H.R.3228 - Constitutional Hearing Protection Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3228, the "Constitutional Hearing Protection Act," aims to remove silencers from the definition of firearms under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the National Firearms Act (NFA). It seeks to treat silencers more like standard firearms, removing certain registration and taxation requirements. The bill also includes provisions to preempt state laws that impose taxes or registration requirements on silencers and mandates the destruction of existing silencer registration records.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would significantly deregulate firearm silencers at the federal level. This would likely lead to increased availability and potentially lower costs for consumers. State laws imposing stricter regulations on silencers could be invalidated.
Potential Benefits
- Reduced regulatory burden and costs for law-abiding citizens who wish to own silencers.
- Potential increase in the use of silencers for hunting and sport shooting, which could reduce noise pollution.
- Preemption of state laws could create uniformity and simplify interstate commerce related to silencers.
- May encourage innovation and competition in the silencer manufacturing industry.
- Could be viewed as an affirmation of Second Amendment rights by some.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Reduced regulation of silencers could make them more accessible to criminals.
- The destruction of existing registration records could hinder law enforcement efforts to track silencers used in crimes.
- Preemption of state laws could undermine states' ability to regulate firearms within their borders.
- Increased availability of silencers could lead to increased gun violence, although this is debated.
- The term "keystone part" may create loopholes and difficulties in enforcement.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's proponents likely argue that it aligns with the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. They may argue that silencers are arms and that the NFA's regulations infringe upon this right. Opponents may argue that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unlimited right to own any weapon and that reasonable regulations on silencers are constitutional. The preemption of state laws raises questions about federalism and the balance of power between the federal government and the states, as outlined in the Tenth Amendment.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).