Representative Michael Cloud (R-TX) has introduced the SHUSH Act in the House of Representatives, which would deregulate suppressors. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has also introduced a companion bill in the Senate.
Suppressors, whose proper name is silencers, are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Thanks to the Hollywood myth that hearing protection devices make firearms whisper quiet, many people assume that these items are “tools of assassins,” and that is why they are heavily regulated. Anti-gun advocates cling to suppressors being used in high-profile murders, such as the killing of the United Healthcare CEO, to justify their place on the NFA. But out of the millions of suppressors in circulation, only a tiny number are used for crime.
Suppressors do not make a gun completely silent. It lowers the sound to a safe level that doesn’t damage a person’s hearing. A gun with a suppressor shooting regular ammunition is still loud. Suppressors are on the NFA because, during the 1930s, poachers used suppressors to harvest their targets. This reason is a far cry from the Hollywood narrative. Now that most states that allow suppressors also allow hunting with them, the original reason for suppressors to be on the NFA is pointless.
The SHUSH Act is not the only bill in Congress that removes suppressors from the NFA. Another bill in the House that would do the same thing is the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) introduced by Representative Ben Cline (R-VA). The bills are similar, with a few exceptions. The Cline bill would allow the ATF to regulate tubes that can thread onto the barrel of a firearm as suppressors, even if no baffles are present. The SHUSH Act does not give the ATF that power. The HPA also doesn’t have a companion bill in the Senate, but that is expected to change.
The HPA or the SHUSH Act should make it through the House, with Republicans holding a slight majority. The roadblock will be in the Senate. Although Republicans have the majority in the Senate, a super majority is needed to get any bill to the President’s desk for him to sign into law. Many believe President Trump would be willing to sign the bill into law. Seven Democrats would have to cross the aisle and break with their party to vote for the bill. It is expected that effort will fall short.
There is another way the bill could be passed through the Senate. It could be attached to a “must pass” legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) or a continuing resolution to keep the government open. Democrats have used this method to pass several of their initiatives in the past, and Republicans could take a play out of their playbook.
If the bill passes, the price of owning a suppressor will drop drastically. Government regulations artificially inflate suppressor prices. Owners will no longer have to pay the ATF a $200 tax stamp, and suppressor companies’ costs will also drop. The suppressor market is already exploding, and deregulation could mean many more would be sold.
The United States has some of the best gun laws in the world, but it is far behind others when it comes to suppressors. In many countries, it is considered rude not to shoot with a suppressor. Many think it is time for the US to catch up with other countries regarding suppressors.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
I have been asking myself why Republicans don’t use the same game plan the Democrats use extensively. Simply attach the SUPRESSOR bill to the funding of Congress. Republicans can then accuse the Democrats of shutting down Washington when they scream and cry . As the author stated, use a tactic right out of the Democrats play book. As anyone familiar with firearms knows, suppressors are very seldom used in crimes but they do protect your hearing. The only reason to vote against suppressors is a political , partisan silly game that’s playing out continuously in Congress. NOT what’s good for… Read more »
Many people would buy one if they did not have to kiss uncle Sams ass for one and pay ransom money for the privilege.
Several artices over past few years regarding removing sound suppressors from the illegal 1924 gun control act had far leftist democrats claiming that street gangs, assassin’s, drug dealers would use them. How would they know this? Do these democrats have friends or family members who are in street gangs, or are assassin’s or are drug dealers? One Democrat even said sound suppressors make a handgun more concealable? Huh?? Actually they add 6 inches to the length of a handgun. In Europe, with al of their gun control laws, there are no restrictions on purchasing silencers. In fact, many countries require… Read more »
If I didn’t have to get photographed, finger printed, and pay a $200 ransom, I might just consider a suppressor.
I want to know how removing the tax stamp cost would lower the cost of a suppressor. Do the mfgs have a regulatory cost that would also go away or is it simply the expectation of supply and demand? First off, there may be pent up demand but that would only keep the cost high unless there is already excess inventory. My mfg experience is that mfgs run lean inventories so the don’t have $ sitting on the shelves. I suppose, in time the cost might come down, but I doubt it would be overnight. I heard this same line… Read more »
I have not found in the legislative history prior to the enactment of the NFA of 34 where any reason or justification of silencers being included. No mention of poaching as this article alludes. The executive branch admitted they had no idea the outcome if passed. In other words, they were throwing spit wads at the wall to see what stuck. Numerous organizations spoke, pointing out that the only outcome would be infringing upon law abiding citizens Rights who would obey, not the criminal who cared less. How many other gun control laws have since been passed and the same… Read more »