Silencer tax is history

[venomballistics]

Pic of Beaker is funny.

He's kinda my spirit animal

 

[Onomea]

Man... I'm just glad the tax went away...

I was curious as to why suppressors were included under the NFA anyway inasmuch as I don't recall ever reading about a crime committed with a suppressed firearm.

So I asked my learned pal ChatGPT. Turns out the reason was fear of poaching by subsistence hunters during the Depression, and fear of imaginary horribles:

The inclusion of silencers—more accurately known as suppressors—under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was not due to widespread criminal misuse, but rather a mix of political precaution, public misunderstanding, and concern about illegal hunting. While the NFA was largely a response to the violent crimes of the Prohibition era—think gangsters with Tommy guns and sawed-off shotguns—suppressors were caught up in the legislation despite their minimal use in violent crime.

One of the key motivations behind regulating suppressors was fear of poaching during the Great Depression. As many Americans faced hunger and economic desperation, federal officials were concerned that suppressed firearms could be used to illegally hunt game without attracting attention. This concern was voiced by agencies like the Department of the Interior, which worried that suppressors would make wildlife law enforcement difficult, especially in rural areas.

Another factor was the widespread misconception that suppressors rendered guns silent—an image shaped more by Hollywood than reality. In truth, suppressors reduce noise by about 20 to 35 decibels, which is significant but far from silent. Nonetheless, lawmakers feared that such devices could make it easier for criminals or assassins to commit crimes undetected, even though there was little evidence to support that claim.

In practice, suppressors have rarely been used in crimes. Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) shows extremely low rates of criminal use, and most offenses involving suppressors pertain to regulatory violations rather than violence. Despite their low risk profile, suppressors remain heavily regulated today under the NFA, largely due to legislative inertia and lingering public misconceptions. Efforts to ease restrictions, such as the Hearing Protection Act, have faced resistance even though advocates argue that suppressors primarily serve to reduce hearing damage and noise pollution.

Interesting...

 

[venomballistics]

The $200 tax was the petty nitpicky part.
It's all the red tape that went with that $200 that's the problem and remains a problem.
NFA and interstate travel can cause you to have a very bad day. That's a much larger issue than $200

 

[Onomea]

As others have noted, since the ATF went to electronic processing recently, approval for a silencer takes a few days to a couple of weeks. If you keep your paperwork with the suppressor, interstate travel is legal.

It is no longer an onerous process. Now it's $200 cheaper.

 

[ladder13]

As Onomea said, have your papers with you. An SBR causes a bit of an issue with interstate travel, you need to notify ATF via an online form. They will ok it, just don’t wait until the last day.
A silencer requires no notification to the ATF. The only places it would be a worry is in the states that don’t recognize suppressors, and I don’t bother to go there anyway.

 

[Well Armed]

As Onomea said, have your papers with you. An SBR causes a bit of an issue with interstate travel, you need to notify ATF via an online form. They will ok it.
A silencer requires no notification to the ATF. The only places it is a worry is in the states that don’t recognize suppressors, and I don’t bother to go there anyway.

Also, if your SBR started it's life out as a rifle or pistol, you can simply return your registered SBR back into it's original pistol or rifle configuration. The requirement to notify the ATF of interstate travel as well as all NFA laws and regulations only apply when the firearm is in SBR configuration. That is for example, as soon as you remove the stock and place a pistol brace on it, it's no longer a SBR. It's has become a pistol again. You can sell it, give it away, and travel just like you would if it was never a NFA item.

Likewise, for example, if you're SBR started it's life out as an AR-15 rifle, you can simply put a 16" upper back on it, and it because a rifle again. The NFA laws are no longer applicable to it.

If I was to travel, I'd travel out of state with a braced pistol just to avoid all the landmines involved with NFA items and even carrying loaded rifles in the car or on some public government land.

 

[Tom S.]

Multiple dings have been handed out and posts deleted.
One more political comment and this thread will be closed.

 

[UFGator]

Man... I'm just glad the tax went away...

I was curious as to why suppressors were included under the NFA anyway inasmuch as I don't recall ever reading about a crime committed with a suppressed firearm.

So I asked my learned pal ChatGPT. Turns out the reason was fear of poaching by subsistence hunters during the Depression, and fear of imaginary horribles:

The inclusion of silencers—more accurately known as suppressors—under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was not due to widespread criminal misuse, but rather a mix of political precaution, public misunderstanding, and concern about illegal hunting. While the NFA was largely a response to the violent crimes of the Prohibition era—think gangsters with Tommy guns and sawed-off shotguns—suppressors were caught up in the legislation despite their minimal use in violent crime.

One of the key motivations behind regulating suppressors was fear of poaching during the Great Depression. As many Americans faced hunger and economic desperation, federal officials were concerned that suppressed firearms could be used to illegally hunt game without attracting attention. This concern was voiced by agencies like the Department of the Interior, which worried that suppressors would make wildlife law enforcement difficult, especially in rural areas.

Another factor was the widespread misconception that suppressors rendered guns silent—an image shaped more by Hollywood than reality. In truth, suppressors reduce noise by about 20 to 35 decibels, which is significant but far from silent. Nonetheless, lawmakers feared that such devices could make it easier for criminals or assassins to commit crimes undetected, even though there was little evidence to support that claim.

In practice, suppressors have rarely been used in crimes. Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) shows extremely low rates of criminal use, and most offenses involving suppressors pertain to regulatory violations rather than violence. Despite their low risk profile, suppressors remain heavily regulated today under the NFA, largely due to legislative inertia and lingering public misconceptions. Efforts to ease restrictions, such as the Hearing Protection Act, have faced resistance even though advocates argue that suppressors primarily serve to reduce hearing damage and noise pollution.

Interesting...

Don’t you watch movies? Many “crimes” committed with silencers.

 

[SASFixer]

You are absolutely correct! As soon as wifey and I retired we moved the hell out of Illinois and "next door" to the free state of Indiana. Best wishes to all my friends that have to deal with the tyranny of Illinois politicians.

As I was dismayed after attending Oshkosh EAA Fly-In in 2023, the creepy tenacles of Chicago extends all the way to Indianapolis. If I were you I would have kept going until I got to Kentucky.

 

[lihpster]

Man... I'm just glad the tax went away...

I was curious as to why suppressors were included under the NFA anyway inasmuch as I don't recall ever reading about a crime committed with a suppressed firearm.

So I asked my learned pal ChatGPT. Turns out the reason was fear of poaching by subsistence hunters during the Depression, and fear of imaginary horribles:

The inclusion of silencers—more accurately known as suppressors—under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was not due to widespread criminal misuse, but rather a mix of political precaution, public misunderstanding, and concern about illegal hunting. While the NFA was largely a response to the violent crimes of the Prohibition era—think gangsters with Tommy guns and sawed-off shotguns—suppressors were caught up in the legislation despite their minimal use in violent crime.

One of the key motivations behind regulating suppressors was fear of poaching during the Great Depression. As many Americans faced hunger and economic desperation, federal officials were concerned that suppressed firearms could be used to illegally hunt game without attracting attention. This concern was voiced by agencies like the Department of the Interior, which worried that suppressors would make wildlife law enforcement difficult, especially in rural areas.

Another factor was the widespread misconception that suppressors rendered guns silent—an image shaped more by Hollywood than reality. In truth, suppressors reduce noise by about 20 to 35 decibels, which is significant but far from silent. Nonetheless, lawmakers feared that such devices could make it easier for criminals or assassins to commit crimes undetected, even though there was little evidence to support that claim.

In practice, suppressors have rarely been used in crimes. Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) shows extremely low rates of criminal use, and most offenses involving suppressors pertain to regulatory violations rather than violence. Despite their low risk profile, suppressors remain heavily regulated today under the NFA, largely due to legislative inertia and lingering public misconceptions. Efforts to ease restrictions, such as the Hearing Protection Act, have faced resistance even though advocates argue that suppressors primarily serve to reduce hearing damage and noise pollution.

Interesting...

Similar to outlawing switchblades. They were seen as the criminals choice, especially members of youth gangs. They were outlawed. Didn't slow down the criminals or the youth gangs. But it looked good. Like they were trying to do something, even though what they were doing would have no effect on the criminals it was supposed to stop. Sound familiar?

 

[LSMurphy]

One of two law suits have already been filed, one filed was in the 5th circuit.

NFA will be attacked and will be found unconstitutional.

Couple of years from now it will all go away.

 

[Frank Black]

Removing the tax is NOTHING
Ya still have to do finger prints/mug shots/background check/waiting period..........So basically when the amendment was gutted we really didn't accomplish much.

All that can be done and retained in the dealer/SOT’s files at the point of sale. The law requires FPs and a photo but doesn’t require they be sent to the ATF. That’s was merely an administrative or procedural rule that the ATF created.

FPs are forever anyway so only one copy of FPs should be required to be kept in ATF file, not new FP cards every time you buy a Class 3 toy. A new photo should only be required every 3 or 4 yrs.

DOGE should streamline all these rules and regulations into one simple process that can take place at the point of sale. More like a “normal” firearms purchase with the 4473, NCICs check, payment, and then you leave with the item.

Not to mention, since the “tax” is now “$0.00” there’s no stamp coming your way from ATF to evidence payment of the tax, and therefore that wait-time before you can enjoy your new toy has been eliminated.

 

[Law-dog]

Removing the tax is NOTHING
Ya still have to do finger prints/mug shots/background check/waiting period..........So basically when the amendment was gutted we really didn't accomplish much.

You miss the entire legal issue. The $200 tax was a sin tax that was designed to price these items away from common people. The taxing power is what made this law legal.

The tax is gone, so now the lawsuit is an attempt to remove these items, SBRs, suppressors and AOWs from the NFA. This is the biggest legal win in US history, and sets the only basis in 90 years to attack that portion of the NFA.

Many people do not understand the Constitution, but the power to make regulatory laws must be tied to something, The NFA was tied to the taxing power, and it is gone.

They will try to save it some other way, but not likely to prevail. Just because it does not solve the problem by next Thursday means nothing.


The fact that the tax was wiped out by the normal process of Congress and signed by the Pres is the single biggest leap in gun rights in history, even bigger that Heller and Bruen.

Just hold your fears, it is months not years until we know the final rule. Yes there will be appeals, but so what?

The lawsuit is filed in Amarillo Texas, that judge is not going to order a temporary ban, when he rules the law will go into effect in months. Simple deal

 

[Law-dog]

The fact that most of us just shoot without suppressors has spurred the innovation and production of some really good hearing protection. First Muffs and now the in the ear canal type. I finally got some electronic muffs for fathers day and they work great. In the early next though i’ll not be able to wear my hearing aids lol.
As far as SBR’s i will continue to just be a 7.5 AR Pistol guy with attached “Brace” but nice to know i could turn it into an SBR for $0.

They are permitting 60,000 suppressors per month.....per month... you are behind the times. As a hunter, they are the greatest invention in my 76 year, about 70 of it hunting.\\

They take the noise out of shooting the noisy hard kickers and make shooting more fun, less noise less recoil, etc. And hearing safe in the field.

 

[Law-dog]

$200 in 1934 was some money, today not much more than a decent dinner for two. Regulation is still there. What a big nothing burger.

$4,797.99​

---

The 3.55% inflation rate means $200 in 1934 is equivalent to $4,797.99 today. This inflation calculator uses the official US consumer price index published by the Department of Labor.

It was a sin tax, to keep people from owning one, and it did.

 

[Law-dog]

As I understand it, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that removing suppressors from the NFA didn't comply with the Byrd rule, which prevents provisions “extraneous” to the budget in reconciliation bills. Reconciliation bills only require a simple majority. Removing them from the NFA would have required 60 votes in the Senate, which wasn't going to happen.

"The House and Senate settled for reducing the NFA’s $200 excise tax to $0 on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons or AOWs."

You'll find more info here:

GOA to File “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Against NFA Registry as “One Big Beautiful Bill” Heads to President’s Desk - Gun.net

GOA to File “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Against NFA Registry as “One Big Beautiful Bill” Heads to President’s Desk FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 3, 2025 Washington, D.C. –Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), alongside our allies Palmetto State Armory (PSA), the Firearms...

gun.net

That was a brilliant plan to remove the tax basis for the restrictive law. Which now lets the NFA be attacked directly. Now they have to prove some prevailing government interest, such as a high use in crime, which does not happen.

$4,797.99​

---

The 3.55% inflation rate means $200 in 1934 is equivalent to $4,797.99 today. This inflation calculator uses the official US consumer price index published by the Department of Labor.

 

[Well Armed]

Your choice Gary. I've been shooting with hearing protection for 48 years, and prior to that was shooting for 10 without. My hearing is lousy, I hope yours is better. Keep in mind that for every 3 db difference the sound energy about doubles. Earplugs and muffs effectiveness is limited, and for industrial purposes actual reduction in noise is about half the db rating stated by manufacturers (i.e., 30 db reduction is effectively 15, due to various factors). The real answer is in engineering controls not personal protective equipment. Engineering controls consist of designed sound reduction equipment, in the case of firearms those are noise suppressors. The effective ban on suppressors (actual ban in the case of Washington State until a few years ago) is, IMO, a crime.

I'm with Grumpy Gary . I have no use for one either. I just want one because they don't want me to have one, and because it's rear and they don't want me to have one, there's some cool factor to them. I'm fine with foam earplugs coupled with earmuffs. There's no private land around me and I can't shoot in my backyard. I have to go to the range to shoot where I'm surrounded by several others who are shooting non suppressed, so a suppressor defeats the purpose for me at least.

 

[Law-dog]

Removing the tax is NOTHING
Ya still have to do finger prints/mug shots/background check/waiting period..........So basically when the amendment was gutted we really didn't accomplish much.

Wrong. The legal basis for every statute must be something that has a valid purpose. The tax power lets them regulate many things, including some items in the NFA. Without a fundamental basis, the law has no foundation, which is the brilliant move that just happened.

Now, there is a lawsuit filed in Amarillo Texas seeking to have that portion of the NFA held as unconstitutional. That judge will not grant any injunctions.

The lawsuit sues, ATF and the DOJ, the Ag defends the lawsuit. So, Pam Bondi, who Trump appointed to push second amendment rights and to shut down much of the ATF prosecutions for simple book keeping errors, is the head lawyer over these lawsuits.

A brilliant plan, set for a probably win for gun people. It is not small. The process will take months, but it is the biggest win on attacking the NFA in 90 years. As an attorney, I could not have predicted a better outcome.

Stand by, more is coming. You do realize this is a budget bill not a gun bill correct? They won this relief by a clever tactic. It a word, it was a brilliant move. The Dems are still in shock.

Just hold on, 6 months or so and all will be well.

 

[Law-dog]

I don't know where you go for dinner but at that price I would have to be starving for days without any other options available.

$4,797.99​

---

The 3.55% inflation rate means $200 in 1934 is equivalent to $4,797.99 today. This inflation calculator uses the official US consumer price index published by the Department of Labor.

 

[ladder13]

All that can be done and retained in the dealer/SOT’s files at the point of sale. The law requires FPs and a photo but doesn’t require they be sent to the ATF. That’s was merely an administrative or procedural rule that the ATF created.

FPs are forever anyway so only one copy of FPs should be required to be kept in ATF file, not new FP cards every time you buy a Class 3 toy. A new photo should only be required every 3 or 4 yrs.

DOGE should streamline all these rules and regulations into one simple process that can take place at the point of sale. More like a “normal” firearms purchase with the 4473, NCICs check, payment, and then you leave with the item.

Not to mention, since the “tax” is now “$0.00” there’s no stamp coming your way from ATF to evidence payment of the tax, and therefore that wait-time before you can enjoy your new toy has been eliminated.

A new photo is required after 12 months but some people have used the same one for years. Don’t think they are so diligent to check.
Sorry for the nitpick.