Conversations with Brandon Maddox, the Hearing Protection Act (HPA)

Brandon Maddox and Silencer Central is an American success story. Brandon went from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) in his home to the largest silencer dealer in the USA. Today, Brandon’s companies dominate the silencer/suppressor market, regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

This correspondent met Brandon Maddox at the 2024 SHOT Show. Brandon had read several AmmoLand articles, recognized this writer, and started a conversation. Brandon graciously agreed to be interviewed. This is the second in a series of articles resulting from several interviews. Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity.

Silencers are currently regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Such items require a $200 tax, with a Byzantine, intrusive application process, including a photograph, fingerprints and a wait time of several months to over a year to accomplish.

The Hearing Protection Act (HPA) would move silencers/suppressors out of the jurisdiction of the NFA and regulate them with the same standards as rifles or shotguns.  Brandon Maddox has strong opinions about the HPA.

Weingarten: Did you have a position on the Hearing Protection Act (HPA)?

Brandon Maddox: We would love for that to pass. It would open it up where we would be able to sell more suppressors.

We are both a dealer and we also are manufacturers. We have a line of products that are some of the best-selling in the nation. People may not realize this, because people do not have access to them because we sell direct. We could sell a whole lot more if they became non-NFA items.

I think where we differ from some people is we feel there could be some sort of crawl, walk, run. Some people are really focused on HPA, HPA, HPA.  To me, it is obvious Biden is not going to sign that. I get trying to create some momentum for that. What we have been looking for is: Are there some key wins we can get for the silencers that would help us gradually get closer to getting approved for the Hearing Protection Act instead of focusing solely on that?

For example, we submitted a bill to Congress (House) and are looking to submit a version to the Senate as well. Currently, the $200 NFA tax, created in 1934, goes directly to the Treasury and goes directly into the General Fund.

So what we are looking at is whether there is a way to allocate that money similar to the Pittman-Robertson that goes to conservation. Then also you drill that down where you put more money for gun ranges and benefit youth training. Then, put a component in there where the ATF has 90 days to approve a silencer, or it is automatically approved. By forcing their hand to do that, we would allocate some of the funds that come from the tax stamp to the ATF so they could increase their infrastructure, whether it be electronic or hiring whatever they need to do to get the systems in place so they can approve these in 90 days or less.

Our concern is that from a non-NFA item, if the FBI does a background check and they come up with a “further review” option, after three days, the dealer can actually transfer it. So, we are trying to create something analogous to that with NFA. If you have been running a background check and, after 90 days, you can’t determine whether it’s able to be approved, we would like for it to automatically be approved.

Weingarten: That would be a major change.

Maddox: That’s the problem now. The FBI would say we are statutorily required to focus 100% of our efforts on the local dealer and firearms transfers so that we can meet that three-day minimum and give a response to the dealer before they just automatically transfer it.

I get their problem is a lot of these records are: a person might have been charged with X, and there is nothing in writing, or records have been destroyed, so they do not know how it ended, like if the person was charged with something different. That creates the open item. We would like for there to be some finality on that open check with NFA. Now, not only is it statutorily a non-priority, but the priority is for regular FFL dealers for non-NFA items. There is no deadline.

My position is the ATF has 60 days to determine whether I am a licensee. So, on my applications, they have 60 days to respond. If I change my address as an FFL, statutorily, they have 30 days to respond.  So, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to say you have 90 days to respond to a customer submitting to be approved on an NFA item.

Weingarten: Whether it is doable is hard to know.

Maddox: What is interesting, the conservation groups, luckily, are typically Democrat and Republican. There are a lot of moderates that support conservation. The theory is, if we can move some of that money from the tax stamp into conservation, you start getting more Democrats, you start getting people like Manchin because he’s West Virginia’s senator, and the NFA branch is based there.

The thought was we could get them on that side. Then, say, pretty much everyone wants to speed up the process. Even Democrats are into “funding additional ATF activity.” If you could get some more funding for NFA, then you could say: Not only are we going to hold you to 90 days, we are going to give you 5,10,15 million dollars to implement it. Then, it seems more reasonable.

Weingarten: It sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

Maddox: That is what I would call baby steps toward the Hearing Protection Act.

Weingarten: Here is a corollary question: You have built an empire by making it easier for people to go through the convoluted Byzantine process of getting permission to own a silencer. If that process becomes essentially non-existent, and you can buy a silencer the same as you can buy a rifle, are you worried about the effect it could have on your business?

Maddox: Let me ask you a question. We view our business as two separate entities: the Banish Suppressors and the Silencer Central process. The potential upside for the Banish suppressors is so great that it completely negates any concerns about the impact on the process side.

Weingarten: It’s a good argument.

Maddox: 100 percent! There are so many obstacles. People don’t like to pay for something they don’t get instantly. People don’t like to wait. People feel like they are getting scrutinized with fingerprints and photos, create a trust, and sheriffs are notified. All these things are barriers to keep people from buying. I always say I have eighteen manufacturers making Banish suppressors for me. If the HPA went through, I would be in a position where I could increase my volume 10, 20-fold kind of overnight. It is a great scenario!

It depends on the 2024 elections. If Donald Trump wins the Presidency and the Republicans take the Senate and hold the House, the HPA could pass.

It almost did in 2016 but failed because of RINOs, especially Paul Ryan, who was Speaker of the House. If Biden or another Democrat wins the Presidency, the HPA is dead. If Trump wins the Presidency but Democrats control the House or Senate, Brandon Maddox’s baby steps approach could speed up and simplify the NFA process.

The more legal silencers there are, the closer we come to removing them from the NFA.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.