JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.

Would passage of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) change your silencer collecting or other activitie

  • Yes! I'd buy my first can.

    Votes: 15 39.5%
  • Yes! I'd buy more cans.

    Votes: 13 34.2%
  • Perhaps buy a few more.

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • Not much difference, but it would be nice.

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • Nope, sure wouldn't change much.

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Not so much my personal collection, but my business or other hobbies.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Um, eh, iz needz a sil'nc'r after buy'n a case of Stagg Chili. Ahhh.

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Total voters
    38
Agree. Ideal scenario would be ownership of a gun that never went through an ffl (ie pre 2014 or whenever it was). But if it went through an ffl ever there is already documentation of the gun and who it belongs to. So further documentation of the same doesn't add much risk I think unless doing it under a new "permit" program. Permit program would be their primary list of recent firearms they can enforce against or confiscate. Fe if wa funds their existing yearly background check law and seeks to enforce it, where is the first place they would look? The formal WA state permit list.

Basically the further back you got the gun the more insulation there is. That's how it seems to me anyway. A trust for title 1 firearms is a document that no one sees except you. Unless of course you formally transfer guns to the trust via an ffl and I can see no reason whatsoever for doing that. That's how it seems to me anyway.
My assumption is that if HPA passes into law (unlikely, it just isn't a priority for the GOP or Trump - I doubt it is on their ToDo list at all), then transfers between immediate family would be like any other "firearms" - at least in states where such transfers are allowed without an FFL being involved - like OR currently allows.

So yes, if HPA actually becomes law, then I would probably buy a number of suppressors - at least several .22 RF/CF rated, and several that would work on various pistolas, and some that would work on .30 caliber HP rifles (7.62x39, 7.62x51, et. al.). I might even get some for .44/.45 rifles. Certainly some for 9mm/.40 & .45 pistols. In short, I would probably need to hit my IRAs for some $

But I am not going to hold my breath - I don't think anything 2A is on their To Do list. AFAIK, nothing in the long list of executive orders from Trump so far has anything to do with the 2A. He is too busy tilting windmills trying to sell the ERS/et. al., which is a hill he is willing to die on, and probably will.
 
If the HPA passes I want to see disposable cans for sale at $15 a pop. Make them out of cheap steel, just enough to hold out for a few hundred/1k rounds or so. If someone could innovate a "clip on thread" for unthreaded firearms we could make them basically mandatory for range use.
Ian at forgotten weapons did a run down in b&t suppressors and Swiss had huge long suppressor for sig rifle at ranges. Then they switched to tunnels instead. Their goal was to reduce impact on the community for army shooting. A simple cheap suppressor would accomplish the same thing. We need to change our thinking in USA to reducing noise in the community which is probably what the HPa tries to do (I've never read it so just a guess).

View: https://youtu.be/RGCnvX948Lg?si=nFiRHRJyi1u3hovN
 
The bill's deletion of existing silencer registrations would be a problem for WA residents. It would make them contraband overnight. Here's Washington's exception to the WA ban on silencers:


IMG_5459.jpeg
 
The bill's deletion of existing silencer registrations would be a problem for WA residents. It would make them contraband overnight. Here's Washington's exception to the WA ban on silencers:


View attachment 2024576
The HPA specifically preempts state restrictions. No state laws on silencers will be enforceable. (I cannot copy from the PDF for some reason, the specific passage is bottom of page 2).
 
Agree. Ideal scenario would be ownership of a gun that never went through an ffl (ie pre 2014 or whenever it was). But if it went through an ffl ever there is already documentation of the gun and who it belongs to. So further documentation of the same doesn't add much risk I think unless doing it under a new "permit" program. Permit program would be their primary list of recent firearms they can enforce against or confiscate. Fe if wa funds their existing yearly background check law and seeks to enforce it, where is the first place they would look? The formal WA state permit list.

Basically the further back you got the gun the more insulation there is. That's how it seems to me anyway. A trust for title 1 firearms is a document that no one sees except you. Unless of course you formally transfer guns to the trust via an ffl and I can see no reason whatsoever for doing that. That's how it seems to me anyway.
Re guns not on the WA state permit registry, WA just introduced a bill that would require a $25,000 liability policy per firearm or a deposit with the state dept of licensing in the amount of $25,000 cash per firearm.

Looking forward, any gun on their registry will have to comply with anything they dream up every year to continue to keep it. And they will turn the screws tighter every year. Sucks.

 
Last Edited:
Re guns not on the WA state permit registry, WA just introduced a bill that would require a $25,000 liability policy per firearm or a deposit with the state dept of licensing in the amount of $25,000 cash per firearm.
Yeah, they have not been subtle about their intentions for a while now. If they cannot ban firearms directly they will simply make them too expensive to own.
 
"or that imposes a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement. . ." They cannot impose any kind of registration requirements either. Taken as a whole I am unsure how they could impose a ban. May need to drag in an actual lawyer for an opinion.
It would be very difficult to convince a judge, even a neutral one, that this preemption provision forecloses state bans. Even if it did, states may be able to challenge it as violating their Tenth Amendment general police powers.

The HPA is an amendment to the NFA, a tax law, so it would have been a stretch to preempt non-tax bans. An amendment to the GCA (not a tax law), or Civil Rights Act to protect 2A rights would be better. I have not read the other bill which takes that route.
 
None of my guns are threaded so no impact here.
BUT, If not equal a nut and bolt, or even to auto mufflers, it is still governmental overreach and spiteful insult to all Americans.
 
If I could legally have a can, I would be seated in front of my lathe right now! There are so many places I could hunt if it did not bother the animals on that ranch. DR
 

Upcoming Events

Subsonic Rifle Match
  • Eugene, OR
Roseburg Rod and Gun Club Gun Show
  • Roseburg, OR
Redmond Gun Show
  • Redmond, OR

New Classified Ads

Back Top