GOP Senators Work to End Federal Regulation of Firearm Sound Suppressors

Last week, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), along with Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY), James Risch (R-ID), and Mike Crapo (R-ID) introduced a bill that would eliminate the federal regulation of firearm sound suppressors.

“Suppressors can make shooting safer for the millions of hunters and sportsmen that exercise their constitutional right to use firearms every year,” Sen. Lee said in a press release.  “The current process for obtaining a suppressor is far too expensive and burdensome.  Our bill would remove these unnecessary federal regulations and make it easier for firearms users to protect themselves.”

In introducing the bill, called the Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act or SHUSH Act (S. 202), Sen. Lee explained that it would eliminate the “onerous and unconstitutional process” that must currently be followed when purchasing a suppressor.

The current process requires filing a petition with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).  To file the petition, a purchaser must fill out two copies of ATF Form 4 (which requires that a passport photo be attached to each copy), obtain two copies of his/her fingerprints on FBI Form FD-258, and pay a $200 processing fee.  It takes nine to 12 months for the petition to be processed.

Suppressors would be considered firearm accessories and the current petitioning requirements would be eliminated if the bill becomes law.

The bill already has its critics.  David Chipman, a senior policy advisor for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and a retired ATF special agent called the bill “reckless” and said it would make the job of a police officer more dangerous.

“The only people that benefit from this bill are gun lobbyists and criminals who want easier access to deadly weapons,” Chipman said.  “That’s why this irresponsible legislation couldn’t get passed when Republicans had complete control of Congress.  Instead of making it easier for firearms that could be used in ambushes and other attacks to enter our streets, Congress should focus on making the job of police officers who are trained to serve and protect our communities and families safer.”

Kris Brown, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, also criticized the bill.

“With public opinion and the majority of new members of Congress clearly on the side of gun safety, it’s a shame that Senator Lee is continuing to push his silencer bill on behalf of the gun industry,” Brown said.

The bill was formally introduced on January 24, 2019.  It was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance for further action.  The text of the bill had not been received from the Government Publishing Office at the time this article was published.

This marks the second time that the SHUSH Act has been introduced by Sen. Lee.  It was previously introduced in 2017 but never made it out of committee.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: John Thomas is a U.S. Navy veteran, and a former prosecutor and defense attorney with over 20 years of experience in state and federal courts. He has handled everything from traffic tickets to first-degree murder cases and is a long-time supporter of Second Amendment rights and the rights of individuals to defend themselves, their families and their property.

{ 122 comments… add one }
  • B. Kevin McCarthy May 28, 2021, 2:46 pm

    Criminals do not use real suppressors. Criminals do not use improvised suppressors because it makes the firearm to long. Next time you see a photo of police confiscated guns – look for ones that have a lawnmower or chain saw muffler attached with a hose clamp. They are quite uncommon. If a criminal isn’t going to bother buying and attaching a $9 small engine muffler – what makes you think they will be buying $400 to $1800 high tech suppressors for their next crime?

    Oh, and thank Paul Ryan for not brining the suppressor bill to the floor for a vote years back when conservatives had the house, senate and white house. There had been a shooting 3 months previous and he felt it would be ‘insensitive’ to bring the bill up. It’s a big freaking country with 300 million people, not a small town of 1800….duh… there is bound to be a shooting, of some sort, somewhere no matter what you do. And said shooting will be a crime, not something condoned by law abiding gun owners – yet we have allowed ourselves to be ruled by popularity.

  • Ejharb February 4, 2019, 8:25 pm

    NEVER get past pillosi!
    Waste of time stunt b.s.

  • Edward Pearman February 4, 2019, 2:44 pm

    Feel good legislation that will go no where. Ask the “Republican” sponsor of this bill why they did’nt push this bill when control of the house and Senate was firmly in Republican hands? Simple because they never wanted it to pass in the first place, now they have a good excuse for why it won’t pass (dem controlled house). You may not like it but this is the same fake they pull on you drones every time.

  • Ricky Price February 4, 2019, 11:42 am

    I hope it pass. It would help me a lot coyote hunting,plus save what hearing I have now left.

    • Ejharb February 9, 2019, 7:17 pm

      Hope in one hand crap in other.
      Whatcha got?
      Some of the people who regularly comment here would oppose suppressor deregulation.
      As for me I’d crap can as much of nfa34 and gca68 as I could which is to say none. Sadly

  • e February 3, 2019, 11:34 am

    I’d like to see it pass so that I don’t have to get permission to leave the state with it from the ATF every time I take it hunting.
    They are more quiet not silent. The police will not know they are being shot at? That statement is fear-mongering and ridiculous.
    Of course someone from the ATF isn’t going to want it removed. It could put people out of work and large loss of budgets.

  • Varmint February 2, 2019, 10:25 pm

    I lost a good portion of my hearing due to early days of limited hearing protection and this bill should have been brought up and passed years ago! This bill still requires a NICS check the same as if buying a firearm but eliminates the draconian BATF bullsh!t that was passed in 1934!

    • MadEmbalmer February 3, 2019, 3:26 am

      Democrats legislate based on what they see in movies, or their unhinged feelings, whichever comes first.

      Republicans simply want to protect their hearing and eliminate the BS involved with doing so.

      There, I made my point. Ladies you may now curtsy in my presence, and gentlemen may now applaud.

      • Hondo February 5, 2019, 3:49 pm

        ^ It really can’t be said better than this, ME actually get’s it.

        Kudo’s to you sir.

  • Scotty Gunn February 2, 2019, 8:33 pm

    It is not a $200 processing fee. It is an Excise Tax that you are paying.

    • Matthew Wurzel February 22, 2019, 12:37 pm

      amen to that just another way of stealing our money

  • jeffery Struyf February 2, 2019, 4:51 pm

    For a system that has worked since 1934.. Now want to change? NOPE.
    The fee is for an investigation of every purchaser and have the purchaser pay. The government then knows if the purchase is warranted. No criminal is going to subject him/her self to that scrutiny. Nor is any criminal going to risk having or using one in a crime because it will be FEDERAL and not local. The feds never forgive and never forget.

    • Jesse February 3, 2019, 2:07 am

      Criminals dont buy legal guns or suppressors! Been a police officer 19 years! The only people that BS hurts is law abiding citizens. The wait and money is ridiculous

    • Nick Hough February 3, 2019, 8:17 am

      May I buy on free speech, please?

    • Ejharb February 4, 2019, 8:26 pm

      That’s right,we must preserve this common sense gun safety law. FUDD MUCH?

    • JonAr neRanta February 6, 2019, 5:28 am

      This is sounding like primal logic?
      This is not a game. Maybe your supposed argument could be a bit more believable when your sources can be proven?

    • Ejharb February 9, 2019, 7:20 pm

      As I said above! Some of our worst enemies walk beside us.
      Some call them fudds. I call them enemies of constitutional liberty

  • Mark B February 2, 2019, 1:39 pm

    “The bill already has its critics. David Chipman, a senior policy advisor for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and a retired ATF special agent called the bill “reckless” and said it would make the job of a police officer more dangerous.”

    Gee. Think this guy has an agenda?

  • Beachhawk February 2, 2019, 4:57 am

    Dead on arrival! This is a good bill, but it will never get by the Democrat controlled House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi will never let it come up for a vote.

  • Charles Reed February 2, 2019, 3:22 am

    I cannot for the life of me figure out what the hell the left wingnuts are thinking. In Merry Ol’ England, suppressors is considered a part of a firearm much like a muffler is to a vehicle. They disdained by the noise that a firearm makes and in many cases demands them to be in place. In other countries with very strict firearm control that makes California look like NRA Heaven also demands suppressors to be in place. So why do they want to keep the unfair tax? Simple, to be jerks, to make it difficult for law abiding citizens afford the cost of suppressors and the paperwork that must accompany each and everyone wherever it goes no exception…Then of course there is the tax… their precious, precious tax….

    • Gary MacNeill February 4, 2019, 1:58 pm

      They keep for 2 reasons. 1. the money and 2. One more piece of paper you have to put your name on to let them know what you own.

  • Gary February 2, 2019, 12:26 am

    Why would ANYONE even remotely believe this bill stands a chance of passing??
    As stated in the article, at the end..”It was previously introduced in 2017 but never made it out of committee.”
    In 2017 WE had control of BOTH the Congress and the Senate! And we STILL could NOT get it passed!! So, just HOW do you propose we get it approved by the turn coat Congress we have now??

  • Brian February 1, 2019, 11:44 pm

    “This marks the second time that the SHUSH Act has been introduced by Sen. Lee. It was previously introduced in 2017 but never made it out of committee.”

    That’s because the NRA was too busy pushing the HPA that would still treat suppressors as firearms. The Representatives that are influenced by the NRA backed that and left the SHUSH act to wither on the vine.

  • Ben Shank February 1, 2019, 9:47 pm

    I sell firearm sound suppressors (aka silencers), SBR’s and other class 3 items and I truly believe that suppressor should be able to be purchased on a 4473 just like any other firearm, Which are far less dangerous than a firearm that can fire a projectile. They have not been used in the commission of a felony or a mass shooting. Most people are ignorant when it comes to this area of firearm accessories and what I mean by that comment is, that people do not realize that suppressor have specific thread size or Quick Mount system and the odds on someone stealing a suppressor and using it on a generic firearm is almost next to impossible. Suppressors are already legal to own and use in 42 states, I think they should be easier to own.

  • Anvil6 February 1, 2019, 7:18 pm

    Actually, the extra bulk of the suppressor (at 6 – 8″ long, 1.5″ diameter, about 1.5 lbs weight) makes it more inconvenient to conceal or transport covertly.

  • Clint W. February 1, 2019, 6:41 pm

    Ice cube chance in hell now. When the GOP had both chambers for 2 years, it should have passed then, just like the wall should have been funded. But they are too darn wimpy to stand up and do what is right, all they do is play politics, and worry what the media will think about them. Democrats are worthless because they are all commies, and Republicans are worthless because the Dems cut their Johnsons off.

  • pete February 1, 2019, 5:09 pm

    These things should be legal but rare, and registered / serialized! The sound of gunfire is oftentimes the only clue a crime is being committed! Dumb asses.

    • AJ February 2, 2019, 10:01 am

      You’ve obviously never used one. This isn’t the movies where silencers make guns “silent”.

      You still have to wear hearing protection in most cases. It slightly lowers the decibel level.

    • Jonathan Singleton February 5, 2019, 12:14 pm

      Hey genius the only quiet suppressor is on a 22 any rifle it’s still very loud just lowered the main reason on a rifle is being able too shoot subsonic and not loose bullet velocity . The sound suppression is minimal. Also any asshole can make a suppressor at home with a few parts on Amazon and that’s what criminals do I could make one for less than 50 bucks but it is illegal as fuck and the only people benefiting from this are law abiding citizens who want a suppressor but they don’t want too break the law. The criminals will just make one.

  • Jaque February 1, 2019, 4:35 pm

    If Cops and Communists got their way water pistols would even be banned. Congress is already half communist.

    This is great news. Now reciprocity. But the Bump Stock regulation has to be reworded or deleted.

    That should come first as it threatens all semiautomatic arms ownership as currently written-which I feel was deliberately written that way so the communists in congress can quickly grab what they want ban. Its a gift to Feinstein

    • Ron S February 7, 2019, 8:42 am

      I’m a retired Leo and I believe that our 2nd amendment is being infringed on with the federal fire arms act. It needs to be repealed. Period.

  • David February 1, 2019, 4:09 pm

    Its about time but I do not see it getting past Nanny Nancy. It Europe it is considered impolite not to use one!

  • Richard Escareno February 1, 2019, 3:10 pm

    It’s about time suppressors we’re off the NFA list. It’s illegal to run a vehicle without a muffler to reduce it noise signature, but God forbid we put on a “muffler” on a firearm to reduce its noise signature. I support getting rid of the NFA rules all together so that we can have a SBR, SBS, & select fire firearms of our choice just like law enforcement and the military to protect our liberty against a Tyranny of the state our fore father’s warned us about. Little steps @ time to this agregious unconstitutional agenda to control the American people.

  • Lenny F February 1, 2019, 2:46 pm

    One thing we know is that the gun industry is always going to be under fire from the Left. We must face the idea that they won’t relent, and this means we can only hope that the processing time is made more reasonable.
    I have only heard of one killing done with a silencer, and it was a mob hit on an ex-cop. The silencer used was a plastic bottle and immediately discarded. The guy just slid the bottle over his handgun barrel and fired. It can be that simple.
    So, just when you think you have thought out the pros and cons, somebody else figures out how to by-pass the system.
    If silencers are evil, why can I pay a tax and get one? If they are that bad, nobody could own them regardless of paying a fee.

  • Ed February 1, 2019, 2:39 pm

    My neighbors would love it if I used a suppressor.

  • Ulster Scot February 1, 2019, 2:08 pm

    And yet they were legal (and a mandatory addition at my father’s old rifle club) in the UK when I was a child.

  • jim February 1, 2019, 1:14 pm

    I think it should pass, it is for hearing protection for not only the user but everyone in hearing range. “bad guys” can do the same with sound suppressors as they do with guns, steal them or in the case of the suppressors, make them. there are already too many foolish gun laws in some states. when was the last time someone did a mass shooting with a gun with a suppressor attached? I don’t see the need for bump stocks.

    • deanbob February 1, 2019, 3:04 pm

      Contrary to what they may believe and say, the gun laws effect lawful gunowners almost exclusively.

      “The only people that benefit from this bill are gun lobbyists and criminals who want easier access to deadly weapons,” Chipman said.

      Obviously, this person has never fired a gun or is already a mute.

  • Area 52 February 1, 2019, 1:11 pm

    I heard a rumor that Rep Alexandria Ocasio Cortez will co sponsor this bill once it gets introduced into the house of rep.

    • Bil February 2, 2019, 12:25 pm

      HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Kevin McCarhty February 1, 2019, 1:06 pm

    Thugs and criminals can make a suppressor from a $.79 hose clamp and $3.99 lawnmower muffler. Ever heard of them doing this? Nope. Me either. The notion that deregulating suppressors will make criminals bolder is ludicrous. If they wont pay the $4.98 to make one – what makes anyone think they will pay $500 to $1800 for one to use in a crime?

  • Tommy Barrios February 1, 2019, 1:01 pm

    As several others have noticed this is only another political foosball to be kicked around for political points whether it gets anywhere not is irrelevant to them!
    Already paid for mine and waiting on the ridiculous paperwork for something that shouldbn’t be illegal in the first place as that law has done NOT one thing to decrease crime or change criminal behavior and NEVER will, just make the hearing aid and hearing protection folks richer!

  • UncleNat February 1, 2019, 12:37 pm

    I would be satisfied if Trump would just unfreeze federal hiring and the FBI/ATF push resources towards making Form 4 suppressor stamp a less time consuming process. I mean for all of the $200 checks they receive it seems they could hire a few more folks to process background checks and stamps. I’ve been waiting 9 months and counting since the rascals cashed my check. I only waited a month or so for my CCW permit. Either there’s an absolutely horrible inefficiency at the Dept. of Justice or there’s an intentional dragging of feet to issue the permits in a timely manner. I went to visit MY bought and paid for suppressor the other day. It looked so lonely…:(

  • Former Action Guy February 1, 2019, 12:22 pm

    I just retired from a 39 yr career in law enforcement. I have a 40% hearing loss in one ear and 25% in the other.

    I spent 15 yrs on SWAT and 35 years as a firearms instructor and rangemaster.

    Ten years before I retired we bought suppressors for our Colt Commandos, and not because we all wanted to be silent ninja assassins. Yes, there is a tactical advantage to suppressors, at ranges out beyond 100m, but not in CQB which is the bulk of the most SWAT operations.

    CQB is very loud, flashbangs, closed rooms and being in close proximity to short barreled rifles going off means lots of concussion. Even the best noise canceling headsets don’t mitigate it very well. Suppressors made a huge difference in reducing hearing loss.

    As for the former ATF agents opinion, he can go **** himself. REAL cops don’t fear armed law abiding citizens, with or without semi-auto rifles, suppressors, belt fed machine-guns or whatever.

    Sure bad guys with any of the above are a problem, but we have our own tools to deal with them, and if you pay attention, we have a pretty good track record of taking care of those a**holes. As long as the feds stay out of it.

    • Ron S February 7, 2019, 8:46 am

      Amen brother, I agree 100%
      I wish people would stop lumping all cops together, most of us respect the constitution and bill of rights with all our being. Especially the 2nd amendment.

  • Penrod February 1, 2019, 12:21 pm

    OK, since silencers/sound suppressors are solely the province of the criminally depraved, lets regulate vehicle silencers exactly the same way. Photographs, fingerprints, background checks, registration, serial numbers, multi month processing periods, $200 fee, lengthy prison terms for failure to comply. Because drive-by speeding is a serious problem, and mufflers just make it a lot easier to speed unnoticed.

    • Shane February 1, 2019, 10:40 pm

      I agree with you, but the thought of drive-by shootings with a silencer scares the sh*t out of me. I own a couple silencers. I know the sound signature. I would be content with current regulation but eliminate the tax stamp and wait times.

    • Ejharb February 10, 2019, 2:35 am

      Loud pipes save lives.
      I had to throw that bomb

  • john galt February 1, 2019, 12:05 pm

    won’t make it through house. why in hell didn’t it go anywhere the last cpl of years and get out of committee. we’re being played here it will prob pass on senate floor then go to house where it won’t go any where but be used to try and get votes in 2020 but then languish even if rep. get the house back. these a##holes piddled around for 2 years because of nevertrumper and TDS

    • db February 1, 2019, 2:39 pm

      Exactly what I thought when I saw this! Why didn’t this happen in the last two years when we had Senate and the House? The Senate might pass it now only because those Democrat Socialist senators in the Senate know it won’t pass the House. This way they will be able to tell their 2A constituents that they are pro-gun. This ticks me off royally.

  • James February 1, 2019, 11:43 am

    What Liberals and anti-gun proponents fail to understand is that criminals don’t obey the laws in the first place…Therefore making suppressors legal will save hunters hearing but crime will not increase significantly . Keeping them illegal does not stop criminals from getting them.

  • Cyrus February 1, 2019, 10:34 am

    Any chance we the educated here, can stop calling these Silencers and refer to them as Suppressors? We are all aware how they do not silence like in the movies so lets correctly name these like Magazines Not Clips!

    • John L February 1, 2019, 10:36 pm

      Since the original patent called it a silencer, we, the educated are just bantering semantics. Don’t you have anything better to argue about?

  • So solly February 1, 2019, 10:22 am

    Sorry – ! hope it never passes.1. You broke dicks need to get in line and buy your tax stamps….or figure out how to get my money back (which won\’t ever happen).2. Some idiot will snipe a rival with a suppressor and they will all end up in the trash….just like the Bump Stocks.Things are fine like they are.

    • kane February 1, 2019, 11:24 am

      If I could figure away to get your “money back” then that would make you just another “broke dick.”

      I think I will do you a favor and let you eat the cost.

    • Kane February 1, 2019, 11:58 am

      If I was able to figure out how to get your money back then that would make you just one of many other “broke dicks.”

      Instead, you can be above the common heard and eat the cost and feel so much superior to everyone else.

    • Glenn February 1, 2019, 12:06 pm

      You’re the dick.
      The money you’ve paid out for tax stamps is called a “sunk cost”. Remove silencers from the purview of the NFA, sell your can….nothing will get you that $200 back.
      So out of spite you’d rather see a burdensome and unconstitutional regulation stay on the books. What are you, a five year old? Eliminating regulation of silencers under the NFA won’t cost you a dime and you wouldn’t loose a penny. Stop being a blue falcon.

      • So Solly February 1, 2019, 3:01 pm

        The words “sunk cost” do not appear in the NFA paperwork. It’s my investment that you are attempting to devalue. MINE, not yours. You don’t have any skin the game, none. What right do you have to just get what you want without doing any of the work? I bet you have a crush on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Take a moment and consider how you might be screwing your fellow comrades, Mr. Falcon.

        • Travis February 1, 2019, 8:36 pm

          Wow. The “I had to pay and wait when I got mine so everyone should have to pay and wait” attitude is pretty sad. No one forced you to pay an unconstitutional tax. You made the choice to do so.

          Like most government required fees related to firearms, it is unconstitutional. Requiring an extra fee is an infringement. Any “hurdle” the government required to on and operate anything firearm related is an infringement. But hey, I choose to pay, so we should keep this unconstitutional law because it’s not fair.

          I’m all for the government being required to return your fee, but I know it will never happen. Hello, this bill will never happen even though the current lease is legally unconstitutional.

          The, “I had to do everyone should have to” argument is wrong in so many ways.

        • James February 1, 2019, 11:14 pm

          I do have money tied up in NFA items…..Full auto and suppressors. I still want them deregulated. It does not matter what you and I or anybody else has already spent. I want anybody that wants into the ownership and use of suppressors to be able to do so. And, be able to do so without the un-necessary wait, nor the cost and paperwork that we had to endure.

    • Area 52 February 1, 2019, 1:14 pm

      I don’t like most gun laws, but you might have a point. Some say that if it wasn’t for the NFA act, the possession of machine guns even if they were manufactured and registered before 1986 would have been banned a long time ago. All it takes is one nut to ruin it for everyone.

    • Wiz February 2, 2019, 3:13 pm

      Sour grapes is what you’re saying, I had to pay so everyone else should also. You made the choice to pay the tax not anyone else, so live with it. I paid for some and hated it every time I did but I didn’t complain. I won’t buy any more suppressors until they are off the NFA books. Quit griping there is always one moron in every group, I heard you the last time this topic was on the board and you’re still at it. Shut up for a change and live with it, better yet just go away and stay away. Grow up and become one of supporters. AMF!

  • Charlie February 1, 2019, 10:12 am

    I have been shooting for over 60 some years. I have some hearing loss. If this bill had been in effect over these years I would not have had in my opinion the hearing loss that I have today. I hope for the shooters in the future will have the use of the sound suppressors in their shooting years.

    • Clai Rhor February 1, 2019, 11:48 am

      Many of the commentators herein have never heard a real silencer on a weapon to know what the whole issue is about SAD. It does not make a weapon shoot faster or differently just 20-40 decibels lower still over 100 decibels what the heck is going on with all the ignorance in America.

      LT/USNR

      • JB February 1, 2019, 9:59 pm

        Think it’s politics as well as ignorance.

  • KC February 1, 2019, 10:07 am

    At least 8 months too late. It will never pass.

  • LG February 1, 2019, 9:30 am

    The one regulation which irritates me the most is the SBR (Short Barrel Rifle) nonsense. So now, let’s assume that a collector and there are thousands of them owns a C96 Mauser, in 9mm Long Mauser. The minute he attaches or stores nearby a shoulder stock for it he becomes a dangerous terrorist ? Now if that same collector owns a Chinese Contract Browning Hi-Power WITH the original shoulder stock, he is just fine with the Gestapo on Washington. On the other hand if the shoulder stock is a replica, or the pistol and Inglis or Herstal here he becomes a terrorist again. Just as a note, in the decadent and socialist Europe, like France for example, sound reducer, “silencers” at least for 22LR are sold on the open market without any formality. It’s about time that nonsense stops.

  • Bryan February 1, 2019, 9:17 am

    Ok so I am an avid hunter and recreational shooter. I am all for this bill with a few tweaks to it. Right now the laws and regulations are ridiculous on getting a suppressor which puts it out of the reach for many law abiding hunters and shooters, not to mention really expensive. One thing you could do on suppressors is simply have a longer wait period in order to get one. I would have no problem waiting 30 days to be able to get one, sure as Hell beats 9 – 12 months. The fact is this can save your ears dramatically. But also look at it this way everyone talking about criminals making easier to get their hands on them. Evil will always find away. Criminals will always find away to have guns and if they really want a suppressor I am sure they will find away. Many in the hunting community I am sure would love to put a can on their hunting rifle. Right now it just unrealistic unless you have the money and time to wait and wait. I am not say being able to purchase them at any store. The store should have an FFL and you could do the same thing as with guns run a background check and then have a waiting period. The law abiding citizens who want them will be back for them

  • Gourdhead February 1, 2019, 9:03 am

    Just what our country needs. . . .morons like Chipman and Brown. If these two clowns knew anything about suppressors they would ‘hear’ that they are not as quiet as in the movies.

    • Artificial Unintelligence February 1, 2019, 10:01 am

      Yeah. Sadly this just shows you what kind of bureaucrat comes out of the ATF and also what ends up getting elected by Democrats. Similar to what has happened to the patent office, all you get are people who have neither the singular intelligence to understand the concepts involved or the importance of why they are thought. Of course, you don’t have to be informed of a topic to have an opinion and have it be more important than those who actually understand the topic.

  • Roger D. Franco Sr. February 1, 2019, 8:58 am

    I personally wouldn’t care to have an additional pound or two on the end of a carry gun. For long guns, there’s a definite noise reduction advantage. The gun haters are so misinformed.. Like Brian said, they don’t reduce the noise level to the point of being inaudible. Not at all like you see in the movies where all you hear is something akin to the same noise level as a sewing machine…With that said, if a criminal wants a silencer on the end of their Uzi, they’ll get one on the black market…Criminals don’t give a damn about laws..That’s why they’re criminals…!

    • Lost opportunities February 1, 2019, 10:12 am

      If research didn’t require expensive licensing by the ATF who have part and parcel authority to come in and disrupt anything you do, the past 100 years might very well have produced firearms that automatically have suppressors integrated that don’t decrease accuracy or add much if any additional weight. This government regulation has essentially destroyed any incentive for companies to attempt to produce any independent research and development, because even if they spent the money on developing it and had the appropriate licensing, most people who can afford it are too annoyed by the process to benefit from it.

      I still think we should go to D.C., find every Senator and Congressman and all their aids and spouses and take a hacksaw to their mufflers and remove them stating that they don’t have any license for it. Then make them wait 12 months after filing extensive and invasive paperwork with $200 to get them, if they filled it out right and after our own instituted background checks “approve” them. If you then add in everyone who works at the ATF headquarters, you might get some positive response and understanding.

  • The Elapid King February 1, 2019, 8:36 am

    How about that, the GOP reintroduce a bill that they sat on for two full years while they controlled everything only to time this when there is no chance in Hades of ever passing a Democrap controlled house.
    Go figure…..

    • LJ February 1, 2019, 9:39 am

      Yeah – I noticed that too. Sounds like the GOP is only paying lip service to this bill. Don’t get your hopes up.

    • Jason Bostick February 1, 2019, 11:36 am

      This was my first thought as well. I emailed my reps (Cornyn and Cruz) and expressed exactly that.

  • gdogs February 1, 2019, 8:29 am

    Where were they two years ago when they could have actually gotten it passed in the House and Senate?

  • Al February 1, 2019, 8:28 am

    I am hearing impaired and cannot use guns as it would cause me great pain and damage my hearing even more. I wear hearing aids, now. I relate my ‘tinnitus’ or SEVERE RINGING in my ears, making it very difficult to hear conversation, to shooting pistols as a young boy. I would actually purchase a pistol and enjoy the sport of shooting if I didn’t have to put my name on a govt list, to own one.

    Saying it would increase gun crime is ridiculous. Not only do criminals already have whatever they want, they can make a crude suppressor at home in a matter of minutes. Like bump-stocks. You can use a belt loop and achieve the same thing. If they ban belt loops, better buy stock in companies that make suspenders.

  • David M February 1, 2019, 8:25 am

    Interesting arguments on both sides. But the interesting fact is, the average Joe used to be able to buy a suppressor with no restrictions. They were advertised and sold in the Sears catalog, among others, as a way to enjoy hunting and shooting sports and being considerate of others around you. Then, one day someone decided they were “bad”. I’m not sure what year the change was introduced but it wasn’t because of mass shooting or a “suppressed” murder spree.

  • DHernandez February 1, 2019, 8:13 am

    Suppressors don’t make firearms “silent”, they just reduce the decibel level. In many calibers it’s still pretty loud on the ears. When a firearm is fired with a suppressor, it’s still pretty obvious it’s a gunshot; not like the movies. The initial bill went away because it was first introduced right around the time of the Vegas mass shooting. Anything remotely firearm friendly was shelved. If they still want to regulate them, make it a new category with a $50 stamp and a fast track approval process. 8 -12 mos is just ridiculous.

  • AZPaul February 1, 2019, 7:58 am

    Can these anti-gun people get a lobotomy? They would be more intelligent at this point.

  • David C Ellis February 1, 2019, 7:35 am

    Personally, I would like to be able to own and shoot with silencers, but I can really understand why it would not be good to have many of these things floating around in the general public–silencers would make it much easier for gangsters and other criminals to shoot people without being detected by the noise of a gunshot. People would be less likely to be able to identify shooting suspects, and they would be more vulnerable as victims because they would not be alerted to take cover by the sound of the first shot(s). I’d say to the legislators, “go ahead and make silencers legal and easy to obtain for me and for responsible law abiding gun owners, but not for the general public”, but that would also make them more readily available to people who should not have them, too, so probably better to leave things as they are. As much as I would like to have silencers for some of my guns, I am against making them easily available to the public–it is a very bad idea.

    • Shawn February 1, 2019, 8:13 am

      David, Please educate yourself. Silencers are not silent. There is still a noise loud enough to alert anyone nearby shots are being fired. I have one and it only reduces the sound to a less damaging level. Most are kept by owners under lock and key because of their high cost and the fact you can’t conceal them as easily for concealed carry, nor would you need to. My suggestion is you go fire them so you you can see just how not quiet they still are. I don’t blame people for thinking this way because the movies show them as being completely silent which is hilarious. Hunters would benefit qreatly as would those who like to shoot indoors

    • joefoam February 1, 2019, 8:16 am

      Apparently you have never heard a supressed gun discharged. The nomenclature you use is a fallacy. The gun is not silent, most suppressor manufactureres are trying to keep the report under 135 decibels, roughly equivalent to traffic noise on a busy street. Hardly silent, which makes your whole argument moot.

    • KimberproSS February 1, 2019, 9:23 am

      My 308 suppressed goes from the sound level of a jet engine to that of a jackhammer. Now a low velocity handgun will be reduced nicely, a 22 long rifle pistol with subsonic ammo is reduced to hearing the action cycle on a semi-auto. However, those cartridges will not penetrate bullet resistant clothing, safe for LE, and likely aren’t what a mass shooter is going to use. Just another nibble on the fringes of the bill of rights like “High capacity” magazine regulation. A sick human will get what she needs to do the deed. Make them legal for the 99.9% of shooters who will benefit from them, the .1% that would use them unlawfully have them already.

    • Common Sense February 1, 2019, 10:01 am

      Atten to all keyboard philosophers out there: Don’t do what this guy did.

      Be certain to obtain at least an inkling of background info before permanently posting bad information online. Idiot.

    • Tony McSwain February 1, 2019, 12:10 pm

      On a rifle, AR-15, the decibel level will be around 130 decibels, the noise a jackhammer or jet airliner makes. On a .22 pistol the level is around 110-20 decibels. Suppressors are by no means silent but they take out much of the auditory levels that cause harm to hearing, the same way a muffler on a car takes out loud annoying noise form a engine.

      To get the maximum effect from a suppressor, the bullet fired through it must travel under the speed of sound to avoid the “crack” of the bullet piercing the sound barrier. Regular ammunition can be fired and it does reduce the noise by 15-30 decibels but that supersonic “crack” is there. So a .22 fired at 1055 feet per second is best, but a .50 caliber round or .308 has to be fired at that same slow speed to get any real benefit.

      The round that hurts my ears the most is the .357 magnum as that supersonic barrier break is right at the frequency that hurts me, personally, the most. If you want a good caliber for a suppressor in a rifle, the .300 blackout is excellent, along with the variations of the .30 caliber round. Super sonic or subsonic is determined by switching a magazine with different ammunition.

    • Marcus Morgan February 1, 2019, 12:54 pm

      Come on David, you sound just like the libs with that nonsense. Have you ever heard a rifle suppressed, it is not like the movies, if that is what you have to go by, you need to actually go somewhere with an indoor range that rents different firearms and suppressed firearms, shoot the same gun with and without a can on it, then rethink your comments…..

    • Travis February 1, 2019, 8:50 pm

      I have to disagree. It’s easy enough to make a suppressor out of everyday objects. They would be as high quality as a commercial suppressor but they would do the jobs.

      How many shootings have you seen on the news that used a suppressor? It’s not because you have to pay $200 and wait 12 months. Criminals can steal, make, or but then on the black market. Generally criminals who are out shooting don’t care about the sound. And, unless they are using sub Sonic ammo, it will still be plenty loud enough to recognize the sound for what it is. Using a suppressor in a crime just isn’t practical. It has nothing to do with the fee or waiting period. That only effects law abiding citizens.

      • Travis February 1, 2019, 8:56 pm

        They would not be as quality as commercial. Auto correct fail.

  • George February 1, 2019, 7:34 am

    Yup. Just a bunch of Republican senators looking for re-election talking points. Can not pass the house or the senate. Just like CCW reciprocity. House took a year to pass concealed carry reciprocity. Senate did not bring it up for the next year. Now that it can not get through the house, the senate files a bill. They are all corrupt.

    As for suppressors, be careful what you wish for. Once they are legal and available, the crazies will push to make them mandatory causing great expense for those of us who do not want them and potentially making all of our existing firearms unusable because the noise might hurt a mouse’s hearing.

    • Artificial Unintelligence February 1, 2019, 10:18 am

      Yep. If the GOP and Trump actually cared about promises they would have figured out how to get those things passed when they had majorities. But if Chris Cox and LaPierre actually cared about our rights instead of calling people to incite fear to get donations so they can keep their expensive salaries and perks, we’d probably have a lot more legislation introduced and ultimately passed to restore our rights.

  • Bob Clement February 1, 2019, 7:28 am

    Hats off to the Senators that are pushing this bill, I have sever hearing loss from my time in the military shooting M-1’s and other weapons. I love to hunt big game and believe me this would help my already bad hearing problem. The problem with the Socialist-Democrats is the fact we put up the Lame Brain President, Obama for 8 miserable years and they cannot stand some one who is getting things done. The Democrats scare the Hell out of me with their lame brained ideas. Like the VA Governor,”We’ll keep the newborn baby comfortable until we decide to kill it” what kind of Horse Shit is that, the last time I checked that was called murder. Scott Peterson who is now in prison for murdering his pregnant wife was charged with two counts of murder, one for his wife and the other for the un-born baby, so when did the laws change. The people who support this kind of birth control are a bunch of idiots. Maybe they should have their spines severed with a pair of scissors like they propose, move over Hitler we are creating new death camp. It is a new way to create eliminating certain groups of people we don’t want around?

    • AkFolder February 1, 2019, 8:31 am

      Strange, facts are: Under Obama, BumpStocks were deemed legal, TWICE!!

      So/called Sig Pistol Braces were deemed legal!!

      Carrying concealed and openly on Federal lands was deemed legal, pursuant to host-state laws!!

      Rule to get Chief Law Enforcement Officer signature (read PERMISSION) for NFA items (silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, automatic arms, etc) was changed to the CLEO needs to be INFORMED (drop a copy of the paperwork by the Chief of Police or Sheriff)!!!!

      Under Trump: BUMPSTOCK BAN effectively making criminals of 100ks of consumers 4/21/19!!!

      Openly supports Emergency Protection Orders ERPOs!!

      Stated publicly: “…take the guns first, worry about Due Process second!!!!!!”

      Appointed a severely anti-2A Attorney General!!!!

      Yep, Trump seems TOTALLY 2A friendly, while Obama was DEFINITELY a total GUN BANNER !!!!!!!!!!!

      • Kendall February 1, 2019, 11:32 am

        All great points. This latest with the new AG is the last straw for me. Trump is light years better than any Dem as POTUS but the man always has, and always will scare the bejeezus outta me. Like Mass Mitt and 80 % of all our elected representatives, they have no commitment to the Constitution, civil liberties, due process, or fundamental principles underlying our republic.

  • Terry (SquirrelSlayer) February 1, 2019, 7:26 am

    Bone(head)s
    “MORE PEOPLE WILL GET AWAY WITH MURDERS…BECAUSE LACK OF AUDIBLE EVIDENCE..PERIOD…No one can make a legitimate argument for a silencer..unless you want to execute someone discretely”
    That is about the most ignorant crap I’ve heard this year. In Europe (who’s gun laws you twinkle-toed communists are so quick to want to emulate) and many other parts of the world you can be fined or imprisoned for NOT using a suppressor. And you can just go down to your local hardware store and buy one. I guess maybe they actually care about their citizens losing their hearing. Go collect your Bloomberg trolling money and get back down to your daddies basement.

    • Mike February 1, 2019, 12:50 pm

      The report of the weapon is still quite substantial. Do you even know what the sound of a “suppressed” rifle or handgun of 135 db is? It is just barely lower than what it takes to crack your ear drum and cause ear damage. It is a suppressor and not a silencer. There is no such thing as a silencer. You can not make a high velocity weapon silent. You can’t even make a high velocity air gun silent. Just go to YouTube and watch some videos of airguns with and without suppressors and see. Please educate yourself and others.

  • Ron February 1, 2019, 7:01 am

    I’m Pro 2nd but have no confidence in Republicans. Why was this bill not introduced 18 months ago when they controlled all 3 branches of government? Why did they not pass CCW national Reciprocity? This is all for show and to make us think they’re fighting for our rights

  • Bones February 1, 2019, 7:00 am

    First of all stein..you’re a fool man..no one wants to kill new born babies ..liar..never heard of that in my life..you watching fake Fox News man as usual..second…WHAT is the practical purpose of silencers? So you don’t need to use ear protection? Please…. MORE PEOPLE WILL GET AWAY WITH MURDERS…BECAUSE LACK OF AUDIBLE EVIDENCE..PERIOD…No one can make a legitimate argument for a silencer..unless you want to execute someone discretely

    • ed February 1, 2019, 7:11 am

      I can’t believe anyone would write such bullshit about something they obviously don’t know anything about, but there you are. Please get informed in the future before posting such tripe. Saying that “more people will get away with murder” is so asinine on so many levels as to be pathetic.

    • Scott February 1, 2019, 7:57 am

      JFC, gimme a break. You are talking out your ass. Do you know that suppressors don’t actually make guns silent. This isn’t James Bond. A suppressor drops the sound of a gun shot from around 150db to 120db. The average rock concert is around 115db. As a comparison, a jet take off is on average 150db. A suppressor simply lowers the sound to a level that at short term exposure wont cause permanent hearing damage.

      Eat up some more of that blue candy. It’s making you stupider by the minute.

    • joefoam February 1, 2019, 8:13 am

      Bones, you need to stop watching all those spy movies. No one was ever convicted using noise evidence, and owning a suppressor doesn’t make you an assassin. They are available over the counter in Europe and you haven’t seen an outbreak of assassinations. As for wanting to kill newborns, check the latest headlines where babies are delivered and then a decision is made as to whether they will be allowed to live.

    • srsquidizen February 1, 2019, 8:26 am

      Murders using a suppressor are mainly in the movies by elite professional hit men (the few who exist in real life can get any weapon they want regardless of laws). Gangbangers and other common street scum use the loudest guns they can carry. Loud guns are part of their machismo and a tool of intimidation. Affordable silencers will help save the hearing of law-abiding shooting enthusiasts. That’s all they will do. And “audible evidence”? The mere noise made by a gun would never convict anyone without the witness actually being in position to see who shot it well enough to make a positive ID. When unarmed civilians hear gunshots they don’t move closer! Loud guns actually send potential witnesses running and gangbangers know that.

    • Bad Penguin February 1, 2019, 8:54 am

      Bones, Please Google the governor of Virginias recent comments about supporting a parents right to abort a baby after it is already born.

      BTW why do you think there will be more murders? Seriously why? Only about 12,000 people are murdered with guns (vs 72,000 drug overdoses and about the same number killed by doctors every year) and most of those are gang related and they want the noise.

      Suppressors will have no effect on the murder rate.

  • Frank S. February 1, 2019, 6:54 am

    If they set a limit as to how much noise an over the counter suppressor can reduce it might pass. Heck, if they just passed it for long guns only it would be good. A suppressor on a hand gun only makes it more difficult to conceal, would really only be good for the range. Too many movies showing guns sounding like air rifles. I suppose a .22 could be suppressed that much. That’s why professional assassins supposedly like .22L and LR though… just got to get close!

  • Gabe Hitch February 1, 2019, 6:37 am

    Why didn’t this get passed before and why introduce it now knowing it’s DOA in the house. RINOs

  • Star Elton February 1, 2019, 6:37 am

    The Libtards will argue that crime stats committed with suppressors are so low because it’s currently difficult to obtain a suppressor. They will also argue that if you want to protect your hearing, don’t own and shoot guns (preferably) and if you simply must do so, wear some ear muffs. This Bill will go nowhere.

  • Dr Motown February 1, 2019, 6:36 am

    Two years too late…. will never get past Pelosi unless it’s tacked on to some amnesty bill

  • Leighton Cavendish February 1, 2019, 6:36 am

    They need to tack this on to something the Democrats want very badly…tit for tat…

  • JON February 1, 2019, 6:34 am

    Say if this passes will people who already paid the tax stamp get refunded on that $200?

  • Star Elton February 1, 2019, 6:31 am

    The ship has sailed on this bill unfortunately. This couldn’t get any legs to go anywhere when the GOP had all of the reigns in DC. You can forget about it now with some power back on the Dem’s side.

  • Altoids February 1, 2019, 6:27 am

    A great idea that sadly will go nowhere.

  • Joseph Burge February 1, 2019, 6:16 am

    “David Chipman, a senior policy advisor for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and a retired ATF special agent” dosen’t know sh1t from shinola.

    The only people that benefit from the current process is the FEDS who don’t want to dive up their revenue stream and stupid wasteful bureaucratic process of denying legal ownership.

    “The ATF confirmed that silencers are rarely used in crimes despite their explosion in popularity. The agency has only recommended prosecutions for 44 silencer-related crimes per year over the past decade. That means roughly .003 percent of silencers are used in crimes each year. Of those 44 crimes per year, only 6 involved defendants with prior felony convictions.”

  • Joseph Rinaldi February 1, 2019, 6:13 am

    I believe this measure should be passed with some registry. This would provide that any owner would have to be accountable for the whereabouts and possession of said suppressor at all times.

    • AkFolder February 1, 2019, 9:36 am

      Isn’t this exactly what we have now??? What would be the point of passing a law that would have effectively no change to existing law? Adjusting the tax to $5, like for AOW would be a nice adjustment…

  • Mike February 1, 2019, 6:10 am

    Is there a petition that needs signed to send to congress?

  • Brian February 1, 2019, 6:09 am

    We need to make it plain that suppressors are not “silencers.” They reduce the noise by about 30 db, the same as a good set of over-the-ear hearing protection.

    And except for Hollywood’s version of the trench-coat covered assassin, suppressors are not tools of street thugs. They convert an 8″ pistol into a 16″ pistol, IOW, more difficult to conceal.

  • Daniel Stein February 1, 2019, 5:39 am

    Demoncrats want to legally be able to murder newly delivered babies, but will oppose this in force.

    • Brett Bowman February 1, 2019, 7:53 am

      “Murder newly delivered babies?” Who the fuck is murdering babies after coming out of the womb?

      • Bad Penguin February 1, 2019, 9:00 am

        The governor of Virginia is pushing for it to be legal to kill your baby after its boorn like the Romans did.

      • Chris B Smith February 1, 2019, 9:05 am

        Pull your head out of the sand… New York, New Mexico, Virginia, etc., etc. Fucking moron.

  • David Padua February 1, 2019, 4:54 am

    “Police trained to protect”? Didn’t the SCOTUS SAY THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS. As far as criminals ambushing. That’s what they already do. You are surpressing law abiding citizens. That’s all you do with your false narrative Mr David Chipman

  • Oni February 1, 2019, 3:29 am

    How about national constitutional carry while we are at it?

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend