Petition Seeks to Remove Suppressors from NFA

By Woody published on in News

Cheaper Than Dirt! Chronicle readers should know about a petition on seeking to get suppressors removed from National Firearms Act regulation.

The Smith & Wesson M&P 22 with a Cascade Ti suppressor.

Removal of suppressors from NFA regulation might eliminate the $200 tax stamp requirement.

Ownership of suppressors is skyrocketing, despite a major regulatory hurdle — the National Firearms Act of 1934. This legislation regulates the ownership of the suppressors, with perhaps the most noxious aspect being that NFA-regulated accessories must have a $200 tax stamp per device.

The petition reads:

Removal of suppressors as an NFA regulated item would eliminate the $200 tax stamp, eliminate legality and travel issues between states, reduce hearing safety concerns related to discharging firearms, and would help people be courteous neighbors when discharging firearms.

American Suppressor Association

The American Suppressor Association is a trade group seeking to educate and inform the public about legal use of the devices.

The petitioners are aiming for 100,000 signatures by Aug. 5, 2014. At last view, there are 11,371 people who have signed the petition.

However, Cheaper Than Dirt! wants to advise our readers that if you sign this petition, your initials, city, and state may be publicly displayed on the petition page. Also, once you sign a petition, you cannot remove your signature.

Then there’s the whole OPSEC thing. Caveat subscriptor.

To learn more about suppressor use and ownership, contact the American Suppressor Association.

If suppressors were removed from National Firearms Act regulation, would you consider buying one? Let us hear your thoughts in the comment section.

Tags: , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (60)

  • Dave Keyston


    I would certainly purchase several for most of my guns. My hearing is already compromised, so I do not wish it to get worse.


  • Sean


    I would buy several of them for the varied calibers of weapons I own, rifles and pistols–and shotgun if they make ’em!


  • MaddMike


    With no tax or paperwork to fill out and wait on… YOU BET, I would get one tomorrow!,,






  • CherokeeScot


    Myself and so many of my older pals are about deaf. Probably from years and years of shooting. I dont even hunt but love target shooting. I cant imagine how many fewer people would be killed or injured is silencers were legalized. Probably between none and a half dozen maybe. Here is another problem: The shysters in the the hearing aid business should be shot. Average cost is around $8000.00. They are sold by non professionals. I looked up the source of these hearing aids in Asia. COST IS ABOUT SIX DOLLARS!! Tell me those ‘hearing aid crooks’ shouldnt be shot! So many people who need hearing aids and old people who spend their savings to be able to hear. My advice is go to a Sportsman’s type store. Buy a “Hunter’s ear” or something similar for $30.00. Its at least worth a try.


  • Dr Dave


    That surprises no one. The original NFA list included such weapons as sawed down shot guns to allow them to be hidden inside trench coats machine guns like the Thomson used at the time strictly by law enforcement military and the law UNabiding citizen etc. The silencer was added since many criminals would use one to create a stealthy “hit” on someone then hightail it off before anyone realized the shot was fired. The $200 at the time was a BIG deal it prevented the average hoodlum citizen from buying one coupled with the paperwork that requires a signature of a local law enforcement officer to get approval it worked quite fine for some time. Then the criminals realized that they didn’t want a stealthy kill they wanted the exact opposite they wanted a super loud shot to prevent anyone standing around from getting involved (as was illustrated in the restaurant scene in the original Godfather) so the silencer’s taxation is nothing more today then a way to fund the BATFE operations. Today you can completely avoid the sign off and the background check and shorten the wait time by atleast 50% if you so choose but you still need to fork over the $200. The BATFE can easily be comingled into the FBI as long as the funds that the BATFE gets goes along to the FBI to offset the added work load. I have a LOT of ATF buddies who are field types who like the FBI the DEA and the various state and local law enforcement agencies put their life on the line each and every day for our ability to walk around safer and more secure then without them. Sure the Admin part that crunches paperwork and applications can and should be automated but the underlying reason that so few silencers are sold is that MOST people don’t want the hassle so it is doing exactly what it was intended to do in 1934 unfortunately this is not 19 anything it is 2014 and we need “an adjustment” Silencers in todays day and age will save a LOT of hearing issues that the whole society is paying for with higher Medical expenses and higher premiums for that care insurance. I can tell you my ears are permanently screwed up as a result of shooting thousands of rounds with only muffs or plugs. (of course the Pink Floyd concerts in the 70’s and 80’s contributed) :) Dr Dave


  • Dave


    It’s not about the $200. It’s about the 1 solid year you have to wait, as of 2014, to get someone to rubber stamp an application form that sits there waiting for no good reason at all.

    And it’s about the fact that, according to the ATF web page itself, this is all about catching Al Capone. That’s right, Al Capone is still at large, apparently, and the ATF is bound and determined to get him. Look at the home page and read the sarcastic statement there about the real purpose, and tell me who in Congress is going to have the guts to shut this entire agency down.

    Go ahead, read the 2nd paragraph:

    Specifically, this gem:
    “its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms”

    That’s right, the reason they drag their feet for ONE SOLID YEAR and force you to pay $200 for no good reason at all, is that they hope it will CURTAIL IF NOT PROHIBIT you from buying one.

    How’s that for underhanded, cynical big brother behavior?


Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: