It has been a busy year for gun silencers. Long restricted under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, silencers have found themselves in the legislative spotlight as lawmakers push to reframe them not as tactical tools, but as public health devices.
At both the federal and state level, bills are advancing to deregulate or outright legalize suppressors, using a new political frame: hearing protection. From Capitol Hill to state capitols, legislators are arguing that gun silencers belong in the same category as earmuffs, not explosives. This week, let’s take a closer look into what suppressors are, why they have historically been so restricted, and where current legislation stands.
What Are Gun Silencers, and Why Were They Regulated?
Gun silencers, also known as suppressors, are devices attached to or integrated into the barrel of a firearm to reduce noise, muzzle flash, and recoil when the gun is fired. They work by redirecting propellant gases through a series of baffles and expansion chambers, allowing the gases to cool before being released into the atmosphere. Despite the name, they do not make a weapon silent. Most suppressors reduce a gunshot’s volume to around 120 to 130 decibels (which is still quite loud, roughly equivalent to a rock concert or chainsaw).
Silencers were first regulated at the federal level in 1934 under the National Firearms Act (NFA). At the time, lawmakers aimed to curb poaching and criminal misuse during the Great Depression. There was growing concern about organized crime, and suppressors were seen as tools that could enable illegal hunting—especially since purchasing one was often cheaper than buying a hunting license, and many families were desperate to put food on the table. Suppressors were grouped with machine guns and sawed-off shotguns as "Title II" weapons. That classification came with steep requirements: a $200 tax stamp, fingerprinting, photographs, and federal approval. In 1934, that $200 cost was equivalent to nearly $4,800 today. The goal was to limit access through cost and bureaucracy, not to ban suppressors outright.
For decades, suppressors remained niche items, used primarily by the military and specialized law enforcement. But in recent years, they’ve undergone what some may call a "reputation tour." Gun rights advocates now argue suppressors serve as hearing protection for hunters and sport shooters and are not inherently dangerous. This reframing has fueled a growing wave of legislation across the country, let’s dive in!
Federal Legislation: A Regulatory Rewrite in the Name of Health
HR 404 – The Hearing Protection Act
Introduced by Rep. Ben Cline (R‑VA), this bill would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act and regulate them instead under the Gun Control Act, making them subject to the same rules as rifles and shotguns. It eliminates the current tax stamp, registration process, and waiting period, while still requiring background checks and serial number markings. The bill also preempts state and local laws that impose additional taxes or registration requirements on suppressors.
In a more controversial move, the legislation requires the Attorney General to destroy all existing federal suppressor registration records within one year. It introduces a new 10 percent excise tax on suppressor sales and updates definitions in both tax and criminal codes to reflect the regulatory shift.
The Hearing Protection Act is currently in committee, with strong support from gun rights advocates who frame it as a hearing protection measure. Critics argue it could limit oversight and weaken long-standing public safety safeguards.
S 364 – Senate Companion to the Hearing Protection Act
Sen. Mike Crapo (R‑ID) introduced this mirror bill on February 3, 2025. It also removes suppressors from Title II taxation and redirects regulation through the Gun Control Act. It is currently in the Senate Finance Committee, awaiting consideration. It has garnered about 33 cosponsors, signaling coordinated support with its House counterpart.
S 1039 – The PARTS Act
Another companion bill to the Hearing Protection Act, this bill would update the federal definition of "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" to include “complete suppressors” and their key components. It broadens the legal scope to cover any device or part (like outer tubes or internal structures) intended to reduce firearm sound.
These definition expansions aim to close legal loopholes and prevent individuals from assembling suppressors from unregulated parts. While it does not change how suppressors are regulated, it lays groundwork for more consistent enforcement.
The bill is currently under Senate review.
HR 850 – The SHUSH Act
The SHUSH (Silencers Help Us Save Hearing) Act would remove firearm suppressors from the National Firearms Act entirely and treat them like standard firearm accessories under federal law. It eliminates federal registration, tax, and transfer requirements, and retroactively applies these changes to transfers made after October 22, 2015.
The bill also preempts state and local laws that impose suppressor-specific taxes, markings, or recordkeeping, effectively overriding more restrictive state frameworks. It repeals federal criminal penalties tied to the use of suppressors and revises relevant sections of the U.S. Code to strip silencers of their current legal classification as regulated firearms.
By fully deregulating suppressors at both federal and state levels, the SHUSH Act represents the most expansive proposal of the current slate of silencer legislation. It is still in committee and remains a point of contention between gun rights advocates and those concerned about enforcement and public safety.
State-Level: Following the Federal Cue
As Congress moves to deregulate, many states are proactively revising their laws to either legalize suppressors or align with anticipated federal changes. Here is a look at some of the most active state efforts.
New York – S02099
This bill would repeal New York State’s longstanding prohibition on firearm suppressors, legalizing their possession and use under certain conditions. It amends both the Environmental Conservation Law and Penal Law to remove silencers from the list of prohibited devices for hunters and firearm owners.
The legislation strikes language that previously banned silencers from being used in hunting or carried in the field, and it removes threaded barrels from the list of features that trigger stricter firearm classifications. It also repeals the inclusion of suppressors in the state’s definition of illegal weapons, clearing the way for their lawful ownership.
If passed, the bill would allow individuals in lawful possession of a suppressor to use it while hunting, provided the host firearm is permitted under current law. The bill is currently under committee consideration and would represent a significant departure from New York’s historically strict gun regulations.
Rhode Island – S0144
This bill would legalize the possession and use of firearm suppressors in Rhode Island for rifles and shotguns longer than 17 inches. It amends current law to allow any licensed hunter to use a suppressor while hunting, provided the host firearm complies with state hunting laws.
The bill removes blanket prohibitions on manufacturing, selling, or possessing suppressors and narrows the restriction only to short-barreled firearms under 17 inches. It also bars any local or state agency from enacting additional suppressor-related rules, creating a uniform statewide standard.
Violations involving improper suppressor use remain a felony, with a minimum sentence of one year and one day. Law enforcement retains existing carveouts for official suppressor use. If enacted, the bill would take effect immediately.
Missouri is doubling down
Missouri lawmakers are pushing forward HB 898, a second bill on firearm suppressors that goes further than the earlier HB 548. While both measures aim to legalize suppressors and exempt Missouri-made devices from federal regulation, HB 898 introduces enforcement mechanisms and penalties that raise the stakes.
The bill allows suppressors to be manufactured, sold, and possessed in Missouri, as long as they are made entirely in-state from basic materials and stamped “Made in Missouri.” Like HB 548, it bars state and local governments from enforcing federal suppressor laws that are stricter than Missouri law.
What sets HB 898 apart is its enforcement structure. Citizens can file complaints with the Attorney General if they believe a local agency is enforcing federal suppressor laws. If the complaint is upheld, the AG can take legal action and recover costs. The bill also cuts off state grant funding to any government entity that violates this rule.
In addition, HB 898 wipes the slate clean on past suppressor charges. As of August 28, 2025, all pending prosecutions for suppressor-related offenses will be dismissed, though final convictions will remain on record.
While HB 548 focuses on deregulation, HB 898 asserts state authority over firearms policy and creates real consequences for local governments that fail to comply.
Oklahoma – SB 463
This bill exempts firearm suppressors manufactured entirely within Oklahoma from federal regulation. Like Missouri’s similar legislation, it defines suppressors made from basic materials in-state—using only minor generic parts—as exempt from federal registration and restrictions. Oklahoma requires these locally made suppressors to be stamped “Made in Oklahoma,” mirroring Missouri’s “Made in Missouri” marking requirement.
Both bills prohibit state and local agencies from enforcing federal suppressor regulations that exceed state law and empower citizens to file complaints with the Attorney General if such enforcement occurs. The Attorney General can seek legal remedies to stop violations and recover legal costs.
The Oklahoma bill also includes an emergency clause for immediate effect, while Missouri’s provisions take effect on a specified future date. Together, these bills represent a growing trend of states asserting control over firearm suppressors and challenging federal oversight through local manufacturing and enforcement protections.
Illinois – SB 297
This bill removes the state-level ban on firearm silencers by striking language in the Illinois Criminal Code that previously prohibited the possession, use, or manufacture of any device designed to muffle or silence the sound of a firearm. It also updates references in related statutes, including those governing weapons possession and firearm discharge offenses, to reflect the change. The effect is to legalize suppressor ownership and use in Illinois, aligning state law more closely with jurisdictions that allow these devices. It is currently in committee.
Montana – HB 854
This bill proposes a state income tax credit of up to $50 to help offset the federal cost of purchasing a firearm suppressor tax stamp, which is required by the ATF to legally own a suppressor. The credit would apply for the tax year in which the stamp is purchased and be refundable if the taxpayer owes less than the credit amount. The stated purpose is to encourage hearing protection among shooters and hunters by reducing financial barriers to owning suppressors.
Unlike Missouri and Oklahoma bills, which focus on exempting locally manufactured suppressors from federal regulations and prohibiting state enforcement of stricter federal laws, Montana’s bill addresses the cost burden of the federally mandated tax stamp. It does not alter suppressor legality or state enforcement but instead offers financial relief tied directly to federal requirements. The bill was set to take effect in 2026 but ultimately did not pass.
Despite different strategies, the message is consistent: suppressors are tools for hearing protection, not public threats. Even traditionally strict states like New York and Rhode Island are reconsidering their positions, signaling a broader shift in suppressor policy across the country.
Final Takeaway: A Policy Shift in Tone and Tactic
The movement to deregulate firearm suppressors reflects more than just policy change, it signals a shift in how lawmakers talk about gun issues. Instead of framing suppressors as tactical tools or Second Amendment flashpoints, these bills emphasize public health, focusing on hearing protection and reducing noise-related injuries.
This new framing is gaining momentum. If federal reforms pass, many states may follow suit or adjust their laws to align, creating a varied patchwork of regulations across the country. How this unfolds will depend heavily on enforcement and interpretation at both the federal and state levels.
Ultimately, the real-world effects will depend on the balance struck between access, safety, and regulation—and how these evolving laws are put into practice on the ground. Suppressors could increasingly be seen as personal protective equipment rather than criminal accessories, but concerns remain. Critics worry about potential impacts on law enforcement and public safety, while supporters highlight benefits for hunters, shooters, and range workers.
Image by ChatGPT
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.