Gun Owners Deserve Freedom To Enjoy the Sound of Silencers
Long restricted by federal law, suppressors are poised to be freed by litigation or legislation.
When shooting, especially at indoor ranges, one of the bigger concerns is hearing protection. Most firearms are loud, and shooting without some means of moderating the noise—ear plugs or muffs—is a sure path to tinnitus and hearing loss. Also helpful are sound suppressors, which reduce the decibel level of firearms' discharges (they remain loud, but less so). Unfortunately, suppressors have been severely regulated at the federal level since the 1930s and are banned in some states. But this year, a race is on between litigation and legislation to ease the legal barriers to buying and using suppressors.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Suppressors Benefit Long-Term Health
In 2020, the U.S. Marine Corps began distributing suppressors on a widespread basis because they "can save lives…. The suppressor reduces their audible and visual signature, making it more difficult for the enemy to ascertain their location," according to Matt Gonzales of Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. Another consideration is that "the reduced noise of the suppressors also benefits a Marine's long-term health…. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, hearing problems are by far the most prevalent service-connected disability among American veterans."
Civilian shooters aren't usually worried about being detected in combat, although a lower "audible and visual signature" is a benefit to hunters who don't want to scare off game. But all shooters share concerns about preserving their hearing. That's why some countries, such as Norway, leave suppressors largely unregulated. They recognize that they're good for your health and polite to the neighbors.
Unfortunately, when the hot mess that is the National Firearms Act (NFA) was crafted in the 1930s, the public was in a panic about gangsters who had been empowered by then recently repealed Prohibition. Politicians took advantage and threw together all sorts of restrictions on guns and related items they claimed posed "a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre," as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) puts it. Suppressors—inaccurately termed silencers—were put on the list of items that had to be registered with the federal government and required a $200 tax (hefty at the time; equivalent to $4,688 today) with every transfer.
But even after decades of continuing technological development, suppressors still don't deliver the silent mobland rub-outs that Hollywood fantasized then and truth-impaired politicians still scaremonger about.
"Mass murderers use silencers so their targeted victims can't hear the gun shots, and they can kill more people who don't flee when the shooting begins," Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) bullshitted last week.
Except that suppressors have never lived up to their reputation. In a 2017 article for The Hearing Review, Colleen G. Le Prell, a professor of hearing science at the University of Texas-Dallas, wrote that research on suppressors found "overall suppression ranged from 7-32 dB" and that "with the exception of a subset of conditions in which subsonic ammunition was used, discharge levels routinely exceeded 140 dB SPL despite the use of a suppressor." She recommended that suppressors should be used with traditional hearing protection for best results.
All of this is just added justification for making it easier to buy suppressors on top of people's inherent right to own and use what they please and the Second Amendment's protection of that right in the context of weapons and self-defense. Second Amendment-protected rights have better advocates now than they did in the 1930s. And more politicians now than then understand that suppressors are both expressions of personal liberty and safeguards for health.
Suppressors Are Protected by the Second Amendment
"In the view of the United States, the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories and components such as suppressors," the U.S. Department of Justice conceded in a May 23 filing in the case of U.S. v. George Peterson, regarding a Louisiana man charged with nothing more than possessing an unregistered suppressor. "As a result, restrictions on the possession of suppressors burden the right to bear arms, and a ban on the possession of suppressors or other similar accessories would be unconstitutional."
This is an improvement in the federal government's position on suppressors and the Constitution. Just months ago in the same case, the Fifth Circuit held that suppressors are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment. But it's not a complete win. The government goes on to argue that "the National Firearms Act's registration and taxation requirement is constitutional because it imposes a modest burden on a firearm accessory that is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition because suppressors are specially adaptable to criminal misuse."
Backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Peterson continues his fight to gain recognition that the Second Amendment protects ownership of suppressors as components of firearms.
"As our brief shows, the NFA's tax and registration regulations are unconstitutional, full stop. Americans like Mr. Peterson should not be criminally liable for doing exactly what the Constitution protects," comments FPC President Brandon Combs.
By Litigation or Legislation, Suppressors May No Longer Be Suppressed
Peterson's case is in a race with federal legislation. In his above comments, Sen. Murphy was hot and bothered not just by suppressors but by the inclusion in the "Big, Beautiful, Bill" of language that would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act. Purchasers would still need to go through background checks, but registration and taxes would be off the table.
"The Senate Finance Committee's budget reconciliation bill text further restores our Second Amendment freedoms," Rep. Andrew Clyde (R–Ga.), who wrote the suppressor language, posted on X. "In addition to suppressors, the Senate's version eliminates the taxation and registration for [short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons]."
As Clyde points out, after nine decades, lawmakers finally seem poised to undo much of the damage done by the NFA. A court win would be better, since it would recognize Second Amendment protections for suppressors and prevent future legislative mischief. But if the courts aren't quite ready to go there, Congress just might.
For hearing protection and matters of liberty, as for all else, Hollywood movies and their weird takes on unreality shouldn't guide our laws or provide inspiration for restrictions, arrests, and prison time. Suppressors are a good idea that help protect our health. They're also an expression of our fundamental right to do as we please so long as we don't harm others. On both counts, they deserve to be freed from authoritarian and stupid legal restrictions.
