H.R. 3799: Hearing Protection Act of 2015

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Kurr

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 18, 2011
    1,234
    113
    Jefferson County
    1.Short title
    This Act may be cited as the Hearing Protection Act of 2015.

    2.Equal treatment of silencers and firearms
    (a)In general
    Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking (7) any silencer and all that follows through ; and (8) and inserting ; and (7).

    (b)Effective date
    (1)In general
    The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

    (2)Transfers
    In the case of the tax imposed by section 5811 of such Code, the amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to transfers after October 22, 2015.

    3.Treatment of certain silencers
    Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

    (f)Firearm silencers
    A person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this subsection) with respect to such silencer.

    .

    4.Preemption of certain State laws in relation to firearm silencers
    Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that, as a condition of lawfully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, imposes a tax on any such conduct, or a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement with respect to the firearm silencer, shall have no force or effect..


    Cosponsors
    22 cosponsors (22R) (show)
    Carter, John [R-TX31]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    Collins, Chris [R-NY27]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    Franks, Trent [R-AZ8]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    Guinta, Frank [R-NH1]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    Huelskamp, Tim [R-KS1]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    Kelly, Mike [R-PA3]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA1]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    Love, Mia [R-UT4]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    Stewart, Chris [R-UT2]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    Thompson, Glenn [R-PA5]
    (joined Oct 22, 2015)
    DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN4]
    (joined Oct 23, 2015)
    Westerman, Bruce [R-AR4]
    (joined Oct 23, 2015)
    Abraham, Ralph [R-LA5]
    (joined Oct 27, 2015)
    Buck, Ken [R-CO4]
    (joined Oct 27, 2015)
    Duncan, Jeff [R-SC3]
    (joined Oct 27, 2015)
    Schweikert, David [R-AZ6]
    (joined Oct 27, 2015)
    Massie, Thomas [R-KY4]
    (joined Oct 28, 2015)
    Cramer, Kevin [R-ND0]
    (joined Nov 2, 2015)
    Marchant, Kenny [R-TX24]
    (joined Nov 2, 2015)
    Ribble, Reid [R-WI8]
    (joined Nov 2, 2015)
    Zinke, Ryan [R-MT0]
    (joined Nov 2, 2015)
    Womack, Steve [R-AR3]
    (joined Nov 3, 2015)
     

    CptCrik

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 2, 2012
    57
    8
    Bloomington, Indiana
    The tax has been one of the biggest hurdles to get over in order for me to even consider one. Having to pay $200 just to have the right to get one is absurd! I really hope that we can get this bill passed so that a silencer will go right to the top of my Christmas wish list!
     

    snorko

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    361   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    8,292
    113
    Evansville, IN
    I kind of wish the language included muffler or suppressor instead of silencer, but I'll take it. What ddo you think the price of a +/- $250 rimfire suppressor would drop to? or a .30 cal.
     

    jwh20

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Feb 22, 2013
    2,069
    48
    Hamilton County Indi
    Sent my letter to Donnelly a while back. Got a standard form letter in return. Pretty sure he will vote party line.

    Has Donnelly EVER not voted the Democratic Party-line? The charge of being "Obama Joe" that was leveled during the campaign has certainly proved itself to be accurate.

    I'm sure hoping to see a CONSERVATIVE candidate oppose and hopefully defeat him in 2018 when his (way too long) term is up for re-election.
     

    BE Mike

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Jul 23, 2008
    7,536
    113
    New Albany
    I kind of wish the language included muffler or suppressor instead of silencer, but I'll take it. What ddo you think the price of a +/- $250 rimfire suppressor would drop to? or a .30 cal.
    I believe the term silencer is used in the current law and that is why it is used in this bill. I am not a lawyer and don't play one on tv.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    I believe the term silencer is used in the current law and that is why it is used in this bill. I am not a lawyer and don't play one on tv.

    Mike, you got it. Federal law uses muffler/silencer.

    18 USC §921(a)(3):

    (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    No co-sponsor from Indiana? That surprises me. Figured Young would jump all over this as part of his Senate campaign, but maybe he was too busy.

    The others, though - at least one of them should've stepped up.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Young is not Senator yet.
    Indeed.

    That's why I thought he would jump all over the opportunity to sponsor this House bill during his Senate campaign. :)

    ETA:
    Oh - are you saying he wasn't running for Senate in October 2015? I'd disagree. ;)
     

    rhino

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    30,906
    113
    Indiana
    I believe the term silencer is used in the current law and that is why it is used in this bill. I am not a lawyer and don't play one on tv.

    Mike, you got it. Federal law uses muffler/silencer.

    18 USC §921(a)(3):

    (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.


    I know it's not cool to call it "silencer," but that's what Hiram Maxim called it when he invented it: "Maxim Silencers."
     

    rvb

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 14, 2009
    6,396
    63
    IN (a refugee from MD)
    I know it's not cool to call it "silencer," but that's what Hiram Maxim called it when he invented it: "Maxim Silencers."

    yup. I'm not cool. I call them silencers*, cause that's what they are legally, and per ol' Hiram.

    *(or cans when I want to type fewer letters)

    There may be other reasons I'm not cool, too....

    -rvb
     
    Top Bottom