There are three main possibilities:
- The bill is allowed to remain as-is. It will pass the Senate with 50-something votes and the president will sign it into law. That will accelerate the product development feedback loop we described above in the excerpt from OSD 146. A few areas where it will make the fastest impact:
- Retail. Way more ecommerce around silencers and silencer accessories.
- Manufacturing. The door would be open for $50 cans that you use for a while and throw away. The lowered regulatory barriers would make it easier for manufacturers to experiment with new designs. And lastly it would be easier for startups to form in the space. Today, any silencer startup has to get into the top 2-3 retailers from day 1 to have any hope of succeeding. In a world without NFA rules, startups could easily sell direct to consumer with off-the-shelf FFL transfer tools on their website.
- Gun makers. Integral suppression will become more of a thing. Imagine if every company tried to do what SilencerCo did with the Maxim 9, but competed with each other and stuck with it for 5-10 years. Get a few iterations deep, multiply that by having the whole industry working on it, and it will become unusual for guns not to come suppressed from the factory.
- The bill’s fallback provision is activated. If the Parliamentarian rules against full removal from the NFA, the bill contains a much-more-likely-to-be-
allowed-through-reconciliation provision dropping the NFA tax on suppressors from $200 to 0. Think of that as a permanent ~25% discount on all suppressors. It would produce an initial spike in sales which would settle into a sustained baseline level of sales that’s somewhat higher than today’s — demand curves slope downward, and you’ll sell more of something when it costs $x – 200 instead of $x. It also opens the door somewhat (although not quite as much as outcome #1) to bargain-basement suppressor designs. The downside is that it risks making suppressor regulation seem like “just” some paperwork. That could take some wind out of the sails of long-term NFA reform. On net it’s still a positive development that would further entrench suppressors. - Neither #1 nor #2 happen, and suppressor laws stay as-is.
#3 is the worst outcome, but that puts us all in an unfamiliar position: there’s a gun bill before Congress where the worst-case scenario is that gun laws stay unchanged. Normally that’s the best-case scenario. In fact, Congress has never passed a law that lessened regulations on gun purchases — they’ve only ever ratcheted the rules tighter.
— Open Source Defense in What happens if suppressors get deregulated?
no chance of me getting one here. still, the integrally suppressed black powder rifle and the couple of .22s are attractive.
The amount of unspent powder caking the inside of your barrel walls with a BP suppressed rifle would be ridiculous.
would need a roto-rooter to clean it out.
😁
Laughingly agree, but a question. Is Blackhorn that bad too? I have a bottle but haven’t burned any yet.
The law needs to be changed to ‘un-define’ ‘suppressors’ as firearms.
The way the law is written now, if they did get removed from the NFA they are still defined as ‘firearm’ in the law and fall under the GCA so you would still need to do a 4473 and pass a background check to get one because it would be transfer of a ‘firearm’.
Be careful – by declaring them “firearms”, they are clearly “arms” and clearly protected by 2A. Some states have already attempted the “they aren’t firearms, they are accessories, and as accessories, they are not protected by 2A”.
Regardless of how lousy of an argument that it (then ink and paper are not part of “freedom of the press”, etc), it is an argument that has, and will continue to be made – about magazines, suppressors, etc.
“Be careful – by declaring them “firearms””
They are already defined as ‘firearms’ in law, thus also covered as ‘firearms’ under the GCA.
The 5th circuit though recently said they are not firearms in United States v. Peterson.
Peterson made the argument “that suppressors are ‘an integral part of a firearm’ and therefore warrant Second Amendment protection: ‘In as much as a bullet must pass through an attached [suppressor] to arrive at its intended target,’ suppressors are used for casting and striking and thus fit Heller’s definition.” – but this is basically the same logic the government used to keep them classed as ‘firearm’, that, basically, ” ‘In as much as a bullet must pass through an attached [suppressor] to arrive at its intended target,’ suppressors are used for casting and striking”.
The 5th circuit said this was wrong and “A suppressor, by itself, is not a weapon. Without being attached to a firearm, it would not be of much use for self-defense. And unless a suppressor itself is thrown (which, of course, is not how firearms work), it cannot do any casting or striking. … While a suppressor might prove useful to one casting or striking at another, that usefulness does not transform a gas dissipater into a bullet caster. Instead, we agree with the Tenth Circuit that a suppressor ‘is a firearm accessory . . . not a weapon.’ … And while possession of firearms themselves is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, possession of firearm accessories is not. Accordingly, Peterson has not shown that the NFA’s registration scheme burdens a constitutionally protected right.”
Since the passage of the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, suppressors have been regulated under federal law as ‘restricted items’, and thus classed as ‘firearm’ under federal law subject to regulation under the NFA and GCA. Simply removing them from the NFA does not remove the classification in law, removing them from the NFA simply removes the regulation of them as ‘restricted items’ under NFA but not as ‘firearm’ under the GCA. They would also need to be deregulated from the GCA to remove the ‘firearm’ classification.
Its the SHUSH act, if it passes and gets signed, that would deregulate suppressors as firearms under both the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.
You indicated:
The law needs to be changed to ‘un-define’ ‘suppressors’ as firearms.. I Disagree.
Doing that would mean that a suppressor is no longer defined as a firearm, under the NFA or GCA law. And then States (and the 5th Circuit) could try (as they are today) to claim they are not arms, and thus not protected.
I concur that the 5th Circuit has erred in stating something defined as a firearm [under law] is not an arm protected by 2A. I would also agree that even if a suppressor were not defined as a firearm [under law], then it is still an “arm” as a valid component of a bearable arm, just like a magazine is a valid component of bearable arms [specifically, not all guns require magazines – even semi-autos can usually fire one manually loaded round without a magazine]
IMHO, keeping a silencer (legal term) defined as a firearm (legally) should mitigate the ability to challenge whether they are arms. So I reiterate, IMHO, you do not want to un-define a silencer as a firearm.
Well, yes you do want to un-define a silencer as a firearm.
As long as they are defined as firearm it gives the fed and state governments justification to regulate any way they want. Is that what you want, more of a ‘regulation hammer’ available to governments? You want a never ending stream of court cases in each individual fed-court-circuit to let them decide, you want more of that?
This is a chance we have not had for a long time, a chance to get rid of a needless ‘regulation environment’ that has served no purpose other than to be used by government as a tool for oppression and ruining lives.
Simply removing them from the NFA and saying they are 2A protected as ‘arms’ is only asking for more of the same – continued regulation as ‘firearm’.
Simply removing them from the NFA saying they are 2A protected as ‘arms’ is only asking for more court cases in hostile states over their own regulation of them as ‘firearm’ which is based upon the fed gov defining them as ‘firearm’.
Un-defining them as ‘firearm’ in federal law cuts out the hostile states ability to regulate them as ‘firearm’ or define them as ‘firearm’.
Here’s What The ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Says About Suppressors.
”
…
Suppressors would still be subject to the 4473 paperwork and NICS background check required for any firearm purchase from a federally licensed firearm dealer, because they are still classified as firearms under the Gun Control Act.
…”
https://thefederalist.com/2025/05/28/heres-what-the-big-beautiful-bill-says-about-suppressors/
and there in lies the problem, removing them from the NFA regulation does not remove their classification as ‘firearm’ – the ability of fed or state government to use that classification to regulate in any way they want. A needless ‘regulation environment’ of suppressors that has served no purpose other than to be used by government as a tool for oppression and ruining lives ’cause they can cause its defined as ‘firearm’. We just saw 4 years of Biden tyranny using the classification of ‘firearm’ as a hammer of tyrannical oppression, even using it to kill innocent people ’cause they said and waging a war against innocent American citizen gun owners and the constitution. You want fed and state government to have the justification of ‘firearm’ for suppressors too?
Yes, you do want to un-define a silencer as a firearm.