While I have not (yet) looked at the actual text, from just the title, I can see that there is a risk (slight, but present) to it.
Using "safety" as a basis for easing restrictions is a double edge blade, without hand protection.
The risk is that the govt MAY, in the future decide that "silencers" are NEEDED (for safety), and COULD restrict guns that DON'T HAVE THEM.
And, in fact, the anti gun forces might push for this, if it is clear that they are "stuck" with having to allow us un-or less restricted access to silencers.
They won't like it much, but I think they would try, because everything that "gets guns off the streets" is a plus for their agenda.
This is their reasoning behind pushing smart gun tech. Sure, the CLAIM is safety, only authorized users can shoot the gun, cuts down on stolen guns being able to be used in crimes, etc., but I don't for a moment believe that they give a rodent's posterior about making shooters "safer".
What they really want is to make smart gun tech the ONLY legal standard, so that all "dumb" guns can be classed as "unsafe" or not safe enough, and because they aren't safe, restricted, or even banned.
So, I see a small potential risk to the reasoning of using hearing protection as the argument for relaxing the restrictions on silencers.
I grant you, that the hearing protection argument is the only one that has a chance of actually WORKING, getting enough support to pass, but its not the best argument. The best argument is our fundamental rights, but history has shown that the rest of the country really doesn't care much about OUR constitutional rights, the majority only cares about things that are, or could be an issue in their personal lives.
Yes, there are those (on all sides of every issue) that care about the principles, and they can be very effective advocates, but numerically those people are a tiny fraction of the whole.