The Best Silencer Deregulatory Bill Ever! The SHUSH Act Introduced!

Send to Kindle

A suppressor is nothing more than a firearm accessory and it should be treated as such in the eyes of the law! (Photo: Budding photojournalist Clay Martin)

Maybe it occurred to you, but it never really occurred to me, until now, that suppressors should be treated as firearm accessories — not as firearms and certainly not as NFA items.  The Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act, S.1505, would do just that.

Introduced by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) last week the SHUSH Act would eliminate ALL the federal regulations covering the possession, purchase, transfer, etc. of suppressors!  That would be huge!  That would be even better than the Hearing Protection Act (HPA)!

“Suppressors can make shooting safer for the millions of hunters and sportsmen that exercise their constitutional right to use firearms every year,” Sen. Lee said in a press release.

“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,” he added.

Under the Hearing Protection Act suppressors would be removed from the NFA naughty list — no $200 Tax Stamp, no registration, no reams of paperwork — but they would still be restricted like firearms.  In other words, purchasers would have to pass a background check from a licensed gun dealer or FFL.

SEE ALSO: Important Hearing Protection Act Update!

Under the SHUSH Act, suppressors would not only be removed from the NFA list, but they would also NOT be treated as firearms.  That’s right.  No FFL needed.  No background check needed.  Buying suppressors would be just like buying any other firearm accessory, e.g. new grips or new sights or lasers or lights.

“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,” Sen. Crapo said.

This is genius!  This needs to happen!  It makes perfect sense.  After all, a suppressor is not a lethal weapon.  It’s just a sound mitigating accessory.  And if common sense wasn’t enough of a reason to support this bill, just consider how pissed off it makes the anti-gun lobby.

“Two weeks after the Alexandria shooting forced gun lobby-backed congressmen to shelve a proposal that would enable dangerous people to buy firearm silencers, two more-gun lobby-backed U.S. Senators are introducing an even more radical bill in the U.S. Senate — just as Congress jets out of town,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety in a press release.

“This dangerous legislation would strip away all federal silencer laws and make it legal under federal law for convicted felons and domestic abusers to buy silencers as easily as they could buy a cell phone or an iPad,” continued Feinblatt. “For the gun lobby, this isn’t a hearing protection issue, it’s a profit protection issue. They want to sell firearm silencers to the masses, even at the expense of public safety. In the wrong hands, firearm silencers create new public safety risks. The loud and distinctive noise that a gun makes is one of its most important safety features: when people hear a gun shot, they know to run, hide, protect themselves or notify law enforcement.”

A version of the SHUSH Act has also been introduced in the House, H.R.3139.  The real question is whether this will catch on much in the same way the HPA has, which now has over 150 co-sponsors. I guess that’s where we come in, right?  I think it’s time we start contacting our respective representatives and senators.  Time to tell them to SHUSH!  That is, support SHUSH!

Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act of 2017 by Senator Mike Lee on Scribd

{ 67 comments… add one }
  • Edgar Guess July 13, 2017, 8:50 pm

    I am a veteran 83 yrs of age sharp shooter in service. Some hearing deficite still like to go to the range. A suppressor would allow me to enjoy this sport without more damage to my hearing. Why should be punished with these punitive and unnecessary regulations ?

  • Jimmy July 10, 2017, 4:20 pm

    A suppressor decreases gun shot noise by roughly 30 db. It doesn’t shoot anything by itself. Why would you regulate something that can’t be readily used as a weapon. Certainly a machete or baseball bat is more dangerous but has no regulations. The gun that uses it is already required to pass NICS. Stupid reasoning… again.

  • RayJN July 8, 2017, 10:28 pm

    The anti-gunners need the noise so they can run and hide. How is that working with trucks, cars and knives?
    This law would also mean you could make your own suppressor.

  • Michael Tuck July 8, 2017, 4:00 pm

    Amen to the HUSH Act

  • Capn Stefano July 8, 2017, 1:04 pm

    QUOTE: “Two weeks after the Alexandria shooting forced gun lobby-backed congressmen to shelve a proposal ”
    YES. This was exactly why the leftie loon shooter timed his spree for that day. He was a TERRORIST attempting to sideline an important bill designed to restore SOME level of liberty concerning silencers. As for me I’ve always believed that any waiting period, and registration, any restriction on type or nature of weaponry is utterly unconstitutional. Infringed means infringed, period!

    • Dewey July 11, 2017, 11:40 pm

      He shot a senator to stop a silencer bill? Do you actually read what you write? And believe it?
      No restrictions on guns at all, huh? Maybe they should be sold in vending machines, like soda?
      Gun owners like you are our worst enemy. Paranoid constitutional pseudo-scholars.

  • John July 8, 2017, 8:09 am

    Something is unusual, looking at the overall spectrum. Not a lot of revenue is generated from the nfa act, even with the ITAR registration added. Its chomp change for the most part. If I’m wrong show me some numbers. 3 to 4 million dollars isn’t much these days in comparison to all the other crap they stick us for.

  • Archangel July 8, 2017, 1:45 am

    Criminals can get guns already, and everything to make a “suppressor” is already available on the Internet, and they are called “Solvent Traps” and only need a few non-precision holes drilled, so only the law abiding are truly restricted.
    The main reason I don’t shoot more often is the concussion from the indoor ranges near where I live.

  • Scotty Gunn July 7, 2017, 10:19 pm

    They went too far and screwed the pooch. Should have gone with a low tax, say $100.00 and a NICS background check, fill out a 4473 and you are good to go. That would have sold to many. This won’t and I suspect that they knew it, intentionally scuttling it.

  • DG July 7, 2017, 8:34 pm

    Who cares if a convicted felon or domestic abuser can buy a supressor without paperwork as long as they still can’t buy the firearm to attach it to? That is a stupid argument made by a blindly rabid anti gun person who isn’t even smart enough to have thought this through. What the hell do they think they can do with a supressor alone?

  • Wyn Bryant July 7, 2017, 5:38 pm

    I appreciate this effort, but the idea that the Federal Government will willingly give up the chance to soak the public for $200 a pop (no pun intended) for buying a suppressor is wishful thinking. The $200 (and background check) was never about public safety; it was a legal “racket,” pure and simple, to rake in revenue for the General Fund. Getting a bill like this passed through Congress would be like getting them to vote to put themselves under the same Medicare and retirement programs as the ordinary American citizens that elected them. I’m grateful to its sponsors for their courage and common sense, but, with all due respect, I will be keeping my eye on the skies to watch for porcine aviators.

    • Charlie BROWN July 7, 2017, 7:47 pm

      I am afraid Wyn is right. the Gov. is always looking for another way to rob us.

  • Christopher July 7, 2017, 5:25 pm

    Sadly this still won’t get the 60 votes it needs in the Senate. Still too many Democrats to block it. Plus a few Rinos that voted for Clintons assault weapons ban. Awesome settiment tho…

  • C. Aldridge July 7, 2017, 1:40 pm

    Who came up with the idea that silencers were weapons in the first place?

    • Edgar July 7, 2017, 2:30 pm

      Precisely: We need to address why Suppressors were NFA items to begin with….because that is what the ATF\’s first response is going to be. I understand that during the Depression that the ATF required these to be regulated by NFA because they were afraid that people were going to use them to take game animals illegally. Times have changed and that need or threat no longer exists and we need to go ahead and remove the suppressors from NFA. Perhaps I may be mistaken…however we do need to address the reason in the 1st place that ATF made suppressors NFA items.

    • Norm Fishler July 9, 2017, 12:18 pm

      My history is a bit hazy on this so please forgive me if I do not get it 100%. As I recall, shortly after Hiram Maxim introduced his ‘silencer’, some local thugs in the early days of the 20th Century killed a a farmer’s cow while using a Maxim silencer & threatened to continue doing so until a certain ransom was paid. Happily the criminals were caught, but it put an indelible stain upon silencer ownership that resulted in them being included in the 1934 NFA, other factors notwithstanding. It continues unto this day. Hollywood’s depiction of suppressors has not helped either. Who else but a slimy criminal would desire such a tool of death? How about a conscientious parent who desires to protect their child’s hearing while teaching them the fundamentals of shooting & gun safety? The list goes on & on here, but I hope you catch my point. So as a car can be used for both good & evil, so also can a suppressor. It is my contention that the overwhelming effect of the legalization of suppressors will be positive. There are volumes of information out there on how to build a suppressor on the quiet (pun intended), both printed, and on line. Building a silencer can be as simple as using an empty two liter plastic pop bottle and a few wraps of tape, jamming a potatoe onto the end of your muzzle or as complex as spending many hours on the metal lathe. The criminal element has long been up to speed on them, while those who wish to use them lawfully remain encumbered at every turn.

  • Jonathan gall July 7, 2017, 1:38 pm

    I do want restrictions on silencers to go away but the thought of a thug and gang bangers being able to go to a gun store pants around there thighs and buy a can with no check on them I err on the side of at least a nics run on them just to make sure they are not thugs or ordering it online like magazines and optics they would be able to have it shipped to there crib I’m not ready for that

    • Edgar July 7, 2017, 2:34 pm

      perhaps you live in a place where your gang member or thugs are HIGH END gangsters; because most gangsters or thugs are not willing to shell out $800 or much more for a suppressor that is going to make his \”GAT\” much harder to hide. I have been in Law Enforcement for over 38 years and what you are describing is certainly not what we are encountering on the street. Your dreaming. If he thug has that kind of money to spend on High End accessories….well he doesn\’t need to be a thug…he has plenty of disposable income.

      • Batman July 9, 2017, 5:45 pm

        Really?! I guess drug cartel members who have millions of cash dollars at their disposal don’t buy high end shooting hardware. Clean out your headgear “lawman”!

    • ROBERT FENNER July 7, 2017, 2:41 pm

      You cantbjust throw a”can” on any weapon Einstein, why don’t you do some research on your own?? They don’t make a weapon silent, nor do they do anything else magical. They muffle the supersonic snap of a round after its left the barrel by an amount of decibels, it doesn’t make them less lethal, it doesn’t change their kinetic impact, it doesn’t make them armor piercing or magically turn corners or come from another direction. All it does with regular billets is…… practically nothing. With subsonic rounds, it does the same thing, albeit since they are subsonic they have the loud supersonic crack associated with normal rounds. So really your wasting your breath silencers really don’t have a benefit for those people who intend to use them offensively as seen in mass shootings

    • Boomer July 7, 2017, 3:47 pm

      Here is the problem with this argument and one I\’m surprised we never hear, in general.
      People are under the perception that suppressors make guns silent. They do not. Not even close. The movies show some hit man screw a \”can\” on a weapon and suddenly the shot is whisper quiet, letting them stand in a crowd and shoot and walk away, or in a cheap hotel with paper-thin walls and no one hears… And thats just not true. A suppressor reduces decibel levels to a safe level but under no means makes them a \”whisper.\”
      Silencers aren\’t really silent,
      \”Silencer\” was originally a brand name, just as is Kleenex. Eventually, all tissues were generically referred to as a Kleenex, regardless of manufacturer.
      The same has happened with suppressors which were developed, originally, to allow people to hunt without scaring off everything for 2 miles while protecting their hearing and to target shoot, etc., while the rest of the family could continue their picnicking, undisturbed by rudely loud shot reports. They were for the \”gentry.\”
      The military uses them to help long range shooters not give away their positions quite so easily but when up close, they\’re anything but silent. Just watch some YouTube videos. The shooter doesn\’t need hearing protection but you hear the shots plain as day. It makes shooting fun, not dangerous, so having a suppressor won\’t make gangbangers any more dangerous or secretive. Just not bust out innocent people\’s ears when they shoot, and, that\’s what we want, right? To protect the innocent?
      I have hearing damage from weapons fire from the service. My ears ring constantly. And from the reaction I got at the VA, so do a lot of other people. Vote to deregulate suppressors.

    • Wiz July 7, 2017, 5:28 pm

      Why? a suppressor only drops the report a small amount and unless subsonic ammo is used there is still the sonic report. Just another response from someone without all the facts. Square away and do some research. Then come back with a more thoughtful response.

    • joe July 8, 2017, 10:08 am

      Gangsters with suppressors? a) who cares and b) you watch too much TV.

  • AdamL July 7, 2017, 1:04 pm

    I personally would love to be able to use a suppressor on my AR. I shoot all the time to train for matches and the amount of rounds I put down range gives me one hell of a headache. I use in ear + muffs, but that exit pressure is always there. I had the opportunity to shoot a suppressed AR at a shot show with standard velocity rounds and the difference was night and day. The shots were still loud, but the suppressor really knocked down the exit pressure and no headache afterwords. I also noticed a small increase in accuracy.
    I can see both sides of the argument with these bills, but the fact still remains that, most violent crimes involving firearms, are committed by people who don’t legally own the firearm in the first place. If someone really wanted a suppressor for the intent of committing a crime, they could just make one themselves. Here again is another good example of government legislation being absolutely useless in counteracting gun violence.
    The only part of any kind of gun legislation I really agree with, is the mandatory background checks. They are not a big deal and if you’re not trying to hide something, then they shouldn’t be a big deal to any law abiding citizen either (other than the 10 minutes it takes to fill out the paperwork and sometimes slow computer system). When I buy a new firearm, my local gun shop charges $5 for the background check and Academy Sports is $10. If you are willing to pay the hefty price tag for a quality suppressor, an extra $10 or so shouldn’t matter.
    Amend the bills to remove all the current restrictions and the ridiculous “Tax Stamp”, put in the mandatory background check and lets head to the range!!

    • Taw1159g July 7, 2017, 4:37 pm

      Agreed completely. “Thugs” will get what they want regardless of the laws in place. And believe it or not, thugs can and often do have “gangsta rolls” of “hunnids” so the finacial means are there as well. I also agree with background checks. If you have nothing to hide, then who cares? Is it a pain in the ass? Sure. But coming full circle, criminals don’t follow rules so what good does a background check do? It’s a tough debate, I wish I had THE answer.

    • Wiz July 7, 2017, 5:34 pm

      Why does your gun shop charge for this service? It should be part of the sale and included in the price of the weapon you just purchased. I have never paid for any background check and never will. With a CCW card no check is needed in gun friendly states. I would change gun shops or make your shop quit with the charges, it was supposed to be free of charge to start with and now they are getting a little extra just cause they can. Rip off in my book.

  • ras July 7, 2017, 12:10 pm

    Let’s not get too excited. So far, the HPA of 2015 died on the vine. That may have been expected seeing that Obama would have vetoed it anyway. The HPA bill of 2017 has been in committee for almost 7 months and it too is destined to die on the vine like the first. This is unfathomable since we now have a GOP majority in the House, Senate, and a President willing to sign the Bill. There is also much to be concerned about making a suppressor an accessory, and not a firearm. If that were the case, then it would not be protected under the Second Amendment and the states could make up some law to prohibit them. With the Supreme court unwilling to hear the Peruta case, and the recent 4th Circuit anti-gun ruling, it is obvious that the court system is still infected with liberal judges appointed by recent Democrat presidents. It is also frustrating that the Republican congress is unwilling to move forward to dismantle the anti 2nd Amendment gun laws and regulations that are in place. It’s frustrating that Obama was able to ask his AG Loretta Lynch to make the process of acquiring a suppressor more difficult and all it took was a swipe of the pen and we had form 41f. Why can’t Trump and his AG do the same to if not remove suppressors from the NFA, at least make the process less burdensome and more timely. I cannot see it getting any better for law abiding gun owners, only worse. In time, if things keep going in the current direction, gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment will be a faded memory.

    • joe July 8, 2017, 10:09 am

      Unfathomable? You must not be too familiar with the GOP. Plenty of gun control has passed with GOP support. The ’89 import ban EO was straight from Bush’s desk!

      • Dewey July 9, 2017, 9:32 pm

        Sssssshhhh. These guys are happy in their world where there is a difference between “left and “right”. Don’t clog their little brains with knowledge that the most egregious gun control bills of the last 40 years were signed into law by Republican presidents, including Saint Reagan. They think being an NRA member is somehow helping them too.

        You’re right about H.W.’s import ban. Clinton’s “ban” was simply an extension of Bush’s work.

    • Briguy July 11, 2017, 3:07 pm

      The reason why Trump cannot create and sign a Executive Order is because those orders cannot supersede any established law. The most he can do is roll back 41f or order the BATFE to hire more background investigation agents to “speed up” the process.

      Obama went to law school and had constitutional lawyers advise him on what can and cannot be done. Trump either hasn’t figured out that or simply doesn’t understand how Executive Orders work (judging from his travel ban EO).

  • Andrew July 7, 2017, 11:34 am

    I always want more freedom when it comes to gun rights. What I don’t ever want to see is “mandatory” suppressors or people being sued for hearing loss because the good guy used a gun to save others but it caused a degree of hearing loss to a close bystander. “If his gun was suppressed I’d have zero damage to my hearing!”.

    I also don’t want to see outdoor shooting ranges where people are forced to only use suppressed firearms.

    If this passes, make no mistake, the left will create legislation mandating suppressors the way they try to make smartgun tech mandatory. But in the case of suppressors, they have logic on their side and the “tech” is already here.

    Oh, that Ruger LCP is so concealable! Now imagine it mandatory that you have a can on it.

  • Brandon Van Heyningen July 7, 2017, 10:55 am

    The reason that suppressors were even put on the NFA list in the first place was because of the great depression. The federal government took over farms and livestock to protect and regulate food during the state of emergency . The $200 dollar tax stamp was to prevent poaching , the idea behind it was that if someone could afford the $200 dollars they wouldn’t be poaching they could buy food. $200 dollars back then was like having $2,000 . After the depression ended the law was just left there and not removed and that is the ridiculous part . That law needs to be removed , it has for many many years .

  • SD Will July 7, 2017, 10:43 am

    Thats right! These are great bills. We here a lot about great bills that the idiots in Washington should pass. What happens to 95% of those great bills? NOTHING! They go nowhere because they don’t have the balls to pass them. All their concerned about is the next election. If they pass something like this or anything thats controversial it might have an effect on their chance of getting reelected. Heaven forbid we can’t have that! They absolutely must above all protect their seat so when they retire at the age of 95 or more they can look back and say they gave it all to their country. Thank you for your service.

  • ~ Occams July 7, 2017, 10:31 am

    I wish I had saved the pic of an 1800/early 1900’s advertisement for suppressors;

    “Gentlemen ALWAYS use a suppressor when others are about”

  • William M Durham July 7, 2017, 9:47 am

    As usual the anti gun nuts are going through many changes to block what is a normal item not a firearm. With luck this bill will pass and save gun owners hearing nad money

  • Kae Lee July 7, 2017, 9:32 am

    If this bill passes the lib’s will activate one or more of those people that hate real freedom ……. the ones that ruin everything for everyone ….. you know (like “your bbq smoke is coming on my yard – in calling the police”)

  • Whiperin' Smith July 7, 2017, 9:26 am

    Know what’s ironic? The exact same people who decry loud motorcycle exhausts are fighting suppressors. Plus they use the same (ridiculous) argument that loutish Harley riders use: Loud Guns Save Lives. Of course, the real reason is that they’d fight anything firearms related. If the sling were invented this year they’d oppose that. Plus, everything they “know” about silencers has been taught by the Movie of the Week, where Mr. Assassin screws a can onto a revolver and the thing turns into a straw with a spitball.

    • Oliver July 7, 2017, 10:09 am

      The anti-gun fucks say now the criminals will be able to purchase a suppresser as easily as buying a cell phone. Since when did a criminal have a problem getting a firearm or any other weapon for that matter.

    • Tony July 7, 2017, 12:39 pm

      What’s ironic is that you are an asshat jack-wad for referring to some Harley riders (and what about other motorcycle manufacturers like Indian, you fricken’ uneducated fool?).. as “loutish” – just because some of them enjoy the throaty and manly sound of an unoppressed exhaust. And secondly, you’re such an imbecile that you completely FAIL in YOUR ridiculous attempt to group ANYONE who is on one side or the other on either issue into the same camp.. and that is obviously RETARDED. I’m on the side of unfettered exhaust, AND on the side of a citizen’s right to have whatever silencer they prefer – or not.. for their weapons. It’s about the individual’s rights to FREEDOM of choice, you CLOWN. Government needs desperrately to be beaten over the friggin’ head – and eliminated from encroaching/ usurping OUR rights of self-determination!! AND it’s the liberals who are on the wrong side of both – as ALWAYS. What’s obvious is that you certainly didn’t ever get accused of being anywhere near the top of the food chain when it comes to brain strength. Nearly your entire post is RUBBISH. – Except that anti-gun people would ALWAYS be anti-anything gun-related.

      • KEN July 7, 2017, 3:53 pm

        Tony, don’t be so angry! The people that live next too a commercial airport probably wish that jets had mufflers. The best way is to use a subsonic round for suppressors. Hypersonic or transonic rounds depending on will only decrease decibels by 20-30, also depending on the suppressor. I think no nfa sbr or suppressors would be nice, but how many guns do criminals buy that have a threaded barrel. I don’t have an answer for that. No matter what, if a criminal wants anything destructive I am quite sure they will have a way too get it. By having too register it makes it is a good idea, but without tax stamp and a living will would be good. Good plinking too all.

  • joefoam July 7, 2017, 8:36 am

    We lose more people to opioids than gun violence here in AZ but I don’t hear the outrage over that. And like one of the previous comments above, I have never in all my years heard of a suppressor being used in the commission of a crime. The only thing our elected officials care about is getting re-elected. Until we convince them that supporting some of these common sense legislations will get them another term, nothing will happen.

  • akjc77 July 7, 2017, 8:27 am

    Dewey, have you paid any attn to the anti-gun lobby(AKA the leftists) anything proposed that doesn’t fit into their psychotic authoritarian, socialistic views makes them angry enuff to encourage their constituents to pursue violence against conservatives and our President. Fact is if your not pissing off these anti-American SOB,s then you are one of them bygawd!!

  • Jay July 7, 2017, 8:00 am

    It doesn’t matter if it’s lawful item or not. It’s against the law for a criminal to have a firearm in their possession but how many do? If a criminal wanted a suppressor they would use one but they don’t, because they are to hard to hide and yet another expense that would take away from their ill gotten gains! I’ve never understood the logic behind a suppressor being illegal without government approval other than another way to to tax us! Help protect hearing, yes they do, I might also mention if you have neighbors with PTSD or other aliments, things like fire cracker noise and gun shots make them very uneasy and nervous, so you would be helping these fellow citizens too!

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 7, 2017, 10:14 am

      The logic, Jay, or more appropriately, the insane ‘illogic’ of it all is that like the original Gun Control laws that make anybody who was not a perfect creature of god by committing a crime at some point in their lives then Permanently Prohibited from ever owning a firearm again in their lives, is one of the biggest totalitarian hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people!

      Nothing in the 2nd Amendment allows restrictions on gun ownership for committing crimes or gives governments omnipotent decree to decide who should–or should Not–have firearms. In fact, the opposite of that is in the Constitutional Natural Rights of the individual affirmative. “…Shall NOT be infringed” Period! NO Qualifiers! Every one not yet cognitively deceased knows that. So how are they still getting away with this bullshit? Criminal acts are co-incidental to methodology, and even the specific statutory breakdowns of the act itself provide no basis, i.e., there’s no quantitative measure of egregiousness for the sentencing guidelines based on specifics of weaponry other than ‘aggravated’ which distinguishes only between the ‘use’ of any weapon-or not-and more as a means to ascertain prior mental configuration in premeditation rather than physical exacerbations of the act itself.

      In other words killing someone with a knife, a motor vehicle, a baseball bat, or your bare hands does not make them more or less dead. Sentencing mitigation relies much more on other factors, than the actual weapon or device used. Otherwise someone who stabs a person one hundred times and then cuts their head off should certainly never be permitted to have a knife in their hands again, right? RIGHT?! Or that really bad worse than any gun weapon with the power of hundreds of horses on 4 wheels that can easily wipe out scores of people in one pass quicker than you can run?

      But you are NOT BANNED from driving or owning a car ever again after committing a vehicular homicide, or for any other crime you committed? Only a Gun. Why is that?

      Because The fruit of this ‘illogical tree’ on the sunny side of the hill of liberty once again falls to the ground and roll down the slippery slope of tyranny with yet another ‘fraudulent’ piece of bullshit legislation that amounts to NOTHING of accomplishment if you actually had the mental capacity to think about it.

      And they get away with these totalitarian hoaxes because you let them. And then you get used to letting them do things so you don’t think about what they are NOW getting away with. The do it MORE!

      So now, with smiling little fart faces all around, we now have a piece of tubing, which is NOT and never can be a firearm, but NOW is going to be classified as a firearm, and registered accordingly. And everybody thinks that’s so cool? These leftist totalitarians must be laughing their balls off behind close doors at how stupid those moron gun people are!

      I’m sorry but we don’t deserve the Purest Freedom of America if we have been that easily brain fucked into thinking that our precious liberties–at ANY level– can ever, for any reason, be compromised in any way shape or form.

      The best way to change/ix the silencer problem would have been to put forth a bill to REPEAL THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT, Period.

      Because with the way this bill is now just another NRA cuntlick compromise, it still accomplishes the same purpose of the original NFA, which was to set up a data-base of anyone owning one for immediate confiscation. (silencers are anathema to their shot spotter systems now being deployed in police state glee to easier ‘suppress’ (pun intended) future anti-government resistance)

      So in that form 4473 information which is not supposed to be kept stored for government usage but now gets typed directly into their computers, LMAO when you purchase from a dealer! Yeah, right. And there will be a apecial category for ‘can’ buyers, wanna bet on it?

      • Mort July 8, 2017, 4:59 pm

        What a fantastic post. Thank you! My faith in believing that intelligent humans still exist has been restored.
        Oh, yes. I DO agree with what you say!

  • bob July 7, 2017, 8:00 am

    The one difference between this act and the hear protection act that i liked is missing. I see no provision for the repayment of the $200 tax ive already paid. Even if applied to income taxes.

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 7, 2017, 10:42 am

      Getting refunds from any government agency these days is like getting a mosquito to give you back the blood it just sucked out of your arm.

      We should feel very fortunate to have these good Senators Lee and Mike Crapo introduce the SHUSH bill instead of what I described in my last comment here.

      And when you think about it, this could be the most important break through to build the momentum to stomp out the whole totalitarian creep spreading over the land. But knowing the enemy, it won’t be easy.

      With the midterms only about a year away, I don’t know if SHUSH will make it through for passage before things could change dramatically in the legislative power balance. The leftist power billionaires are going all out to change things back to the way they want it. So we have to push our respective (poor choice of words) representatives to vote in SHUSH,

  • singleshotcajun July 7, 2017, 7:38 am

    It’s a muffler PEW PEW 😉

  • Eric Equis July 7, 2017, 7:27 am

    Interesting… the best legislation I have seen in years and I get alerted from gunsamerica.com before the NRA… hmmm.
    But hey, i guess classifying suppressors as “accessories” like they do in “progressive Europe” should be something the libtards should get behind, right? then again, they think a flash hider & pistol grip make a weapon more deadly so…
    Where is the petition to support this bill? I have a good 2 dozen friends who will gladly sign it… and half a dozen neighbors!

  • Joseph & Yvette Peterman July 7, 2017, 7:12 am

    If suppressors were so bad, why hasn’t one been used in a crime for as long as I can remember when watching the news for the last 54 yrs of my life.?

    • Hogstrom July 7, 2017, 8:47 am

      Concur … Honestly, if someone wanted to create a hacked up suppressor they could. Like many laws and regulations one needs to go back and see why they were enacted in the first place. Pretty sure Al Capone and the bootleg era are gone.
      Biggest problem is Hollywood totally mischaracterizes how they work and make them appear only as sinister devices bad people use.

    • Jack July 7, 2017, 9:37 am

      They will after this is passed. More frequently at least. Before no one wanted to jump through the hoops…including myself, but I think we will see more suppressor crime if this goes through.

      • garyh July 7, 2017, 10:09 am

        Really? Criminals that aren’t supposed to possess guns, can’t legally buy guns, but instead steal or buy them on the black market, are not using suppressors now because they have to do paperwork? OMG

      • bison1913 July 7, 2017, 11:33 am

        You are one of those disguised Leftist Libtards that come to this site and post anti-gun comments.
        Would you please do me a favor and go crawl under a massive rock. Thank you.

  • Loren July 7, 2017, 6:43 am

    How do we show support for this?of course I’m a member of the NRA already, but how may we gun owners show a massive showing of our desire have this bill brought to reality? I want this mainly as a courtesy to my neighbors!

    • Jerry Jones July 7, 2017, 7:11 am

      It’s as easy as doing a Google search to find out who both (yes you have two) of your Senators are, along with who your Congressman is…… Google each of their names and go to their websites……click on the contact link, and you will be presented with the opportunity to send them a direct e-mail……Be courteous and tell them what you think.

  • Lyle Stevens July 7, 2017, 6:37 am

    This has been needed a long time now , the biggest reason I’ve herd against it is simple . Politicians are scared to death of silencers claim they are weapons for criminals . In actuality politicans are frightened of their use against them nothing more . That fact might be true for very few , politicans screw over the masses are afraid of a silencer ? They don’t Silence a fire arm there is still plenty of noise just much lower noise . As for me hunting with high powered firearms a silencer will keep from running my ears and running off game . I can’t say what a criminal might do but a large piece of firearm equipment such as a silencer makes it real hard to hide a hand gun . More people are killed by drunk drivers than firearms that’s a fact so why are vehicles still in use — money . Why do bars have parking lots when it’s illegal to DWI ? Think about it 🤔

  • Greg July 7, 2017, 5:50 am

    In Europe, suppressors are accessories. They’re encouraged as a courtesy to neighbors. The media has portrayed them as crime tools. Ridiculous.

  • LARRY E TOOMEY July 7, 2017, 5:32 am

    I HOPE THIS BILL PASSES I kneed one for my hunting knife.

  • edj July 7, 2017, 4:42 am

    16AmJur2d.,Sec. 258:

    “On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution

    which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”

    16AmJur2d.,Sec. 260:

    “Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid

    provisions and that there is no degrees of constitutionality.”

    Mudook v. Penn., 319 US 105:(1943)

    “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it”

    Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham AL, 373 US 262:(1962)

    “If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage

    the right with impunity.”

  • Jamas vonrockmann July 7, 2017, 4:28 am

    yes we’ve heard the California silencers, poof, poof, poof. It was a movie ! We’ll change the name to ‘quieter’ how’s that ?

  • Mark N. July 6, 2017, 8:09 pm

    Both California senators will oppose this bill on principle, the principle being that people should not be allowed to have guns, even though this bill will have no effect on the current California ban on all suppressors (and SBRs). They are so antigun that it isn’t worth the cost of the electrons to contact them.

  • Dewey July 6, 2017, 4:58 pm

    Stating how “pissed off the anti-gun lobby” will be is childish at best and paints us all in a bad light at worst. Grow the hell up.
    Maybe the search function on the website can get fixed while you’re at it.

    • Everett July 7, 2017, 7:52 am

      I have to agree with you. Pissing off the anti-gun lobby, while it does occur with legislation such as this, should not be the objective.

  • Dewey July 6, 2017, 4:56 pm

    Bills are not “huge” until they become law. This is a long way from that and given the level of success that the HPA has earned, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    • Philip July 7, 2017, 10:45 am

      Every journey begins with one step.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend