we use every day in our cars; they are, essentially, mufflers, a device created for the same purpose by the same man.
“It’s ridiculous when you think about it,” Waldron said. “Can you imagine if you had to pay a $200 tax for your muffler for your car and had to wait six months before you could go pick up your car from the lot? It doesn’t make any logical sense.”
Waldron’s company has been instrumental in advancing the legislation and highlighting the need for it.
“We helped the American Suppressor Association in drafting the language for the bill,” Waldron said. “From our website alone we’ve generated 60,000 letters sent to lawmakers in support of HPA.”
Conservative Arizona Congressman Rep. Matt Salmon introduced the Hearing Protection Act and said that he has seen a considerable support for the bill.
“It’s been very positive,” Salmon said. “We already have 55 co-sponsors. We have Democrats on the bill as well. It’s actually picking up a lot of steam. Suppressors really should’ve never been placed in the act in the first place. I think it was a mistake in the first place. There’s no rationale. It’s not the same as fully automatic weapon. To me it’s a great training tool.”
Though suppressors may look like a tool used by a nefarious assassin, the fact is that criminals simply do not use them in the furtherance of crimes.
“There have been zero legally-owned suppressors used in crimes since the ‘30s,” Waldron claimed.
Because of that fact, Salmon has not noticed any formidable opposition to the commonsense legislation.
“They’re just not used in crimes,” Salmon said. “People are buying them for training purposes and because they are concerned about the noise levels. Most people that have any level of opposition to it are operating on urban legend instead of reality. They’re the kind of people that get all of their knowledge from watching The Bourne Identity.”
“I think once people know exactly what they do and the benefits they have, the opposition just kinda withers up because it’s not rational,” Salmon said.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence predictably blasted the use of suppressors by reframing the argument and attempting to discuss the Second Amendment as a privilege predicated upon a sporting consideration, not a right predicated upon enlightenment thought.
“A silencer is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are also illegal,” a 2008 report by the Brady Center said.
The bill is likely to pass in the House and the Senate, but may face a veto from President Obama.
However, placing the approved bill on his desk would shine a light on whether he is truly committed to “commonsense” gun laws as approving the legislation would significantly reduce hearing loss for shooters around the country while having no effect on crime.