DEREGULATION OF SUPPRESSORS: New “SHUSH” Act Introduced to House and Senate

Assorted suppressors. Image credit: Nicholas C. Used with permission.

Could the complete deregulation of silencers (also called “suppressors”) be near? That’s the goal of a new bill introduced simultaneously to the House and Senate, which seeks to invalidate the provisions pertaining to silencers of the National Firearms Act, entirely. The bill, called the SHUSH (Silencers Help Us Save Hearing) Act, would nullify the NFA’s requirements for silencer registration via two modifications: First, by making anyone seeking to purchase a silencer (who is otherwise acting within the law) automatically meet the NFA’s requirements; and second, by invalidating all state regulations regarding silencers. Further, these changes would retroactively apply to all silencer transfers more recent than October 22, 2015.

Essentially, these provisions would deregulate silencers to the status of general firearms accessories, apply this deregulation across the board to all states, and release all silencers currently in tax stamp limbo to their respective purchasers. This differs from the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), which would down-regulate silencers to the same level as a standard longarm.

Whether the SHUSH Act will compete against or complement the HPA remains to be seen. It is possible that the more aggressive SHUSH Act could drive more moderate members of Congress towards the HPA – lest the SHUSH Act be forced through, anyway. However, it is also possible that the SHUSH Act could fragment the faction seeking to deregulate silencers by drawing away those members who are more strongly pro-deregulation.


Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at


  • Raptor Fred

    GOOD. Hopefully magic will happen

  • Marcus D.

    I have to question whether the federal government has the power to overturn state gun laws. Moreover, the proposed bill only pre-empts state or local taxation. Some states, such as California, do not impose a tax, they impose an absolute ban on the possession and transfer of any such device. California also bans threaded barrels, and this law would have no effect on that ban either. Nice try, not gonna work for those of us in restrictive jurisdictions.

    • QuadGMoto

      Where state laws run afoul of Constitutional Law and powers delegated to the Federal government they are null and void. The problem is that many powers not delegated to the Federal government, and therefore reserved for the States or The People, have been illegally claimed by the Feds. This is one of those rare cases when it’s great to see the Federal government actually sticking to Constitutional Law.

      • Marcus D.

        How is the fed “sticking to Constitutional Law”? The NFA was upheld as a lawful tax measure in U.S. v. Miller 81 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. This bill rescinds the tax. But how it can pre-empt state tax laws is a mystery to me. More importantly, it does not purport to pre-empt state criminal laws, and thus we are stuck.

        • Cedar_92

          When the states pass unconstotutuional laws then I believe the feds should step in because th3y too work for the people. Just like the states that legalized cannabis went around unconstitutional federal laws regarding cannabis.

          • Marcus D.

            I agree that the fed should step in–or at least the federal courts–when states pass laws that violate the federal constitution, as the fed did with the Civil Rights Act. But the NFA was not passed as a ban, in fact, as reported in Miller, it was passed as a tax measure so as to avoid a 2A issue. Now it is true that suppressors were added later, but it is still just a taxing statute. The difficult question, which I do not address, is whether a ban on suppressors under State laws violates the 2A; I ather suspect that the answer will be different depending on which federal court circuit you happen to be in.

          • QuadGMoto

            It was sold as a tax measure, but at the time $200 was a significant amount in comparison to the average income and the cost of items at the time. (Income: $1,600/yr, Studebaker truck: $656, House: $5,970, Rent for a house: $20/mo.) As such, it was a defacto ban, actively preventing ownership of those arms. It is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment which did not limit “infringed” to mere bans.

          • Marcus D.

            I agree that it was a de facto ban, but you are up against a Supreme Court decision that says the act is constitutional. It really doesn’t matter whether that decision was engineered or plain wrong, it is the controlling authority from that court, a court that is loathe to overturn its prior precedent except in extreme and unusual cases. for example, the Slaughter House cases, which held that the equal protection clause of the 24th amendment was not applicable to the states was then and now widely criticized, yet the court will do almost anything to avoid addressing that wrong. Read Thomas’ concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago which discusses this issue in detail.

          • QuadGMoto

            People break the law all the time. Even clearly moral ones like prohibitions against stealing and murder. It’s not surprising the people in the role of government do it too. The most obvious such immoral ruling was Dredd Scott. Just because an authority (especially a valid one) says something is so doesn’t make it right. In fact, that is what the entire Revolutionary War was about.

          • AlDeLarge

            “but you are up against a Supreme Court decision that says the act is constitutional.”

            The decision was “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Nobody showed up for the defense to bring up the fact that SBSs were used in the military. The court decided that only military firearms were protected by the Second Amendment, so the “tax” and registration of military firearms was constitutional.

          • Marcus D.

            And your point is? And actually it did not rule that the taxing and registration of military firearms was unconstitutional, it only held that short barrelled shotguns could be taxed and registered. A decision is not authority for a question it did not consider, and although the decision implies what you say, it doesn’t actually say that. Moreover, as I’ve said before, no matter how bad a decision is, the court would rather work around a bad decision than overrule it. Thus, it is unlikely that Miller will be overruled, and unless and until then, we are stuck with a case that holds that the NFA is constitutional, at least as it regulates short barrelled shotguns, even though, as history shows, the case was clearly a set up.

            It should be noted however, that it really is a narrow decision, but it has been read quite broadly. I have to wonder whether the outcome would have been different had Mr. Miller had a Thompson, since the Thompson was very clearly a military weapon at the time of the decision.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            The ‘Miller” decision itself should be attacked as having been ruled upon UNconstitutionally in light of the SCOTUS’s own earlier decision in ‘Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah’ – 4 S.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884).

          • AlDeLarge

            I didn’t mean that quite so literally. My point is the absurdity of the “logic” behind the decision “that short barrelled shotguns could be taxed and registered” because nobody showed up to say they had a military use. As you said, the question of full auto firearms was not on the table, so that part was neither addressed nor upheld, but there’s no way it could’ve been upheld by the “logic” of what was decided. A very different, and probably contradictory, line of reasoning would’ve been needed to uphold that part.

          • Marcus D.

            Agreed. Basically the court held that short barrelled shotguns were outside the scope of the 2A because they had no military use, a conclusion that for years was relied on as establishing that the 2A protected a collective right to keep and beaqr arms for the purpose of militia (military) service. Had it been a machine gun, then the decision would have had to directly address the thne Attorney General’s contention to congress that the 2A was not violated because it was only a tax, not a ban.

        • int19h

          Most states that restrict silencers don’t tax them, just ban them outright.

          That said, it is not at all clear that silencers are within the scope of 2A, either. Especially as interpreted by Heller, which explicitly recognized that there can be restrictions on various types.

        • QuadGMoto

          I apologize somewhat. I was tired when I wrote that and I had the ruling by the judge in California in mind, so I wasn’t quite on point (though close).

          As a bill, this is a move in the correct legal direction, but it’s not something the Federal Government is actually doing yet. But it is in agreement with the 2nd Amendment, which as parts for “arms” I would argue is within its scope, especially since the language “shall not be infringed” is the strongest possible “hands off” language the framers could come up with.

          The NFA is a clear constitutional violation. I’ve read a bit of the history of its passage and the court case that “upheld” it. It was a clear case of political skullduggery equivalent to CNN’s “there’s no there there” “Russian collusion” story, but without the Internet to allow the public to see what was actually going on.

          Short version, this bill is in agreement with the Constitution, correcting part of the illegal current laws, both Federal and State.

          • frankspeak

            congress has never been comfortable with widespread ownership of of NFA items…witness the Hughes amendment…

        • Juanito Ibañez

          Of course, the SCOTUS hearing in ‘U.S. v. Miller’ was in and of itself UNconstitutional! (see ‘Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah’ – 4 S.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884) re: “Trial in absentia”; to-wit no ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ for Miller or Layton).

          • Marcus D.

            Mmm, can’t say that I agree. Audi alteram partem only requires that the defendant be given an opportunity to appear and defend that charges against him–in the trial court. He was represented by counsel in the trial court, and as I recall he in fact he won in the trial court. No principle of law required that he actively oppose the appeal, and at the time, there was no recognized right to counsel on appeal. So not a really strong argument.

      • Sasquatch

        ☝ what he said.

    • Paul Rain

      Good question.

      If Federal courts can remove State Ten Commandments monuments- which one would reasonably expect to be allowed given that many of the various states had state religions for hundreds of years after they joined the Federal government- they sure as shit can overturn manifestly illegal and immoral state laws.

      • int19h

        > many of the various states had state religions for hundreds of years after they joined the Federal government

        That would be physically impossible, since no state could have a state religion under the federal constitution after 14A was passed (it took a while longer for the courts to acknowledge this, but that’s a different matter – although even if you take that date, you’d still not get to “hundreds of years”).

        • Marcus D.

          Specifically, it was the incorporation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause by the 14th Amendment, but it took until the 1940s for the Supreme court to so rule.

      • AlDeLarge

        New Hampshire (until 1875) and North Carolina (until 1877) were the only two to have official religions still on the books (but nullified) after the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. While all of the thirteen original states had official religions for more than 100 years and six for more than 200, none of them had a valid official religion more than 92 years as a state, or 81 years after the Constitution was ratified.

    • Nicholas C

      There are ways around threaded barrels. Pin and weld is one of them. Obviously not an option for handguns.

      However just like other CA companies innovating due to stupid gun laws, there are ways to achieve muzzle devices on pistol barrels without needed threads.

      Battle comp is working on a California Compliant Glock comp. it is a proprietary barrel with some attachment method for a special compensator.

      • If the barrel isnt threaded but a thread attachment locks onto flats… good enough?

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      In the case where the constitution says “you shall do it this way and anything else is forbidden” the federal government supersedes state law. In the case where the constitution says “you shall not do it this way and everything else is fair game” states have the freedom to so it whatever other way.

      “Shall not be infringed” seems pretty one directional to me, but then again if we used that reasoning the state gun laws would not have existed in the first place.

    • Ben Rogers

      Read the 14th Ammendment please.

      • Marcus D.

        I am familiar with the 14th Amendment, and McDonald, which incorporates the 2AS against the states. But that just begs the question; why is it unconstitutional to ban suppressors, when Maryland has successfully banned AR15s and the Supreme court declined to intervene? further, it is questionable as to whether a suppressor constitutes an “arm” within the meaning of the law, an issue that no decisional law addresses at this point in time. Remember, all this bill does is repeal a tax, and eliminates all state taxes. It does not eliminate state law restrictions on ownership.

    • Ben Rogers

      Congress has the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

      If a state government passes laws that ban useful militia arms/equipment, the fed gov has the power to overrule them to ensure the unorganized militia (which still exists) has the power to arm itself.

      In the early USA, it was a federal law that all men had to own a gun, bayonet and ammunition.

      • Juanito Ibañez

        “In the early USA, it was a federal law that all men had to own a gun, bayonet and ammunition.”

        Make that state law:

        “That every Citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack.”
        –Act of the New York Legislature, passed April 4, 1786

    • valorius

      Federal law supercedes state law.

      • Marcus D.

        That’s an overgeneralization. It is more accurate to say that in some circumstances federal law supersedes state law, but only when the federal law is intended “to occupy the field” to the exclusion of any other regulation. That is not so here except to the extent that the bill would supersede state laws allowing for taxation on the transfer of suppressors. State law bans or other restrictions will not be affected.

        • valorius

          Any time two laws are in conflict, federal always supercedes state.

          • QuadGMoto

            I cannot agree. Constitutional law supersedes both. Federal law only supersedes state law in areas where the Constitution gives it authority. (Defending borders, immigration, making interstate commerce consistent, and about 8 others.) In all other areas, State law actually supersedes Federal law.

            State laws restricting access to firearms or firearm related items violates Constitutional law.

          • AlDeLarge

            In most cases they run parallel. Drug laws in general, and marijuana laws in particular, are good examples. The vast majority of simple possession charges are done on the state level, but the federal government can prosecute people for possession too. Colorado can’t prosecute anyone for marijuana possession, but the federal government can.

          • Marcus D.

            Well, the Supreme Court majority in Heller said that some (state) restrictions on the carriage of firearms were “presumptively legal.” And the 2, 3, 4, and 9th circuits have run with that, as did the 7th when it ruled that a town could ban AR 15s, all without supreme court interference.

          • int19h

            What he’s saying is that this law does not conflict with state laws banning suppressors, only with state laws taxing them, by design.

          • valorius

            I never said otherwise, i was merely commenting to another post that was asking something like ‘since when’.

          • Marcus D.

            True, but this merely begs the question,. Simply because something is legal under federal law does not preclude its regulation by the states absent, as I said, some clear indication that the federal law is intended to occupy the field. There is no such indication here except as to taxation. Thus, states are free to ban them. There is no conflict of laws.

  • Texas-Roll-Over

    Another one…….HPA is getting passed around like the village bicycle. Before long it will be all wore out, chainless, missing a peddle, bent handle bars, blown out brakes, one flat tire, and that crappy peeling paint.

    • Dave Shriva

      what does this even mean?

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        It means by the time it passes it will be meaningless.

  • Slim934

    Yes please.

  • Texas Irregular

    “second, by invalidating all state regulations regarding silencers”
    I think the New Jersey delegation and legislature is breaking out their pitchforks and torches as I read this.

    • Marcus D.

      They don’t have to worry. The bill does no such thing. It only eliminates state taxes. Bans remain.

  • USMC03Vet

    Benign metal cylinders not treated like firearms? Holy cow this must have been written by somebody that actually uses firearms. I’m impressed.

  • JRCrum

    So… us poor folks in California would be able to get a suppressor???

    • valorius

      Until california specifically bans them again, sure.

      • Wow!

        Hopefully Trump fixes the whole deal with states violating federal and Constitutional law whenever they feel like it. A lot of problems like gun control, illegal aliens, marijuana, and double jeopardy via civil lawsuits would go away.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          It’s adorable that you think Trump cares about individual rights. His support of asset forfeiture should be a clue on that.

          • Wow!

            Asset forfeiture is a fault of the government, not the business. A businessman takes all opportunities available to him as failing to do so means to give the advantage to the competition. You should be complaining to the state governors and judges who let eminent domain go through.

            You can say all you want about Trump, but the past few months has shown that he is keeping the promises he made during the campaign. Ironically the ones in DC who are blocking him are the same ones who claimed to doubt his resolve.

          • int19h

            Asset forfeiture is usually done via federal courts, and operates on the basis of federal laws – yes, even when actual forfeiture is carried out by state and local law enforcement. It’s a tactic that the feds use to try to co-opt the cops to do their bidding, over the head of their rightful government. Thus, this is something that is entirely to be blamed on the federal government, and in particular, on the current chief of the executive, who has the sole discretion to implement it or not.

          • Wow!

            The blame is not necessarily only federal government since any level of government can claim property, and most cases it is done by the state for the state. Eminent domain also is not inherently wrong, unless done without fair compensation or without the public interest in mind. It is clearly established in the fifth amendment. But you are right, it is the act of the government, not of the business.

        • valorius

          I hope so too, but i think it would take a miracle worker to fix everything the dems have broken in just 2 terms.

          • Wow!

            If anyone can do it, it is Trump. Heck the whole deportations the last few months was unthinkable just half a year ago with all the illegal aliens in the streets demanding what they said we owed them. Of course time will tell how far he can go.

          • valorius

            You’re definitely right about the deportations and the plummeting of illegal crossings.

        • int19h

          What federal law are states violating wrt illegal aliens and marijuana?

          • Wow!

            Sanctuary cities for one are direct violations by protecting illegal aliens. Legalization of recreational marijuana (and “self-medicating” uses of marijuana) is in direct violation of the CSA, which is why even if you have “legal” narcotics, at any time the DEA can pick you up and slap you with a charge if they feel the need.

            I can’t confirm this following part, but some guys in other states were telling me that the legalization was a tactical move in order to grab guys that were legally untouchable by other means. Once they sign up for their card, they have a full set of evidence to move in where they previously did not. Not sure if that is true or not but to me I think that was a bad strategy because the legalization of marijuana has caused huge spikes in periphery crimes related to its proliferation and use. Any reduction in crime by grabbing some guys was completely negated by other out of control individuals.

          • int19h

            Sanctuary cities do not “protect” illegal aliens, they merely refuse to use state resources to enforce federal laws. This is perfectly legal under the Constitution – nowhere it says that feds can compel states to enforce federal laws on their territory. If feds want to enforce them, they have to do so themselves.

            What would be illegal is a jurisdiction that e.g. banned ICE agents from operating on their territory, or specifically from arresting illegal aliens – that would be an example of a state law contradicting federal law. But that’s not what sanctuary cities does.

            With weed, it’s even simpler. The states that legalized weed, changed their state laws, that previously made it illegal, to make it legal – *under those laws*. Again, what this means is that state law enforcement agencies do not enforce federal laws. The feds still can, and do, arrest people for selling or consuming weed in states that have legalized it, and the states do not prevent the feds from doing so. Thus, again, there’s no contradiction between state law and federal law on this subject.

            An example of the actual contradiction between state and federal law is the bill that was attempted in VIrginia that would explicitly state that NFA is non-enforceable for any gun sales (including those that NFA would normally regulate) done within the state.

            As for the actual benefits of weed legalization, they’re obvious to anyone who 1) is aware of the actual effects of weed, and 2) is familiar with the history of the Prohibition. Of course, regardless of whether legalization is a good thing or a bad thing, it’s clearly not something that the federal government should be in the business of.

          • Wow!

            Lamo. That is violation of the law as it is the duty of states to abide by the higher laws (federal and Constitutional) Thinking that adherence is optional is how we have lawlessness. Complying with the law is not an option, it is a requirement. As an example, do you think a cop can just stop and say “eh, I’m not feeling like risking my life today and pursuing a suspect that crossed my jurisdiction, and I don’t feel like reporting it in or doing anything else”? With power comes responsibility and the power of the states only exist when they comply with higher laws. If they chose to disobey, they simultaneously destroy the source of their own authority. Chain of command and all that.

            As far as weed, state law cannot change or override federal law otherwise the governor would have the power of all three federal branches and be able to create his own mini dictatorship. States can legalize whatever the hell they want, but the 10th amendment and the Supremacy clause clearly says that they only have authority over that which is not already covered by the higher Federal and Constitutional laws. CSA already speaks for the Federal side which is above the State level.

          • int19h

            Yes, the cop actually can do exactly what you said. The only recourse is to fire them.

            The states are not obligated under the Constitution to enforce federal law. If you disagree, feel free to point the article of the Constitution that requires them to do so. And of course there’s no “chain of command” between the feds and the states – the country is not a military branch.

            (Also, I hope you’re aware that you’re not arguing with me – you’re arguing with the Supreme Court here, which has already decided on these matters: refer to New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.)

            Yes, states can legalize whatever the hell they want. Yes, federal laws can still make things that states legalize illegal. That’s exactly what I wrote earlier. It doesn’t make state laws legalizing weed unconstitutional, because they do not purport to reject CSA – legalization on state level simply removes state laws that make it illegal, nothing else. It would be a truly ridiculous notion if states couldn’t repeal state laws if a similar federal law is in effect.

          • Wow!

            I already pointed to where in the Constitution, 10th amendment and the “supremacy clause”. It sets the hierarchy of Constitution>Federal>State.

            The supreme court cannot make law, they can only rule in clarification of the law and that is not set in stone. They are the federal branch and cannot override a Constitutional level. The 2A is clear in what it says. The issue again is that we have people picking and choosing what they want to follow and playing dictators.

            It would be ridiculous if states could counter higher laws, that would make them the highest law and again, allow them to run their own dictatorship regardless of national politics. States have the duty to adhere to higher laws. It is not an option.

          • Marcus D.

            The supremacy clause only applies if there is a direct conflict between federal and state law. And it is only a conflict if the federal law is intended to “occupy the field.” Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, but it is not a violation for state law to legalize it, since the federal law is not intended to “occupy the entire field of regulation.” and no, state officers are not required to enforce federal law, although they often do in coordination with federal agencies. The State and the Fed are separate sovereigns.

          • Wow!

            You are adding conditions that are not written in the Constitution.

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            It doesn’t get plainer english than that.

          • Marcus D.

            I am sorry that you do not understand how this provision is applied. But let’s try this. Suppressors are not now and never have been illegal under federal law, as long as the possessor followed the process outlined by the NFA, passed the background check, and paid the fee. But at the same time, no federal law specifies that suppressors are legal; rather, everything that isn’t illegal is legal. Therefore, since the federal law has not “occupied the field” as to permissible regulation, there is no federal law that supersedes a state law ban.
            So let’s take that a steop further. Until McDonald a few years ago, the Second amendment did not apply to the states (and there is a lot of federal and state authority supporting that proposition prior to McDonald). Hence, until recently, a state could not violate the second amendment. And since McDonald, no one has filed a law suit challenging any sate law ban. So other than your fervent desire and literal interpretation of the second amendment, which is not followed by the Federal Circuits in the ban states, nor mandated by the slim Supreme court authority extant, there is nothing to support your position.

          • Wow!

            You are right, I don’t share your loose and selective definition of the law, I follow it to the letter literally, how laws are supposed to be enforced. I don’t make things up because the law doesn’t support my views. I guess that is the difference between those who are law abiding and violators of the law.

          • int19h

            Once again, neither of your examples is states countering higher (federal) laws. It’s states refusing to enforce higher laws with their own state resources, which is a completely different thing.

            What you’re saying here is equivalent to saying that state courts should try people who violate federal laws. Which is ridiculous on its face – we have state courts to deal with violation of state laws, and federal courts to deal with violation of federal laws. But the same exact thing applies to the executive branch: we have the federal executive to enforce the federal laws, and we have the state executive to enforce the state laws. State executive, and departments under its authority (such as state police forces etc) are not in any way, shape or form responsible for enforcing federal laws. They may cooperate with the federal enforcement agencies or not, but that is up to them, and their respective legislatures, to decide.

            If a state legislature passes a law that says that state executive shall not cooperate to enforce the federal immigration laws, that’s perfectly within the rights of the state executive, because it does not override any federal law – the federal law is still fully in effect, and is still enforced by the federal executive agencies as they see fit. The state just doesn’t assist them.

            Similarly, if a state legislature passes a law repealing their own older state law that made some drug illegal, they’re within their right to do so – just as they were within their right to pass the law making the drug illegal in the first place – and that is what we call “drug legalization” when it comes to the state. Again, it is not in any way, shape or form contradictory to the Constitution, because the federal law is not nullified by such an action, and remains in effect.

            The Supremacy Clause applies only when there’s a contradiction between state and federal law, or when the jurisdictions overlap, and one needs to be picked. This is not the case here. Again, the example where that is actually the case are a bunch of recent state laws that try to nullify NFA by saying that it does not apply to transfers within the state – that is unconstitutional, because it explicitly says that it replaces a federal law, when the states have no authority to do such a thing under the Supremacy Clause.

            SCOTUS decisions that I have cited are all about this stuff. One of them is about the feds trying to co-opt sheriffs to perform federal background checks – SCOTUS rightly told the feds that they cannot force state LEOs to enforce federal laws. The second was about the feds passing a law demanding that the states pass laws of a certain kind – again, SCOTUS said that this is a blatant violation of state sovereignty, and feds can only regulate activity themselves, not tell states how they do or do not regulate activity. Maybe try reading them before you keep arguing against strawmen?

    • ErSwnn

      Yeah,the same way you can get a tube fed .22 pump rifle that holds more than 10 rounds. Fear not, the government will continue to keep you safe.

      My brother is a competitive shooter in CA. Me, I have lived in 3 states that don’t restrict my right. He loves his wife and has a great job so he’s staying put…but absolutely hates how he….a veteran (8 years, Nam era), never even a traffic ticket, raised two fine kids…is barred from legitimate self-defense.

    • JOHNBOY11

      oh no…Jerry will find a way to stop this?? i live in Mass next to CT next to NY…we are doomed

    • Al Shartpants

      Keep dreaming. What are you going to do with them? Tie them to a stick gun or are those illegal now too?

    • Marcus D.

      California law specifically bans them, so no. This bill does not purport to override state law bans or any form of state regulation other than taxation. Sorry.

  • Samson Dane

    I have absolutely no faith in the limp wrist-ed Republicans in Congress to do anything productive. Especially any pro-second Amendment related legislation. They are too afraid to do their job that we elected to do. This is just more smoke & mirrors. It will be sent to subcommittees for study and never see the light of a floor vote.

    • Scott Goofus

      Exactly right. Today’s Congressional Republicans do a great job illustrating the differences between conservatives and Republicans. To wit – Republicans only TALK about conservative principles. When we give them both houses of Congress and the presidency (no fault of President Trump, BTW, who is trying mightily to enact conservative principles but is stymied by the rats in Congress), they abandon us in droves and pretty much give the Demoncrats what they want – why do the Demons even need to run candidates any more, right? We conservatives who care deeply about the 2nd Amendment – and the rest – need to primary the hell out of these bums. I will NEVER vote for a Demoncrat, but will merrily vote for whoever runs against most of the RINOs in Congress today. Electing Donald J. Trump did not complete our work, it was just the first step in a long, tough fight. Rise up and take our country back!

      • bbies1973

        The problem is that the parties rarely hold a primary for seats they currently hold.

  • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

    “This differs from the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), which would down-regulate silencers to the same level as a standard longarm.”

    Correction: HPA would re-classify Title 2 suppressors as Title 1 firearms.

    As standard Title 1 firearms you would still be required to be 21 in order to purchase, unlike “standard longarm” like a rifle or shotgun which allows you to be 18 for purchase.

  • A W P

    Are you all going to interview Mike Lee?

  • valorius

    Without 60 R votes in the senate i’m not sure how this happens.

    • ConradCA

      All the Republican Senators need to do is attach it to a budget only bill that and have the rules committee determine that it’s OK to pass it with reconciliation.

      • valorius

        Is that all? 😉 Let’s hope Trump can do the same with 50 state reciprocity.

      • ConradCA

        If the Progressive Fascists can use reconciliation to pass ObamaCare then the Republicans can use it to pass critical bills designed to drive a stake thru the heart of Progressive Fascism.

        Make it a felony to provide government benefits to illegals.

        Make it a felony to be an illegal alien or to help them escape deportation.

        Reestablish the Militia where every citizen in good standing carries concealed weapons and avoids the restrictions imposed by the states.

        Make it a federal felony for people to use a firearm in the commission of a serious felony with a penalty of 20 years in a federal prison.

      • frankspeak

        might be useful as a trade-off for universal reciprocity…which has more popular support….

        • ConradCA

          People in blue states can’t get CCW permits. In the Militia they would be authorized by the Federal government.

  • Mike Price

    The republicans can get anything through if they want too. They have the power and control now. The left doesn’t. Some on the right don’t seem to understand that. I now have ringing in my ears and 20% hearing loss. It costs the government more money in hearing aids then what they get in a hand full suppressor sales.

  • BDCooper

    Or a more likely scenario…our Republican house and Senate will continue to pretend to be pro-2A and keep sitting on their hands talking about what they could do if they actually cared. That seems to be the trend so far.

  • uisconfruzed

    I think S&W saw this coming. I took their decision to purchase Gemtech a good sign.

  • Stephen Summer

    Took nearly 3 decades for US government to approve Halogen bulbs in cars.
    This Bill takes money away from them. As you notice, first place bill went after being read, to FINANCE.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      But I expect we’re already past the point where ATF spends more than $200 in bureaucratic salaries and time to paper a suppressor. So either they ask for a higher stamp amount, or they give in. Their internal memo said they wanted to give in.

      • frankspeak

        do seem to be scaling back somewhat…..

  • DNielsen

    Pending legislation is more helpful to polyticks than passed legislation. You can rest assured they will showboat it as long as they can.


    i’ll be contacting Lizzy Warren ..anyone want to bet which way she’ll vote??? no taxation without reasonable representation ??

    • i1776

      Reasonable? That’s laughable. There is nothing reasonable or rational in today’s Congress.

  • Marko

    What in the Hell were legislators thinking when way back in the late 1920’s they passed a law banning suppressors and at the same time machine guns. I know that it was an era of Gangsters and Gang wars but what rationale had it that making firearms quiet is bad? The ROARING ’20’s would not have roared? So The Police can “Run to sound of the guns”? Uh, I think not. Over three quarters of a century for this nonsense? This phobia runs right along with the 1840’s phobia of Bowie knives. Both laws are still on the books. More likely anti-gunners were around way longer than we realize.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Poaching during the Depression. Not that the lack of suppressors stopped anyone, but that was the argument.

      • frankspeak

        a lot of wild game disappeared back then…for obvious reasons!…

    • frankspeak

      blame hollywood..they’re the chief culprits in the creation of this distorted view of what is, in essence…a benign object…

    • frankspeak

      find myself wondering why switchblades are still pretty much illegal…seems silly in the present context…guess those “blackboard jungle” memories still linger….

  • supergun

    The democrats will stand in the way of this progress like all the other progress that they have obstructed.

    • iksnilol

      Oh yes, they will somehow obstruct a republican senate and house and presidency.

      Get real, republicans don’t care about 2A.

      • supergun

        Some republicans are worse than the liberal communists democrats. And that is pretty dam bad. But you almost have 100% of the democrats acting like @ssholes on any progress being made in America today. And I am about as real as the Sig Sauer P-226 9mm sitting in my night stand along with the other brother and sister weapons. In fact, I got to many dam pistols, but that is my problem,,,,,not yours. Nice chatting again with you.

  • Hokanut

    I know many people in our ranges neighboring neighborhoods who would love it. But it makes sense so…I’m not holding my breath.

  • Richard

    I live in Texas where if you qualify to buy a firearm you can carry a handgun in your vehicle with out having a license. The state has no regulations on suppressors, they can be used in hunting.

    • Dan

      Well, not exactly. Texas mandates compliance with Federal requirements. See Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.05 entitled “Prohibited Weapons.” Possessing a suppressor (or a firearm silencer as it is called in the Penal Code) is a 3rd degree felony unless possession is pursuant to the NFA. Just a friendly heads up.

      • Richard

        I think the legislative session may have changed that part of the penal code which will take effect on one September, if not since the NFA will no longer apply to suppressors and they are sold across the counter with no more than an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS check owning one will be in compliance with federal law.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          Not necessarily. Without a rewrite, your possession would not be “in compliance with NFA.” Because the suppressor would not be an NFA weapon. I guarantee certain prosecutors would love to punish people over an irrelevant technicality.

  • Anthony “stalker6recon”

    I havd lived in the Philippines for the better part of a decade now, mainly because I smelled the changing winds and didn’t enjoy the scent. I was right, the country has gone to hell in a handbag. Mainly due to the loss of societal norms because of bad schools and worse parenting. The world of “sacrifice for our kids”, so the parents actually raise them. Instead, many homes are single parent, or worse, two parent homes where the schools and nannies do all the leg work. Instead of having one parent stay home and raise the children, both parents work. It is far more important to upsize the home, get matching beamers and allow the nanny raise the kids. Or worse, the TV and internet. I said a long long time ago, that the internet will be the downfall of basic values that must be taught, at home. With an ever expanding web of garbage, pornography. Things that were taboo when I was a young man, are normal now, even boring. They seek out videos of death, pain, even disgusting sex acts. Now everyone with my “old fashioned” view, is a bigot.

    The only area of our nation that seems to be heading in the right direction, is firearms. I live in one of the most restrictive nations on the planet. Law makers here refuse to see the truth. Criminals here have military grade weapons, private armies have M2’s, Mk19’s, the works. A law abiding citizen is restricted by archaic laws that leave the bulk of the population defenseless, especially when they leave the house. You need a special permit just to move your fiream to the gun range. Ammo is ridiculously priced, as are the firearms.

    I am considering returning to the US in the next few years. Two reasons, the possibility of civil unrest, and the ability to ride my motorcycle on roads that are safe. This is a great move, as my ears are permanently damaged from all the time spent in the military, I would have loved a suppressor on my issue M4. When you have a line of soldiers throwing copper downrange within inches of you, it feels like your ears are going to bleed. Throw in some 50cals or a Bradley Scout Vehicle, your entire head might explode. Getting suppressors for my handguns and rifles would be a wonderful way to save what is left of my hearing.

    For the feds, I have absolutely zero criminal history or intent, I just want to be able to protect my family from the mob of super tolerant people that strangely don’t tolerate me.

    Libs seems to love everybody, except patriotic Americans, those are the worst, right?

    • iksnilol

      I find it funny how disgusting sex acts are worse than death and pain. Find it kinda sat that the biggest repository of knowledge is seen as a downfall by individuals like you.

      Also, how patriotic are you that you abandoned your country?

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      So, how are those roadside executions and gang wars going? And tell us about the great firearm laws in the PI while you’re at it.

      • Anthony “stalker6recon”

        What the hell are you talking about? I already said that the gun laws are stupid here. Second, while I have seen stories in the news of murders happening here in the Philippines, I have personally seen zero. Not sure what your smug/agitated point is, but it’s stupid.

    • frankspeak

      laws are similar in mexico…and we all know how effective they’ve been in disarming the cartels…

      • Anthony “stalker6recon”

        Yep, the cartels have military grade weapons as well. I don’t know what people don’t understand about criminals/terrorists, they will ALWAYS break the law and use what ever weapon they can find, and guns are the preferred weapon for criminals. The Philippines leaves everyone defenseless, while gangs and corrupt police carry fireams. There are also many private security guards with weapons made mostly of rust and have fired one round to qualify, scary.

        What I explain to those opposed to civilians carrying fireams, is this. When I carry, I create a circle of security for everyone within my area, the bad guys won’t expect it, and those who do, fear it. Then I ask them to ask themselves a few simple questions. Do they trust themselves with a firearm? Do they trust their family members with a firearm? Do they trust their close friends with a firearm? If at any point, they answer “no”, then they need to look at their relationships and adjust where possible. This same question can be answered with “yes”, by the majority of the population. If they still don’t get it, then I agree to disagree and move on.

        Anyway, good conversation, take care and stay safe.

  • Ced Truz

    I’m confused as to why an act of congress is required to get an unconstitutional government agency to change its policy? The BATF had no constitutional authority to create laws.

    • Norm Glitz

      Because it was an act of Congress that created the NFA and the BATF. BATF didn’t exist before the NFA.

      • frankspeak

        actually, their present form…they’re a fairly recent configuration..remember when they used to be called Tmen?

  • Ben Pottinger

    This is better then the HPA for one simple reason: it doesn’t risk running afoul of the undetectable firearms act.

    Think about it for a second, silencers become firearms, firearms that don’t contain x-amount of metal are banned by the act, thus the HPA would inadvertently make 3d printed 22lr cans and similar devices illegal.

    Now technically this is already true (nfa cans are “firearms” already) but HPA wouldn’t fix that and would make cheap disposable cans a reality by eliminating the tax. This new act would totally deregulate them to nothing more then a flash hider, so they wouldn’t be effected by silly things like that act.

    And yes, it doesnt help those of you who choose to live outside the 47 states (NY, NJ, and CA, don’t really count as part of the USA anymore do they?).

    • Norm Glitz

      I always love being told to “think about it’ when I’m in the midst of reading something. What did you think we were doing?.

      • Ben Pottinger

        I don’t know. Based on your response probably bashing your head on the wall and foaming at the mouth while waiting for the orderly to bring you your medication?

  • Liberal Juggalo supremacist

    Anyone know where the HPA is in the process??


    What a great varmint hunting tool……..I can see where your number of opportunity shots would increase many fold…….For ground squirrels the .17 is just great but I would like a silencer for the .56 – .223 and the 22-250…….just better reach for bigger game….

  • Juanito Ibañez

    The anti-gun crowd who are against the deregulation of
    suppressors/silencers do not know — or even care — that the inclusions
    of these devices in the original National Firearms Act of 1934 wasn’t
    about any usage in murders or assassinations, but because of their use
    in poaching during the Depression era.

    All-in-all, their “necessity” for regulation is long ago past justification.

  • LilWolfy

    Do-it. DO IT.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    Punchline: The Dems will attach a complete ban on semiautos to the Act, and the GOP will go along with it for the “Good parts of the legislation.”

  • Old Vet

    NFA items are all total BS. When was the last time you heard of a legal silencer, machine gun, or real “assault rifle” used in a crime????? This is a product of our having sat by and let globalists ruin our freedoms.

    • frankspeak

      at the time it was passed [1934]..the cops were seriously outgunned…earning it the moniker “the gangster gun act”….

      • frankspeak

        prior to that,..most of them [thompsons..mostly]…were to be found in the hands of private companys and corporations to bolster their “goon squads” in the labor wars of the time..once the bill was passed…and the influence of the unions grew..most of them were donated to local police departments..sans paperwork…where many still remain.. stashed away somewhere…

    • frankspeak

      the key word is “legal”…back in the 80’s…converting semis to full autos….legally or illegally…was easy..and pretty common…they’ve tightened up considerably on that of late…….

  • Arr Evans

    Expecting Congress to give up a tax stream that it’s had for years, as doing the “right thing” or for any other reason, is at best unrealistic.
    They just don’t give up money.

    • gabriel brack

      IIRC, the “tax” from nfa items only goes to funding the office handling applications. Congress doesn’t really get any of it. But I may be wrong.

      • Arr Evans

        Regardless of where it ends up when have you ever heard of Congress giving up a source of income.

        • gabriel brack

          You’ll get no argument from me about that.

  • bbies1973

    Don’t get too excited. Most of these elements are bargaining chips. Once they have made concession amendments to appease opposition and gain votes, there will be no tax refund. In fact it will probably go back to just being a non-NFA item, but still have to go through a standard transfer process.

    Of course, all of that is still hoping for the rare case that they don’t table it in favor of “more important” discussions, just like the HPA. Might as well buy a lottery ticket.

  • Anton_Zilwicki

    Why do they insist on using the word “Silencer”? The don’t “Silence” anything. Suppress yes, “Silence”? Nope.

    • Juanito Ibañez

      “Silencer” comes from the federal law — following in the footsteps of the originator of the device, Hiram Percy Maxim, who named his device “Maxim Silencer™”.

    • Joshua

      when you invent something, you can name it whatever you want, Hiram Percy Maxim invented something, and he called them silencers.

    • frankspeak

      some come pretty damn close…. a “suppressed” mac 11 sounds like a sewing machine!…..

  • Dietrich

    That horrible stench drifting from the northeast is Chuckie Schumer soiling himself over the very thought of S.B 1505 becoming law.

  • frankspeak

    it’s the world of their fathers and grandfathers…and they’ve chosen to reject it..mores the pity…

  • dagoof

    I would love to see mufflers come off of the unconstitutional NFA regulation, but . . .

    It’s not the business of the federal government to “invalidate” state laws.

    The creation is not greater than it’s makers.