Hearing Protection Act

Bill Summary

The “Hearing Protection Act” (S. 364) would remove firearm silencers (also called suppressors) from the National Firearms Act (NFA) and treat them like ordinary firearms under the Gun Control Act (GCA). Today, silencers are tightly regulated by the NFA: buyers must pay a $200 transfer tax, submit fingerprints and photographs, undergo an extensive ATF review, and wait months for approval; silencers are also registered in a federal NFA database. This bill would end that regime for silencers and replace it with the same framework that applies to most non‑NFA firearms, while adding a manufacturer-level excise tax.

Key changes and how they work:

- Removing silencers from the NFA: Section 2 strikes silencers from the NFA’s definition of “firearm,” which eliminates the NFA’s $200 transfer tax, its registration and transfer approvals (Forms 1 and 4), and its intensive federal licensing/registration requirements for civilian owners. Section 3 then clarifies that people who acquire or possess silencers in accordance with the GCA (i.e., through standard firearm dealer processes) are deemed to have met any NFA registration/licensing requirements—because silencers will no longer be NFA items.

- State preemption on certain requirements: Section 4 creates a targeted federal preemption. States and localities may not impose special taxes (other than generally applicable sales or use taxes) on making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting silencers, and may not impose marking, recordkeeping, or registration requirements specific to silencers. This aims to prevent a patchwork of state-level registries or special fees. The preemption does not explicitly bar states from outright bans or from general firearm policies (such as universal background checks) that are not framed as silencer-specific “marking, recordkeeping, or registration” rules, though the scope of “recordkeeping” could be litigated if applied to silencer-specific purchase permits.

- Destruction of existing NFA records: Section 5 directs the Attorney General to destroy, within one year of enactment, existing NFA silencer registrations and any NFA transfer/making applications that identify transferees or makers of silencers. This would erase the current federal registry trail for silencers and eliminate legacy data used for tracing under the NFA; ordinary GCA dealer records and serial numbers would remain.

- Clarifying definitions and sales rules under the GCA: Section 6 updates the definition of “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler,” and adjusts certain sales provisions. Importantly, it amends 18 U.S.C. 922(b) so silencers are treated like rifles and shotguns for two key purposes: (1) licensed dealers could sell silencers to 18–20-year-olds (as with long guns), rather than limiting sales to 21+; and (2) licensed dealers could sell silencers to nonresidents under the same interstate conditions that apply to long guns (i.e., a sale must comply with the laws of both states). The bill also requires serial-number marking on the outer tube or primary housing of silencers and instructs the Attorney General to grant marking variances unless there is “good cause” that a requested method would not further the chapter’s purposes.

- Replacing the NFA tax with a manufacturer excise tax: Section 7 adds silencers to the federal firearms and ammunition excise tax (FAET) at 10% at the manufacturer/importer level. This shifts revenue from the NFA’s flat $200 transfer tax to an ad valorem tax. Because FAET helps fund wildlife conservation (Pittman–Robertson), this would channel silencer sales into that program. The net fiscal effect would depend on sales volume and pricing compared with the foregone NFA revenues.

Practical effects if enacted:

- Buying a silencer would resemble buying a rifle or shotgun from a dealer: a standard Form 4473 and background check, with immediate or near-immediate transfer after approval, no $200 NFA tax, and no lengthy wait. In states without universal background check laws, private intrastate transfers of silencers could occur under the same rules that apply to other non‑NFA firearms.

- ATF would no longer process silencer Form 1 or Form 4 applications, reducing agency backlogs, and would purge historical NFA silencer records. Tracing would rely on serial markings and dealer records maintained under the GCA, not an NFA registry.

- States could not impose silencer-specific taxes, registries, or recordkeeping mandates, but they could still enforce general firearms laws. Whether silencer bans or licensing schemes survive could hinge on how courts read the preemption clause (it does not mention bans or licensing explicitly, but it does cover “registration” and “recordkeeping”).

Supporters will frame this as a safety and deregulation bill that normalizes a hearing-protection accessory and aligns U.S. policy more closely with some European countries where suppressors are common for hunters. Opponents will emphasize public safety and law enforcement concerns, including the lowered purchase age, broader interstate availability, the loss of a federal registry, and the potential for increased criminal use or harder-to-detect gunfire. The bill maintains serialization and dealer background checks but deliberately dismantles the NFA’s special restrictions and state-level registries for silencers.

Pros

Could reduce hearing damage and noise pollution for hunters, sport shooters, and nearby communities, potentially lowering long-term public health costs related to hearing loss.
Moves silencer sales into the Pittman–Robertson funding stream via a 10% excise tax, generating conservation revenue that many Democrats support.
Maintains federal serialization, dealer background checks, and overall GCA oversight rather than fully deregulating silencers.
Clarifies definitions and marking requirements, which can aid uniform enforcement and consumer transparency.
Some rural and sportsmen constituencies in Democratic states may view improved access to suppressors as a commonsense safety measure that encourages responsible shooting practices.

Rolls back what many conservatives view as outdated NFA overregulation and delays, restoring silencers to treatment similar to ordinary firearms under the GCA.
Improves hearing protection and reduces recoil and muzzle blast, aligning law with a safety-focused, nonlethal accessory that can promote training and responsible use.
Eliminates months-long ATF queues and a $200 transaction tax, lowering costs and administrative burdens for lawful owners and industry.
Preempts state silencer registries and special taxes, reducing the patchwork of laws and strengthening nationwide uniformity.
Preserves background checks, serialization, and dealer controls under the GCA, countering claims of total deregulation while still meaningfully easing access.
Supports conservation via a 10% excise tax, channeling industry growth into Pittman–Robertson funding without imposing a burdensome per-item transfer tax.
Clarifies definitions and mandates practical marking rules, while limiting ATF discretion to deny reasonable marking variances unless there is good cause.
Aligns silencer sales with long-gun rules on age and interstate purchases, which supporters see as consistent and commonsense.

Cons

Removes silencers from the NFA, eliminating the $200 tax, extended vetting, and federal registration; critics argue this weakens safeguards against misuse and hampers post-incident tracing.
Requires the Attorney General to destroy existing NFA silencer records, reducing investigative tools for law enforcement and eliminating a valuable historical data set.
Preempts state and local governments from imposing silencer-specific taxes, registration, or recordkeeping, eroding state autonomy—especially in jurisdictions that prefer tighter tracking of suppressors.
Extends long-gun treatment to silencers for age and interstate sales, allowing FFL sales to 18–20-year-olds and facilitating out-of-state purchases; opponents see this as expanding availability to younger buyers and increasing cross-border access.
In states without universal background checks, private intrastate transfers of silencers could occur without a background check, which opponents view as a loophole that could enable prohibited persons to obtain suppressors.
Potentially complicates gunshot detection and bystander awareness, even if suppressed gunfire remains loud; Democrats and some law enforcement groups worry about reduced aural cues at crime scenes and the impact on acoustic detection systems.
Could increase national silencer sales and ownership, which critics fear will raise the absolute risk of criminal misuse even if current misuse rates are low.

Imposes a new 10% excise tax on silencers at the manufacturer/importer level; some fiscal conservatives and gun-rights purists may oppose any new or higher tax burden.
Continues to classify silencers as “firearms” under the GCA, meaning background checks and other federal rules still apply—short of the full deregulation some activists want.
The state preemption is targeted; it does not explicitly bar state bans or licensing schemes, potentially leaving room for restrictive states to keep tight limits subject to litigation.
Requires AG destruction of NFA records, which could spark political backlash and be portrayed as anti–law enforcement, complicating coalition-building.
High-profile incidents or law enforcement opposition could create political headwinds and negative media narratives that some Republicans may prefer to avoid.

This bill was introduced on February 03, 2025 in the Senate.

View on Congress.gov:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/364

Feb 03, 2025

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Feb 03, 2025

Introduced in Senate

10000

This bill has not yet been enacted into law.

Bill Summary

Pros

Cons

Introduction

History

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Introduced in Senate

Laws Enacted

Related Bills