Congressman Ben Cline Reintroduces Hearing Protection Act

Washington, January 15, 2025

Today, Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA) reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). This legislation reduces the overly burdensome barriers required to purchase a firearm suppressor to ease access for law-abiding citizens simply trying to obtain the hearing protection they need.

“Americans who enjoy hunting and target shooting should be able to do so safely and legally without facing burdensome government regulations,” said Rep. Cline. “The Hearing Protection Act will reclassify suppressors, making it easier for law-abiding gun owners to protect their hearing while enjoying recreational activities. It’s time to ensure that our Second Amendment rights are upheld, allowing responsible citizens to enjoy their freedoms without unnecessary obstacles.”

Congressman Cline was joined by Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Rep. Ron Estes (R-KS), Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV), Rep. Aaron Bean (R-FL), Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL), Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), Rep. GT Thompson (R-PA), Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Rep. Michael Bost (R-IL), Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI), Rep. Brad Finstad (R-MN), Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), Rep. Fulcher (R-ID), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. John McGuire (R-VA), Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Rep. Addison McDowell (R-NC), Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN), Rep. William Timmons (R-SC), Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO), Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), and Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT) as original cosponsors.

The Hearing Protection Act is supported by the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology (ADA).

“The Hearing Protection Act is the epitome of commonsense legislation. Law-abiding citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing when they exercise their Second Amendment rights. The American Suppressor Association applauds Rep. Cline for his leadership and willingness to fight for the rights of gunowners across the United States,” said Knox Williams, ASA President and Executive Director. 

“Congressman Cline’s Hearing Protection Act will have the federal government recognize firearm suppressors for what they are. These are accessories to a firearm that make recreational shooting and hunting a safer experience,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.  “These safety devices reduce the report of a firearm to a level that won’t cause instant and permanent hearing damage. Despite Hollywood’s depictions, they do not mask the sound of a firearm. The focus should be on removing barriers to safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating resources to ensuring firearms are safeguarded from those who should never possess them. Strict regulatory control of firearm accessories, and the parts of those accessories that have no bearing on the function of a firearm, is unnecessary and not the wisest use of federal resources. NSSF thanks Congressman Cline for his leadership for ensuring safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating necessary resources where they are most needed.”

“Onerous and unnecessary government regulation shouldn’t prevent America’s hunters and recreational shooters from protecting their hearing while exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA.  “Suppressors do not silence firearms, but they are proven to reduce the severity of hearing loss. On behalf of our millions of members, NRA thanks Representative Ben Cline for introducing the Hearing Protection Act.”

“The Hearing Protection Act has been a longstanding priority for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), and we are excited to see this legislation reintroduced. Suppressors are one of the fastest growing and most popular accessories for sportsmen and women, unfortunately, current law makes acquiring suppressors an overly burdensome process, which would be addressed by this legislation. CSF thanks Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus Member Rep. Ben Cline for introducing this legislation, and we look forward to working with him in the 119th Congress to improve the suppressor purchasing process,” said CSF President and CEO Jeff Crane. 

Read the full text of the bill here.

 

Congressman Ben Cline represents the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. He previously was an attorney in private practice and served both as an assistant prosecutor and Member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Cline and his wife, Elizabeth, live in Botetourt County with their two children.

Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.
— George Orwell

NRA Board Election Face Off: ‘Reform’ Candidates, NRA 2.0

Author’s Note: This is one part of a two-part series on the upcoming 2025 NRA Board of Directors election. In writing this, I’ve tried to give equal exposure to both camps in message, word count, and number of people whose opinions were represented. Due to a glut of information, some prospective candidates or board members who responded towards the end of the editorial process were told their contributions were not needed due to spatial constraints. As an NRA Benefactor Life Member, I want to see a strong and viable NRA. Please be sure to read my coverage of the opposing camp: NRA Board Election Face Off: ‘Old Guard’ Incumbents, Strong NRA.

“The NRA shall adopt a Director Nomination Policy […] such that the Nominating Committee shall then endeavor to identify up to 20 additional candidates who […are considered] ‘New Qualified Candidates,’” was a portion of the December 11, 2024 order in People of N.Y. et.al. v. The National Rifle Association, et.al. The annual NRA board of directors elections are going to be changing. There have been contentious races in the last few years and this year is no different. A cadre of board members and board candidates self-describe as “Reformers.” While there’s a list of incumbents who self-describe as “Strong NRA,” and are being labeled a so-called “Cabal.”

The December 11 order identifies 13 specific actions the NRA must take in the coming years. Both the NRA and New York Attorney General Letitia James have claimed victory after the final judgment. The list of requirements has a lot to do with transparency for the members as well as serving board members.

Not so quietly over the years a group of members, board members, and those eying a seat at the board of directors’ table, have assembled to speak out against the actions of other board members and employees of the NRA. These folks have come together and galvanized as the Reform Candidates.

Who are and what do the Reform Candidates believe in?

We are NRA members running for the 2025 Board of Directors and we are ready to meet the challenges facing us head-on and secure the future of the NRA. We are  concerned about the status quo of the organization and the internal issues impacting our mission. Membership has been demanding a change and we are ready, willing, and able to make that change.

We believe the governing of the NRA should be based on integrity and transparency. We are dedicated to the fight and challenges that lie ahead, and we are committed. We are here to serve the members. To do that though, we need your help. You MUST VOTE!
…
Who are we?

On this website, you can see who each candidate is, where we came from, and what we stand for. We want to restore the trust and faith of the NRA members because the NRA exists for its members. We will continue to fight for the 2nd Amendment and bring the NRA back to its mission of creating and supporting shooting programs, competitive shooting, and furthering firearm safety and education. Our goal is to bring the NRA back to the Mission and Core Values that made it the great organization it once was.

What are we asking?

We are asking you to VOTE in this upcoming election.  Make your choice by completely filling in the circle next to the name with a pen or pencil. Two are Write-In candidates: Charlie Brown of Dayton, OH, and Paul Babaz of Atlanta, GA. Please clearly write in their full name, city, and state on the reverse side of the ballot. They were denied the opportunity to have their names printed on the ballot. These 28 candidates support the Mission and Core Values of NRA 2.0. So, please mail it in before the deadline of  April 6, 2025.

We will fight for you and the NRA!

But without your support and VOTE, we can’t win that fight. Thank you in advance for your VOTE!

Continue reading “”

Suspect shot, killed by store clerk after armed robbery in St. Clair County

ST. CLAIR COUNTY, Ala. (WIAT) — St. Clair County Sheriff’s Office is conducting an investigation after a man was shot and killed during a robbery Sunday morning.

According to SCCSO, Timothy Jones, 44, of Hale County, entered a gas station in Cropwell around 4:30 a.m. with a knife. The suspect was reportedly shot and killed by the store clerk during the robbery.

St. Clair County Criminal Investigation Division is investigating.

President Trump Can Lead in Fight Against State-Level 2nd Amendment Infringements

“Karina’s Bill, Named For Little Village Mom Slain By Husband, Heads To Pritzker’s Desk,” Block Club Chicago reported Thursday. “The proposed legislation would clarify the process for confiscating a person’s gun when they are served an order of protection during instances of domestic violence.” (Note: Signing the bill into law has not happened yet at this writing. It may be a done deal when this is posted.)

“The bill [passed] the House with an 80-33 vote and the Senate in a 43-10 vote,” Chicago’s WGN9 reports.  “Pritzker said Wednesday he intends to sign it, calling it ‘the right idea’ and ‘the right thing to do.’”

Is it? Either?

Per Fox 32 Chicago, chief co-sponsor Rep. Abdelnasser Rashid calls it “a critical step towards protecting survivors of domestic violence and making our communities safer. Together, we will continue to push to end gun violence and ensure that everyone in Illinois can live free from fear in their own home.” And it’s “a pivotal victory,” Lt. Governor Julian Stratton chimes in.

How?

“Karina’s Bill will require firearms to be removed from an alleged abuser when a victim is granted an emergency order of protection,” she assures us.

“Alleged abuser?” So not only hasn’t the person been tried and convicted, but they may also not have even been charged yet? How is that remotely constitutional? Or effective?

Per a 2023 Block Club Chicago article recounting the murders:

“Jose Alvarez [The husband] sought mental health treatment but was put on a wait list… Alvarez owns a Glock 17 9mm-handgun and had a previously valid FOID card, but it was revoked with the order of protection, McCord said. McCord and Alvarez’s attorney said the order of protection was never served to him.”

It appears the state dropped the ball more than once. And ignored the basic truth that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.

If there were actionable evidence and charges against Alvarez, he could have been afforded full due process, brought to trial, and convicted. But that requires work, and it’s much easier for a government that chafes at such bonds to just issue a blanket diktat that makes mere accusations sufficient “justification” to usurp more powers and ignore more rights.

And besides, you’ll note none of the proponents of such edicts do anything but deny the reality demonstrated by economist and author John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center, that “Murder isn’t a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in a small set of urban areas, and even in those counties, murders are concentrated in small areas inside them.”

How will the most dangerous offenders, the criminal population that does not obey gun laws or apply for FOID cards to identify themselves to the state, be affected by this new “law”? The answer is, they won’t be.

Instead, a net will be cast that will scoop up the innocent along with the guilty and do further injury to freedom. As colleague  Darwin Nercesian, News Field Editor for Firearms News (full disclosure, I am the magazine’s Political Field Editor) reports in his analysis of Karina’s Bill:

“To truly understand the depths of Democrat legislative depravity, let’s first look at the method by which the bill was passed… Just six minutes before the scheduled commencement of the Illinois Executive Committee, the bill was posted, having been stripped completely of its language after the enacting title and replaced with what is called ‘Karina’s Bill.’ The move, executed before the sitting ‘Lame Duck’ session, is called a striking amendment, which differs from a floor amendment proposed in a legislative chamber in that it removes everything after the title and inserts a whole new bill.”

“Karina’s Bill advocates for the use of ex parte hearings to obtain orders of protection, immediately triggering a warrant to confiscate the subject’s firearms and ammunition,” Nercesian notes, explaining “Ex parte… refers to a legal proceeding by which one party communicates directly with a judge without notice to or knowledge of the other party, removing the respondent’s ability to be represented or present their side of a case prior to being stripped of their rights and property.”

The assaults on freedom will “obliterat[e] the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” Nercesian observes, noting the burden of regaining rights is on individuals victimized by the edict, which “holds agencies completely without liability for damage or destruction to property while it is in their custody.”

Recall how Donald Trump has in the past (in contrast to grandiose campaign promises to enthusiastic gun owners) entertained the prospects for all kinds of “gun control” and specifically advocated “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Recall how his choice for attorney general, Pam Bondi, has, among other citizen disarmament mandates, been “one of Florida’s biggest proponents of red flag laws.” Nercesian therefore asks a key question:

“What are you going to do about it, President Trump?”

Some may wonder what he can do. After all, these are state laws, the president isn’t supposed to be a dictator, and federalism is supposed to limit how much power the national government can exert over the states. And don’t forget the Tenth Amendment, reserving power “to the States respectively, or to the people.”

First, states have agreed the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land” and “the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers… of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” They can no more legitimately violate the Second Amendment than they can any other right.

And as I proposed in a November Firearms News column:

“Imagine now the Department of Justice under an actual Second Amendment advocate, and what it could do fighting infringements and prohibitionist lawfare waged by states with unlimited tax war chests in tandem with Astroturf prohibitionist groups funded by antigun elites. Right now, the costs to defend against these innumerable assaults on all levels are borne by gun rights groups and members of mostly modest means who can only support a fraction of what is needed. That equation could be turned on its head.”

And that would include enforcing the Second Amendment against state infringements, exactly as precedent has been established against abridgments of other civil rights.

Or we could listen to NRA instead and “Take Action Now!” by politely asking Illinois Democrats not to vote for the bill.

Too late, they already have. So, the question now becomes “Will President Trump do anything about it?”

We’ll get a better answer after Inauguration Day. And the way to press for that is via the much-touted-during-the-campaign “Gun Owners for Trump.” If that was more than just a discardable PR vehicle, the named leaders would have the president’s ear to advise on bills, lawsuits, regulations, judicial and other federal nominees, and provide a conduit for gun owners to express their concerns.

Because there’s one thing that needs to be understood in no uncertain terms and we shouldn’t have to apologize for: Donald Trump and Republicans owe gun owners, and it’s time to collect.

Gun sales: lies, damned lies and statistics

With Donald Trump about to regain the White House and Republicans in control—barely—of both houses of Congress, gun owners and Americans who think they might want to be gun owners someday can relax, right? Right? Beginning January 20, 2025, the federal government probably won’t be harassing gun dealers or trying to write extra-constitutional rules to turn millions of Americans into instant felons for possession of guns or accessories that were lawful the day before, right? Let’s review the status quo on the way to an answer.

For 65 consecutive months, Americans have bought more than a million guns. That’s measured by NCIC record checks mandatory whenever one buys a gun—or guns—from a federally licensed gun dealer after filling out the standard ATF Form 4473. Private sales surely count for many more, but aren’t recorded.

After 2024 monthly gun sales — as measured by adjusted NICS data — trailing 2023 for most of the year, they started to accelerate in July and jumped even more in August. This may be due, at least in part, to the impending election. Americans tend to hedge their bets every four years by stocking up on firearms and related gear. And then there’s the general state of society that seems to have an increasing number of people concerned about self-defense. 

Graphic: FBI data via NSSF. Public Domain.

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS Rejects Multiple Second Amendment Cases, Relists Gun Ban Challenges

On a day when gun-rights advocates hoped that the Supreme Court would announce its next big Second Amendment case, it only informed them which ones it was turning away.

On Monday, the High Court denied petitions for certiorari in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore and Gray v. Jennings. The cases challenged Maryland’s handgun-purchase licensing requirements and the preliminary injunction standard set in the case against Delaware’s sales ban on “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” ammunition magazines.

None of the justices wrote separately to explain or dissent from the denials.

Monday’s orders list dashes the hopes of gun-rights activists looking to overturn lower court decisions upholding the gun-control laws in question. It continues the Supreme Court’s recent streak of rejecting Second Amendment petitions, even as it agrees to hear government requests for review of decisions striking gun laws down. It could fuel further concern among gun-rights activists about the Court’s resolve to expand on the standard it set in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and address state-level gun bans or several other of its longest-standing constitutional concerns.

However, the Court left open the possibility it would take some of the highest-profile gun cases still pending before it. The Court relisted two other closely watched Second Amendment cases, Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, to be considered again at this Friday’s conference. That keeps gun-rights supporters’ hopes alive for a Supreme Court grant of review of state bans on so-called assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

With no guidance on how the justices feel about those two cases and the possibility that the Court could relist them multiple times before deciding whether to take them up, those wondering about the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence face an uncertain timeline for further clarity. Still, Monday’s order list indicated what areas of gun law the Court won’t expound upon for the foreseeable future.

Continue reading “”

Smith & Wesson’s Walnut 1854 Rocks the .45 Colt

Now, the company has shifted back to old-school gear, offering not only the 1854 Walnut, but a new chambering in .45 Colt. We were delighted to get our hands on one, marking the first time we’ve fired .45 Colt from a S&W lever gun.
Table of Contents

Video Review
S&W Model 1854 Traditional Walnut
Range Time
Field Notes
Final Thoughts