Congressman Pfluger fights to protect gun owners' rights on suppressors
- Texas Congressman August Pfluger introduced the PARTS Act, aimed at reducing ATF regulations on suppressors.
- The American Academy of Otolaryngology supports the use of suppressors to prevent noise-induced hearing loss.
- The introduction of this bill is part of a larger effort to protect Second Amendment rights amid concerns of governmental overreach.
In late November 2024, Texas GOP Congressman August Pfluger introduced a bill aimed at reevaluating the regulation of suppressors in the U.S. The proposed legislation, titled the Protecting Americans’ Right to Silence (PARTS) Act, seeks to amend the National Firearms Act of 1934. Specifically, the bill addresses concerns that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has overstepped its authority by categorizing parts of suppressors as machine guns, thus imposing registration requirements and a $200 tax for purchasers. Supporters of this measure argue that it upholds Second Amendment rights and makes firearm use safer, particularly in hunting and shooting sports. The introduction of this legislation came shortly after the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, representing about 13,000 ear doctors, publicized findings supporting the use of suppressors. Their studies indicate that suppressors can effectively reduce the risk of noise-induced hearing loss, a common concern among those exposed to gunfire. This endorsement has provided an unexpected boost to Pfluger’s bill and highlights a public health angle in the ongoing debate about firearm regulations and Second Amendment rights. Pfluger warned that the current administration’s approach threatens to criminalize suppressors, which he believes would hinder responsible gun use and the ability of law-abiding citizens to enjoy recreational shooting. The pushback against ATF regulations reflects broader concerns among gun owners about the government’s role in regulating firearms and accessories, which many view as governmental overreach. Despite the urgency surrounding the bill, the timeline for its consideration remains uncertain, as it is expected to be heard before the end of the 118th Congress. Pfluger has indicated a willingness to reintroduce the bill in the next congressional session if necessary. Proponents hope for a more favorable legislative landscape in the next Congress that will be more responsive to Second Amendment issues moving forward.