Hearing Protection Act: The Bill, the $200 Tax, and State Bans

The Hearing Protection Act is a federal bill that would remove firearm suppressors from the National Firearms Act and let them be bought like ordinary rifles or shotguns, with an instant background check at a licensed dealer instead of a months-long ATF registration process.¹ First introduced in 2015, it has been reintroduced every Congress since and has never reached a floor vote in either chamber.² One piece of what the bill set out to do, ending the $200 transfer tax on suppressors, was accomplished separately in 2025. The rest is still pending.

What the Bill Would Actually Do

The central change is one line of statute. The bill would strike the word “silencer” from the definition of “firearm” in 26 U.S.C. § 5845, the section of the National Firearms Act that groups suppressors with machineguns and short-barreled rifles.¹ Once removed, suppressors would fall only under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which already treats a firearm muffler or silencer as a “firearm” for its own purposes.³

In practice, that means buying a suppressor would look like buying a shotgun. You would fill out an ATF Form 4473 at a licensed dealer, pass an instant NICS background check, and take the device home the same day. No Form 4, no fingerprint cards, no photographs, no ATF pre-approval, no interstate travel paperwork.

The bill also reaches backward. It would require the Attorney General to destroy existing NFA registration records for silencers, including Form 4 transfer applications and Form 1 manufacturing applications, within 365 days of enactment.¹ Current owners would be treated as compliant with the NFA as long as they meet Gun Control Act requirements.

The $200 Tax Is Already Gone

One goal in every version of the Hearing Protection Act was eliminating the $200 federal transfer tax paid on every suppressor sale. Congress reached that result through a different bill. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on July 4, 2025, amended 26 U.S.C. § 5811 to drop the NFA transfer tax to $0 for all covered items other than machineguns and destructive devices, effective January 1, 2026.⁴⁵

So the financial piece is done. Someone transferring a suppressor today pays no federal transfer tax. What that change did not touch is the registration system itself. That is the larger change the Hearing Protection Act would still make.

What Buying a Suppressor Looks Like Right Now

Suppressors are still classified as NFA “firearms” alongside machineguns, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns.⁶ A buyer submits ATF Form 4, provides fingerprint cards and passport-style photographs, and passes an extended ATF background check rather than the instant NICS check used for standard gun purchases.⁷

Every suppressor is recorded in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and owners need ATF approval before moving one across state lines. Failing to register is a federal felony carrying up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.⁸

State Bans the Bill Would Try to Override

Federal law is only half the picture. Eight states and the District of Columbia currently prohibit civilian possession of suppressors: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. If you live in one of those jurisdictions, you cannot legally own a suppressor even though federal law allows it. In the other 42 states, ownership is legal, though some impose their own conditions.

H.R. 404 includes a preemption clause that would block state and local laws imposing special taxes, marking requirements, recordkeeping, or registration systems specifically on suppressors.¹ General sales tax would still apply. Outright state bans, however, would directly conflict with the preemption provision, and that fight would almost certainly move to the courts if the bill became law.

Where the Bill Stands in Congress

Two versions are pending in the 119th Congress. Representative Ben Cline introduced H.R. 404 in the House on January 15, 2025.⁹ Senator Mike Crapo introduced S. 364 in the Senate on February 3, 2025, and it was referred to the Senate Finance Committee.¹⁰ As of mid-2026, neither bill has received a committee hearing or markup.

That pattern matches earlier attempts. The 118th Congress version, H.R. 152, was introduced by Representative Jeff Duncan with more than fifty cosponsors and sat in the House Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees for the full session without action.¹¹ The bill draws broad co-sponsorship each Congress but stalls in committee. Whether the current versions move likely depends on whether congressional leadership prioritizes firearms legislation during this session.

The Hearing-Safety Argument

The bill’s name reflects its supporters’ framing: that suppressors are hearing-safety devices, not tools of concealment. An unsuppressed gunshot registers between 155 and 170 decibels, above the 140-decibel threshold at which OSHA and NIOSH agree even a single impulse can cause permanent hearing damage.¹² A suppressor reduces the report by roughly 20 to 35 decibels, often bringing the sound into the 120-to-140 decibel range.

That is still very loud. A suppressed gunshot is comparable to a jackhammer or a nearby thunderclap, and it remains clearly recognizable as a gunshot. NIOSH has specifically recommended the use of noise suppressors on firearms as one measure to reduce impulse noise exposure at firing ranges, and OSHA notes that gunfire above 140 decibels may overwhelm even dual hearing protection.¹² Supporters argue this makes suppressors a useful additional layer, especially for hunters who cannot always wear earmuffs in the field without losing situational awareness.

Law Enforcement and Gun-Safety Opposition

Law enforcement organizations and gun-safety groups have opposed the bill since its introduction. The International Association of Chiefs of Police has formally opposed removing suppressors from the NFA, arguing the change would undermine officer and public safety. Their core concern is that the distinctive sound of a gunshot functions as an early warning system for bystanders, other potential victims, and responding officers, and that reducing that sound could delay emergency response during active shooter events and make it harder for officers to locate a shooter.

Critics also point to private sales. Every suppressor transfer today goes through the ATF regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. Moving suppressors to the Gun Control Act framework would create the same private-sale gap that exists for rifles and shotguns in most states, meaning a prohibited person could potentially acquire a suppressor from a private seller without a background check.¹³

Supporters counter that suppressors are already legal to own in 42 states and appear in criminal cases only rarely relative to their numbers, and that the current NFA framework has done less to prevent misuse than its costs to lawful buyers would suggest.

1
Congress.gov. Text – H.R.404 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Hearing Protection Act
2
Congress.gov. H.R.3799 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Hearing Protection Act of 2015
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 921 – Definitions
4
Federal Register. Changes to National Firearms Act Tax Remittance Provisions
5
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 USC 5811 – Transfer Tax
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 USC 5845 – Definitions
7
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. National Firearms Act
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 USC 5871 – Penalties
9
Congress.gov. H.R.404 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Hearing Protection Act
10
Congress.gov. S.364 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): Hearing Protection Act
11
GovInfo. H.R. 152 (IH) – Hearing Protection Act
12
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Hearing Conservation Program
13
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Identify Prohibited Persons