United We Stand: A Factual Review of the Hearing Protection Act From the Board of the ASA

ATLANTA, GA – Our goals at the American Suppressor Association are simple: remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act through the passage of the Hearing Protection Act, and legalize suppressor ownership and use while hunting in all 50 states through our No State Left Behind campaign. While there is no shortage of media coverage on the Hearing Protection Act, it can, at times, be difficult to discern fact from fiction. Our Board of Directors, comprised of the leaders within the suppressor community who are standing up and fighting for your rights, want you to have the facts. Here is what they have to say:

ASA - United We Stand Letter - Final_Page_1ASA - United We Stand Letter - Final_Page_2ASA - United We Stand Letter - Final_Page_3

ASA - United We Stand Letter - Final Image_Page_3

This Post Has 17 Comments

  1. Russ Terry

    What is being done regarding Colorado’s classification of Suppressors as dangerous weapons and possession allowed as an affirmative defense only by their licensure afforded by the Fed statutes? Why is everyone overlooking this? If the HPA passes, new suppressors will suddenly become de facto illegal in Colorado unless state laws are changed or somehow preempted by the HPA.


    Legalize It !

  3. Jim DiDominicus

    The HPA is a step in the right direction, but if you were really out to “stand up and fight” for our rights, you’d be pushing to repeal the NFA. Some say “baby steps”, but if the HPA passes, the Antis will say they already compromised and are less likely to do so in the future. I do see that a couple of your signatories would profit from increased SBR sales, so I don’t see your tactic as purely profit-driven. I’d like to see us pushing for *all* of our rights, not just some.

  4. ASA


    Thanks for the comment. As the ASA we have a pretty narrow charter and direction from our constituents. That is not to say that we don’t support broader reform and there are a number of groups that have a wider NFA focus than us and we defer to them as the experts when it comes to the NFA as a whole. We are the experts when the topic is suppressors. It would be like the NRA discussing bow hunting or fishing – things they most likely support, but outside of their area of expertise.

  5. ASA


    The HPA does address this issue (it is an issue in nearly a dozen states that specifically reference the NFA and/or NFRTR) and something that we made sure to address from the outset so that removing them from the NFA would somehow make them immediately illegal in states where they are currently legal.

  6. Bryan Martin

    Push harder guys!!! Keep going!! I’m a 26 year-old nursing student – if I can support & get behind the HPA, anybody can!!

  7. ASA

    Thanks for your support Bryan!

  8. Dennis Sego

    My interest as a consumer of firearms and related products in the HPA is one of economics as well as hearing protection. At the present time spending a thousand dollars plus and the red tape time with the Government is just money and time I would rather spent on other things. If the HPA becomes law I would anticipate the cost of suppressors to come down and the Government tax to disappear. If this is going to be the case I’m all for it’s passing. If the prices stay near the cost of a good gun I’ll keep on wearing my present ear protection. and spend the money on other things.

  9. Joe

    I just want to thank you guys at the ASA who are taking time out of their days and money out of their pockets to help our community as a whole. It would be a shame if we didn’t support the members of the ASA and make sure that we are doing everything that we, as the ones who will benefit from this effort, can to support the HPA. This is our chance, and if we do not capitalize on our unique political climate then we will likely not have another chance.

  10. todd mills

    This really needs to pass! I sent my senator in Oregon and let him know how i feel. hope everyone can come together and see the importance of this act! Keep fighting for all of our rights as AMERICANS, the land of the free

  11. Ryan

    As a member of the ASA I tell everyone reading this: Become a member. Write your representatives. No one else is going to do it for you, we need everybody to get the change we want. Just do it.

  12. ASA

    Ryan – We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. We work for YOU! The suppressor owners. Be the change you want to see.

  13. Jon Horton


    Your reply to Russ doesn’t leave me with a warm and fuzzy.

    #1 – I believe you meant to write “… would *not* somehow make them immediately illegal…”

    #2 – as shown on this thread: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/159470-Hearing-Protection-Act/page3

    You can see that the replies from your Legal Counsel do not offer the same level of protection as you would intimate. In fact, he plainly admits that they would then be subject to State laws as enacted, including illegalizing or state-level hoops as we now jump through. Frankly, I don’t find this very reassuring for Colorado, where we are subject to knee-jerk anti-gun bills and a governor and Denver Metro area more than willing to pass them.

    Do you honestly expect us Coloradans to believe that Hickenlooper and company won’t immediately rush to make life hell in this regard? Please don’t tell me it’s raining in your reply… 😉

  14. Russ

    Perhaps I should just post the CRS so you can read it and understand it for yourselves.

    18-12-102. Possessing a dangerous or illegal weapon – affirmative defense

    (1) As used in this section, the term “dangerous weapon” means a firearm silencer, machine gun, short shotgun, short rifle, or ballistic knife.

    (2) As used in this section, the term “illegal weapon” means a blackjack, gas gun, metallic knuckles, gravity knife, or switchblade knife.

    (3) A person who knowingly possesses a dangerous weapon commits a class 5 felony. Each subsequent violation of this subsection (3) by the same person shall be a class 4 felony.

    (4) A person who knowingly possesses an illegal weapon commits a class 1 misdemeanor.

    (5) It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon, or to the charge of possessing an illegal weapon, that the person so accused was a peace officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or Colorado National Guard acting in the lawful discharge of his duties, or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon.

    “or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon.”

    Who is going to issue said license or permit if the ATF doesn’t? Colorado surely isn’t going to permit silencers given our current political makeup.

  15. ASA


    These state laws referencing licenses and/or permits are addressed in section 3 and section 4 of the HPA with preemption clauses:


    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.”.


    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.”.

  16. Jon Horton

    Assuming HPA passes and Section 3 and 4 put the kibosh on state-registration of suppressors for items previously owned under NFA, and disallow state-level registration, please answer the following:

    Does the HPA stop Colorado, et al., from simply making suppressors illegal a la California?

  17. ASA

    It does not. But neither does the current NFA. States have the ability to outlaw them currently, even under the NFA. However, historical precedence has been an expansion of suppressor rights, even in some traditionally anti-gun states in recent years.

Comments are closed.