Could the Hearing Protection Act pass now?

[Dos Perros]

A lot of the House races are still yet to be called but it's looking like a Republican controlled Congress, House somewhere in the +4 seats and Senate +4 at least. Curious to hear what folks think could happen?

Here's a link to the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th...ncers from,licensing requirements of such Act.

Basically, suppressors would not be regulated by the NFA, they could be purchased like regular firearms in the states in which they are legal.

 

[Weldor]

They tried before when they had control, maybe this time.

 

[Axlrod]

They tried before when they had control, maybe this time.

Exactly. He was too busy kicking John McCain ( a war hero, and member of his own party) in the nuts, to do anything he said he would.
I have little hope anything will change, but it would be good if it did.

 

[Mountainrancher]

Considering that I finally went through the process and paid my tax stamp for the my first suppressor only a few months ago, I’m sure it will be the first thing they do

 

[bojangles808]

Removing wolf grizz and burro/ feral horse protections right away would be fantastic for sportsman.

 

[khuber84]

They tried before when they had control, maybe this time.

And then CIA made Las Vegas shooting happen.........and it was shelved.

 

[dsotm]

Exactly. He was too busy kicking John McCain ( a war hero, and member of his own party) in the nuts, to do anything he said he would.
I have little hope anything will change, but it would be good if it did.

McStain deserved every kick he got

 

[roadrunner]

Good thing it's called the Hearing Protection Act and not the Ear Pro Act.

Would hate to see it get confused with that other EPA thing.

 

[RockAndSage]

A lot of the House races are still yet to be called but it's looking like a Republican controlled Congress, House somewhere in the +4 seats and Senate +4 at least. Curious to hear what folks think could happen?

Here's a link to the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/401#:~:text=Introduced in Senate (02/14/2023)&text=This bill removes silencers from,licensing requirements of such Act.

Basically, suppressors would not be regulated by the NFA, they could be purchased like regular firearms in the states in which they are legal.

OP, after looking at different aspects of the legislation and where it stands with different committees and co-sponsorships, I'd say it's got an extremely good chance of passing through the Senate, at least. The House version of the bill is, strangely, nowhere near as well-positioned to pass. But if it passes the Senate first, the House will follow.

So, here's the thing with trying to gauge how likely a bill is to pass - put it through this matrix:

1) Is the original sponsor of the bill the Chair of the committee that the Clerk assigns jurisdiction over that bill to? If yes, it will absolutely pass out of committee and to a floor vote of the whole chamber - if the Chair wants it to. It's only a matter of how much they want it to. They have that much power. It's essentially their pet bill in their own personal kingdom.

2) If the original sponsor is not the Chair, how senior is that sponsor on that committee of jurisdiction - are they on it at all? Big bonus points of they're a sub-committee Chair...especially if they're the subcommittee Chair of the subcommittee that is assigned the bill by the committee Chair. If so, they have complete control over whether that bill gets a hearing - unless the Chair of the full committee says "do it" or "don't do it". Short of that, they have the power to put it on the legislative calendar for hearings, mark-ups, etc, and eventually try to get it a hearing before the full committee, subject to the will of the full committee Chair.

3) Does the bill have any other original co-sponsors, whose names were submitted with it when the bill was first introduced, or follow-on co-sponsors? The more, the better. Especially original co-sposors. The more powerful each co-sponsor in their own committee assignments, anywhere, the better - they'll often swap favors with each other, giving each other's bills hearings if they're Chairs at any level.

4) Does the bill have any minority-party members signed on as co-sponsors, at all? The more, the better.

5) Is the original sponsor a member of the party in power? If not, the bill's going nowhere. It's DOA.

The absolute worst case for a bill is that it is sponsored by a Senator or Member in the minority, they're not on the relevant committee of jurisdiction, they're not a Chair of any subcommittee of any kind, and there are no other sponsors. Legislators do this kind of crap all the time to mollify a powerful supporter or interest group, with absolutely ZERO intent to even try to get it passed. But it's an easy hustle if the supporter doesn't know how to analyze a bill for its ability to pass Congress.

The thing that really blew me away in taking a look at the Senate bill, is that it is extremely well-positioned to pass the Senate. Most bills like this are just hustle and smoke BS, with little to no support. But not this Senate bill.

Its original sponsor, Senator Crapo...is the Ranking Member on the committee of Jurisdiction. The most powerful Republican on the committee. But it's the minority party until January. Still, this is a huge deal.

Interestingly, the bill was crafted to send it solely to the Finance committee - by settign up the language to remove it from being defined as a firearm, to eliminate the taxes on it. Gun stuff usually goes to the Judiciary committee, so this was a very clever angle for Senator Crapo to take.

He's also gathered over half of the Republican senators to be sponsors - and, as a very big sign of its support, 25 of the 29 co-sponsors were original co-sponsors. Meaning, his office called up every one of those senators' offices before he introduced the bill, and asked them to sign on. That burns some political capital, every time - you don't do it generally if you don't genuinely want the bill to pass. Offices usually ask for you to sign onto something of theirs in exchange. But when the Chairman asks you to sign on, it's a big deal. He's giving you some boom for your cannon to take home and crow with, for your next election - often, Chairs will get bills passed with only their name on it, hording that credit. Many of the original co-sponsors on this bill are also Chairs of various kinds on different committees. If Senator Crapo stays on that committee when Rs take over the Senate in January, he will be the Chair of the whole committee - the bill is a slam dunk for him in the Senate. IF he wants it to be.

This is definitely the kind of situation where calls from constituents to their senators can help get that bill re-introduced this year, with momentum. Every person here genuinely should call their Senators' offices, and ask them to sign on as an "original co-sponsor" before it gets re-introduced.

Here's the link for the co-sponsors tab:

 

[Dos Perros]

Wow @RockAndSage, that is the kind of stuff I was looking for! Honestly this kind of analysis blows me away...you must be 'in the biz,' as they say. I will contact both of my Kansas Senators and ask them to do as you say, thank you.

 

[RockAndSage]

Wow @RockAndSage, that is the kind of stuff I was looking for! Honestly this kind of analysis blows me away...you must be 'in the biz,' as they say. I will contact both of my Kansas Senators and ask them to do as you say, thank you.

Formerly, and happily recovering and sober for over a decade. But you're definitely welcome, and it sure is handy to have had those experiences for situations like this. It was really cool to see that stuff start popping out with that bill.

 

[Dos Perros]

Folks, here's a list of the previous bill's co-sponsors. You could give yours a nudge!

Cosponsor	Date Cosponsored
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Vance, J. D. [R-OH]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Braun, Mike [R-IN]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]	02/16/2023
Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]	02/28/2023
Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]	03/07/2023
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]	06/03/2024

 

[Spoonbill]

Folks, here's a list of the previous bill's co-sponsors. You could give yours a nudge!

Cosponsor	Date Cosponsored
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Hyde-Smith, Cindy [R-MS]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Vance, J. D. [R-OH]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Budd, Ted [R-NC]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Braun, Mike [R-IN]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]*	02/14/2023
Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]	02/16/2023
Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]	02/28/2023
Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]	03/07/2023
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]	06/03/2024

With Vance as a former cosponsor I hope that is enough to push it over to a vote in both houses and hopefully it gets signed by the president.

 

[WormSportsman]

Great info everyone, message sent to my Senator. Thanks for posting this info and bringing some attention to it!

 

[RockAndSage]

With Vance as a former cosponsor I hope that is enough to push it over to a vote in both houses and hopefully it gets signed by the president.

GREAT catch. He's now going to be President of the Senate too, as part of being VPOTUS.

 

[NDGuy]

While it would be nice, I am not holding my breath.

Coming from a White House that by executive order banned bump stocks, and was nearly assassinated 2x in 6 months...doubt it

 

[Spoonbill]

While it would be nice, I am not holding my breath.

Coming from a White House that by executive order banned bump stocks, and was nearly assassinated 2x in 6 months...doubt it

Our biggest hope on it passing is Vance. He cosponsored the bill, lets hope if it gets passed in congress, Vance convinces Trump to sign it.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Exactly. He was too busy kicking John McCain ( a war hero, and member of his own party) in the nuts, to do anything he said he would.
I have little hope anything will change, but it would be good if it did.

You're forgetting about how the speaker of the house, Paul Ryan, was doing everything in his power to ruin his presidency. Because orange man bad.

 

[Rainyday]

OP, after looking at different aspects of the legislation and where it stands with different committees and co-sponsorships, I'd say it's got an extremely good chance of passing through the Senate, at least. The House version of the bill is, strangely, nowhere near as well-positioned to pass. But if it passes the Senate first, the House will follow.

So, here's the thing with trying to gauge how likely a bill is to pass - put it through this matrix:

1) Is the original sponsor of the bill the Chair of the committee that the Clerk assigns jurisdiction over that bill to? If yes, it will absolutely pass out of committee and to a floor vote of the whole chamber - if the Chair wants it to. It's only a matter of how much they want it to. They have that much power. It's essentially their pet bill in their own personal kingdom.

2) If the original sponsor is not the Chair, how senior is that sponsor on that committee of jurisdiction - are they on it at all? Big bonus points of they're a sub-committee Chair...especially if they're the subcommittee Chair of the subcommittee that is assigned the bill by the committee Chair. If so, they have complete control over whether that bill gets a hearing - unless the Chair of the full committee says "do it" or "don't do it". Short of that, they have the power to put it on the legislative calendar for hearings, mark-ups, etc, and eventually try to get it a hearing before the full committee, subject to the will of the full committee Chair.

3) Does the bill have any other original co-sponsors, whose names were submitted with it when the bill was first introduced, or follow-on co-sponsors? The more, the better. Especially original co-sposors. The more powerful each co-sponsor in their own committee assignments, anywhere, the better - they'll often swap favors with each other, giving each other's bills hearings if they're Chairs at any level.

4) Does the bill have any minority-party members signed on as co-sponsors, at all? The more, the better.

5) Is the original sponsor a member of the party in power? If not, the bill's going nowhere. It's DOA.

The absolute worst case for a bill is that it is sponsored by a Senator or Member in the minority, they're not on the relevant committee of jurisdiction, they're not a Chair of any subcommittee of any kind, and there are no other sponsors. Legislators do this kind of crap all the time to mollify a powerful supporter or interest group, with absolutely ZERO intent to even try to get it passed. But it's an easy hustle if the supporter doesn't know how to analyze a bill for its ability to pass Congress.

The thing that really blew me away in taking a look at the Senate bill, is that it is extremely well-positioned to pass the Senate. Most bills like this are just hustle and smoke BS, with little to no support. But not this Senate bill.

Its original sponsor, Senator Crapo...is the Ranking Member on the committee of Jurisdiction. The most powerful Republican on the committee. But it's the minority party until January. Still, this is a huge deal.

Interestingly, the bill was crafted to send it solely to the Finance committee - by settign up the language to remove it from being defined as a firearm, to eliminate the taxes on it. Gun stuff usually goes to the Judiciary committee, so this was a very clever angle for Senator Crapo to take.

He's also gathered over half of the Republican senators to be sponsors - and, as a very big sign of its support, 25 of the 29 co-sponsors were original co-sponsors. Meaning, his office called up every one of those senators' offices before he introduced the bill, and asked them to sign on. That burns some political capital, every time - you don't do it generally if you don't genuinely want the bill to pass. Offices usually ask for you to sign onto something of theirs in exchange. But when the Chairman asks you to sign on, it's a big deal. He's giving you some boom for your cannon to take home and crow with, for your next election - often, Chairs will get bills passed with only their name on it, hording that credit. Many of the original co-sponsors on this bill are also Chairs of various kinds on different committees. If Senator Crapo stays on that committee when Rs take over the Senate in January, he will be the Chair of the whole committee - the bill is a slam dunk for him in the Senate. IF he wants it to be.

This is definitely the kind of situation where calls from constituents to their senators can help get that bill re-introduced this year, with momentum. Every person here genuinely should call their Senators' offices, and ask them to sign on as an "original co-sponsor" before it gets re-introduced.

Here's the link for the co-sponsors tab:

Wow amazing post, very informative. If this bill was to pass, how long before it takes effect? Would we be able to go to the gun store next day, buy a can, and take it home?

 

[RockAndSage]

While it would be nice, I am not holding my breath.

Coming from a White House that by executive order banned bump stocks, and was nearly assassinated 2x in 6 months...doubt it

Trump is pretty good about learning his lessons - and I think he did, big time, on guns. This is his message to Gun Owners of America: