Gun rights advocates have been pushing hard for the passage of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), which would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA). According to William from Copper Jacket TV, this bill, tucked inside the “one big beautiful bill”, passed the House by a single vote. It’s now sitting in the Senate with a looming self-imposed deadline of July 4. But even with control of Congress, Republicans are divided. And that division might cost them a rare opportunity to roll back a piece of gun control that’s been in place for nearly 90 years.
Suppressors and the NFA: What’s the Big Deal?
The HPA would reclassify suppressors (or silencers) as regular firearms, meaning buyers would no longer need to go through the lengthy tax stamp process, fingerprinting, and a months-long wait. William explains that even in states where suppressors are currently banned, this federal change could pave the way for legal challenges, such as the Sanchez v. Bonta case in California. The impact could ripple across the country, especially if courts recognize suppressors as protected “arms” under the Second Amendment.
Why Senate Republicans Are Dragging Their Feet
Despite controlling the Senate, Republicans are not unified behind the bill. William reports that some GOP senators, including Rand Paul, oppose it on fiscal grounds. “I can’t in good conscience give up every principle I stand for,” Paul reportedly said. His concern? Adding more spending to an already bloated budget. But for many gun owners, this moment isn’t about budgets – it’s about rights. William warns that without unity, the bill might be stripped down or stall altogether.
Democrats Invoke the Byrd Rule to Kill the Bill
Meanwhile, Democrats are playing procedural hardball. In a recent video from The Four Boxes Diner, constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith breaks down the legal maneuver Democrats are trying to use: the Byrd Rule. They argue that removing suppressors from the NFA as part of a budget reconciliation bill violates this rule, which prohibits non-budgetary changes in such bills. Their goal is to force the suppressor provision out of the bill entirely, or risk having the whole thing fail under filibuster.
Mark Smith Says Their Argument Doesn’t Hold Up
Smith, a respected Second Amendment scholar, dismantles the Democrats’ logic. He points to the 1937 Supreme Court case Sonzinsky v. United States, which ruled that the NFA is fundamentally a taxation scheme, not a regulatory one. That’s key, because reconciliation bills are allowed to make changes to tax law. Smith adds that this precedent was reaffirmed in 2012’s NFIB v. Sebelius, the landmark Obamacare case. “The whole point of the NFA is taxation,” Smith explains. “The regulatory aspects are merely incidental.”
Time is the Enemy
Back on Copper Jacket TV, William warns that time is running out. The July 4th deadline gives Congress only a few weeks to act. The process requires Senate passage, House reapproval (if changes are made), and then a presidential signature – all in less than a month. “We’re working with a short window,” William says. And while the GOP says the deadline is self-imposed, it’s clear they’re feeling the pressure to act fast or lose momentum.
A Watered-Down Bill Might Not Be Worth It
There’s also concern that compromises will weaken the bill beyond recognition. William believes there’s a risk lawmakers will strip out the HPA or fail to include the SHORT Act, which aims to deregulate short-barreled rifles and shotguns. “They seem more interested in the optics of meeting the deadline than passing the full bill,” he warns. And with Democrats completely opposed and several Republicans hesitating, any concession might undo what little ground has been gained.
This Fight Could Shape Future Generations
“This is the battle of our lifetime,” William says. And it’s not just about suppressors – it’s about restoring a broader view of the Second Amendment. A win here could trigger lawsuits in restrictive states, challenge outdated gun laws, and restore rights that many Americans have never even experienced. “We’re talking about a change that will affect your great-great-grandchildren,” he adds. That’s why he’s urging supporters to call their senators now and demand action.
Suppressors as Arms – A Legal Shift?
One of the most interesting points comes from William’s analysis: If suppressors are treated like other firearms, they can’t be banned outright by states. That’s a big deal. Under Bruen, gun laws must align with the nation’s historical tradition. If suppressors are classified as “arms,” state-level bans could be challenged as unconstitutional. William says this legal shift could kick open the door for new litigation nationwide, especially in places like California and New York.
Democrats Frame Suppressors as Dangerous
In their letter to the Senate, Democrats describe suppressors as “deeply dangerous” and claim that removing them from NFA protections would “undermine safety regulations that have existed for nearly a century.” Smith strongly disagrees. He reminds viewers that suppressors reduce hearing damage and have legitimate sporting uses. The stigma around suppressors, he argues, is based more on Hollywood myths than real-world data. The fact that they’re regulated so harshly in the U.S. is, frankly, unusual by international standards.
Smith’s Legal Argument: It’s All About Tax, Not Control
Smith’s legal commentary is striking. He insists that Congress’s power to regulate suppressors only exists because of its power to tax. “No tax, no regulation,” he says. The registration, fingerprinting, and approval process are only constitutional because they’re tied to a tax. Remove the tax, and the regulatory structure falls with it. That’s why the Byrd Rule doesn’t apply – because this isn’t a standalone gun law, it’s a tax rule. “It’s a taxation scheme, plain and simple,” Smith says.
GOP Hesitation Could Sink a Historic Opportunity
What makes this moment so frustrating for gun rights advocates is the self-inflicted nature of the delay. With Democrats fully opposed and the courts still uncertain on many 2A issues, Congress is one of the few places where real, lasting reform can happen. Yet Republicans can’t agree long enough to move the needle. As William put it, “Every year we fight over budgets – but this is the kind of change that only comes once in a lifetime.” The clock’s ticking – and freedom doesn’t wait forever.
July 4 Could Be a Turning Point – or a Missed Chance
The next few weeks will reveal whether Republicans are serious about defending the Second Amendment or just paying it lip service. With the suppressor provision under attack and the Senate dragging its feet, the window for meaningful reform is closing fast. Both William from Copper Jacket TV and Mark Smith from The Four Boxes Diner have made it clear: this bill isn’t perfect, but it’s historic. And if it fails, the blame won’t fall on Democrats alone. Republicans had the votes. They just didn’t use them.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.