Potential Deregulation of Firearm Silencers on the Horizon

A significant bill that passed in the House of Representatives may soon lead to the deregulation of firearms silencers if it gains approval in the Senate.

Hidden within the extensive legislation are clauses that aim to eliminate the $200 federal excise tax on silencers and remove them from the registration requirements outlined in the National Firearms Act. This change is seen as a major win for both gun rights advocates and those concerned about hearing protection.

“This is a huge victory for the Second Amendment. We’re taking meaningful steps to restore constitutional freedoms,” remarked Rep. Andrew Clyde, a gun store owner and strong supporter of the proposal.

Supporters clarify that, contrary to popular media portrayals, silencers do not completely mute gunfire. Instead, they redirect gas from the gun’s barrel through multiple chambers, effectively lessening the sound. On average, they can decrease gunshot noise by 20 to 35 decibels, while typical gunshots can range from 150 to 170 decibels. To put that in perspective, lawn mowers usually clock in between 85 and 96 decibels.

Most experts strongly recommend using hearing protection when firing guns.

Knox Williams, president of the American Suppression Association (ASA), pointed out a common misunderstanding: “Suppressors don’t eliminate sound; they just lower it to a safer level, which is still quite loud.” He emphasized that without appropriate hearing protection, shooters risk permanent hearing damage.

Gun rights supporters often prefer the term “suppressor,” aiming to correct misconceptions around silencers.

In a recent incident, accused killer Luigi Mangione allegedly used a 3D-printed “ghost gun” equipped with a silencer in the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Currently, firearm attachments like silencers are prohibited in eight states, including the District of Columbia.

The proposed changes faced opposition from Democrats, who attempted to amend the bill to remove the provisions concerning silencers.

Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI) expressed concern, stating, “Silencers make mass shootings more lethal. They obstruct victims and law enforcement from identifying the location of the shooting. What’s beneficial about that?”

Initially, the legislation only aimed to eliminate the excise tax on silencers, but representatives such as Clyde managed to secure amendments that removed the registration obligations at the last moment. Clyde also sought to relax registration for certain types of firearms, though these efforts did not succeed.

Gun rights organizations like the ASA and the National Rifle Association have long advocated for easing the restrictions on silencer sales, and they were encouraged by some lawmakers’ focus on hearing protection.

Williams highlighted that removing silencers from the National Firearms Act is vital for encouraging responsible gun owners to consider purchasing them.

“Gun owners often lack trust in registration requirements. History shows us that gun registries can eventually lead to government attempts to confiscate those firearms,” he added.

Research referenced by the ASA indicates that 70% to 80% of hunters do not utilize adequate ear protection. The ASA believes that making silencers more accessible could help prevent hearing loss.

A majority of Senate Republicans backed the Hearing Protection Act earlier this year, which seeks to exempt silencers from the National Firearms Act’s registration requirements.

“Firearm silencers shouldn’t be subjected to excessive regulation or unconstitutional taxes that impede the rights of law-abiding citizens,” remarked Sen. John Cornyn, a co-sponsor of the Hearing Protection Act, after the House’s passage of the significant bill.

This bill represents a collection of laws designed to navigate around the 60-vote requirement necessary to bypass a Senate filibuster.

The complex procedures involved follow specific “Bird Rules,” which usually pertain to government spending or taxation, otherwise risking rejection in Congress.

Proponents of the proposed silencer changes argue that they adhere to the Bird Rule since the National Firearms Act regulates gun registration through tax laws.