Hearing Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 15, 2025
Bottom line
This bill deregulates firearm silencers at the federal level by removing them from the National Firearms Act, while simultaneously imposing a new federal excise tax on their sale by manufacturers.
What it actually does
This bill removes firearm silencers from the definition of "firearms" under the National Firearms Act (NFA), thereby eliminating federal registration, transfer, and making requirements for silencers. It also preempts state and local taxes or registration requirements on silencers and mandates the destruction of existing federal silencer registration records. Additionally, it imposes a new 10% federal excise tax on firearm silencers and mufflers at the manufacturer, producer, or importer level, and updates federal criminal code definitions and marking requirements for silencers.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that silencers are primarily hearing protection devices, not instruments of crime, and that current federal regulations under the NFA are overly burdensome, costly, and infringe on Second Amendment rights. They contend that removing these barriers would encourage responsible gun ownership and protect shooters' hearing, making shooting sports safer and more accessible.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that deregulating silencers would make it easier for criminals to acquire and use them, potentially increasing gun violence and making it harder for law enforcement to track firearms used in crimes. They may also express concern that the removal of silencers from the NFA could lead to a broader deregulation of other firearm accessories or types.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are easily understood, allowing for a quick and informed evaluation.
Section 2(a), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Section 5845(a)
Removal of Silencers from National Firearms Act Definition
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code to remove "any silencer" from the definition of a "firearm" under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This change effectively deregulates silencers at the federal level, meaning they would no longer be subject to the NFA's stringent registration, taxation, and transfer requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision removes an unnecessary and burdensome federal regulation that treats a hearing protection device as a dangerous weapon, thereby protecting Second Amendment rights and promoting safer shooting practices.
Critics contend
Critics contend that removing silencers from NFA oversight could make them more accessible to criminals, potentially increasing gun violence and making it harder for law enforcement to trace weapons.
Tradeoffs
Balances Second Amendment rights and ease of access for gun owners against concerns about public safety and law enforcement's ability to track regulated items.
Section 3, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Section 5841(f)
Grandfathering Existing Silencer Owners
This section adds a new subsection to the Internal Revenue Code stating that anyone acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18 (which governs general firearm provisions) shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer. This effectively grandfathers in existing silencer owners, ensuring they are not penalized for prior NFA compliance once silencers are removed from the NFA.
Section 4, Title 18, United States Code, Section 927
Federal Preemption of State and Local Silencer Regulations
This section amends federal law to explicitly preempt state and local laws that impose taxes (other than general sales/use taxes), marking, recordkeeping, or registration requirements on firearm silencers. This means states and localities would be prohibited from enacting or enforcing their own specific regulations on silencers once this federal law takes effect.
Section 5
Destruction of Federal Silencer Registration Records
This section mandates that the Attorney General destroy all federal registration records for silencers maintained in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, as well as any applications to transfer or make silencers, within 365 days of the bill's enactment.
Section 6, Title 18, United States Code, Section 921(a), 922(b), 923(i)
Updated Definitions and Marking Requirements for Silencers
This section amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code. It updates the definition of "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" to be more specific, including devices designed to diminish auditory report and their primary housing parts. It also adds "firearm silencer or firearm muffler" to sections 922(b)(1) and (3), which deal with sales to out-of-state residents and sales by licensed dealers. Furthermore, it establishes new marking requirements for licensed importers and manufacturers of silencers, requiring a serial number on the outer tube or primary housing, with provisions for marking variances if impractical.
Section 7, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Section 4181
New 10% Federal Excise Tax on Silencers
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose a new 10% federal excise tax on "firearm silencers or firearm mufflers" at the point of sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer. It also provides a definition for these terms specifically for this tax part of the Code and makes conforming amendments to other tax sections. This replaces the previous NFA transfer tax with a new excise tax.
This provision allows licensed importers and manufacturers of firearm silencers to request a marking variance from the Attorney General if marking the outer tube or primary housing with a serial number is impractical. The Attorney General is required to grant such a request unless there's good cause that the requested marking would not further the purposes of the chapter.
Section 6(3)(B), amending 18 U.S.C. 923(i)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide flexibility for industry in meeting regulatory requirements, acknowledging potential practical difficulties in manufacturing.
Case for: Proponents would argue this flexibility is crucial for manufacturers to comply with marking requirements without undue burden, especially given diverse designs of silencers. It ensures the regulation is practical.
Case against: Opponents might argue that allowing variances could create loopholes or inconsistencies in tracking silencers, potentially complicating law enforcement efforts if not strictly managed.
Estimated impact: Minor operational impact on manufacturers, potentially affecting a small percentage of silencer products.