Congress Just Took the First Step Towards Suppressor Deregulation

Congress passed–and the president approved–the elimination of the $200 tax stamp on suppressors, rifles with barrels less than 16 inches, shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches, and “any other weapon,” a category of restricted firearms that does not easily fit in the other two categories. The tax remains on machine guns and destructive devices regulated under the National Firearms Act.

Gun rights groups praised the move as a big step towards deregulating suppressors and treating them as any other firearm accessory.

“When President Trump signs the One Big Beautiful Bill–which will eliminate the excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs–he will have delivered the biggest blow to the National Firearms Act since its passage nearly a century ago,” the American Suppressor Association, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation said in a joint statement.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) was passed by Congress in 1934 and was designed to restrict access to firearms and accessories ostensibly used by gangs.

Gun rights advocates have been working for decades to repeal or de-fang the NFA, especially for suppressors, which can be purchased off the shelf in many other countries. The Hearing Protection Act (HPA) was introduced in 2015 and would have made purchasing a suppressor as simple as purchasing a firearm.

That legislation failed to gain traction until, as we reported in May, a portion of the Hearing Protection Act was added to the budget reconciliation bill. This section would have removed suppressors and short-barreled firearms from the NFA, and it passed the U.S. House. But while the Senate parliamentarian nixed that provision as failing to comply with reconciliation rules, she allowed the tax reduction to remain.

As a result, those registering a suppressor or a short-barreled firearm after January 1, 2026, will no longer be required to fork over that extra $200. They will still be required to go through the usual process of submitting forms, fingerprints, and passing a background check, but they will no longer have the added burden of sending more money to the government.

Brandon Maddox, founder and CEO of Silencer Central, told us that eliminating that $200 tax burden will definitely result in increased demand for gun mufflers.

“When we run sales, we typically see a threefold increase. With the tax stamp going away, you’ll see a big uptake,” Maddox said.

Maddox is concerned that the seven-month gap between when the law was signed and when it takes effect will cause would-be buyers to stay on the sidelines until January 1. Then, the pent-up demand will skyrocket and could make it difficult for some manufacturers to keep up.

“Most of us are not as busy right now because everyone’s on the sidelines waiting for that tax stamp to go away. It’s hard to have a lot of resources to invest in to get ready for it,” he said. “What I’m hearing is, most people are struggling to sell anything, so they’re not going to have a ton of money to go invest in making three times the product to have sitting on the shelf. The theory is, there could be some scarcity when the law goes through.”

It’s possible the Department of Justice will step in and make some kind of special provision to eliminate that tax between now and January.

“They’re looking into it to see if they can legally do that,” Maddox said. “That shows me that folks in the White House are looking after the consumer, which is perfect.”

But if they don’t, and there’s a specific suppressor you want between now and the first half of next year, it might be worth ponying up the $200 to get what you need in a timely manner.

Eliminating the tax is a step towards deregulation, but gun rights advocates have their sights set on a bigger prize. One day before President Trump signed the budget bill, a coalition of Second Amendment groups and gunmakers filed a federal lawsuit to eliminate the NFA entirely.

“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dismantle one of the most abusive federal gun control laws on the books,” said Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America (GOA), in a press release announcing the suit. “With the tax struck down by Congress, the rest of the NFA is standing on air. We’re ready to take this fight to the courts and finally end the federal registry once and for all.”

The suit argues that when Congress took the tax from $200 to $0, they eliminated the constitutional justification for the rest of the regulations on suppressors and SBRs. In 1937, the Supreme Court ruled that the NFA was constitutional under Congress’s Article I power to tax. Without a tax on those items, the lawsuit claims, Congress has no authority to impose restrictions that verify the tax has been paid.

The case in question, Sonzinsky v. United States, was about the NFA tax on the firearm dealer, not the consumer. But GOA lawyers argue that the same principles should apply.

And they’re not the only ones filing a lawsuit. The NRA has joined with the American Suppressor Association, the Firearms Policy, and the Second Amendment Foundation to file a separate suit along the same lines.

“The unconstitutional registration requirement for the items—which has historically been justified as necessary to prove that the tax had been paid—remains intact. The NRA and its allies will aim to eliminate this registration scheme in their new lawsuit, while continuing to fight for legislation dismantling the NFA entirely,” the NRA said in a statement.

Maddox supports these lawsuits even though, if they’re successful, consumers will no longer need one of Silencer Central’s main services: making the purchasing process easier and more convenient.

“We’re fine with that. We’d lean into the product,” he said, referring to Silencer Central’s line of suppressors. “I’m optimistic about the lawsuit. I think it makes sense, and I can’t really see a downside.”

Maddox does hope gun rights groups continue to pursue both the legal challenges and the Hearing Protection Act. One of the benefits of the HPA is that it includes a preemption clause that nullifies state laws that impose taxes or registration requirements to own a suppressor. But winning a lawsuit would bring no such projections.

“If this case wins tomorrow, then there are quite a few states where suppressors would be unlawful,” Maddox said.

That’s because, according to Maddox, about 16 states have laws on the books that make owning a suppressor illegal if it is not purchased under the NFA. If the courts strike down the NFA, states will have to pass legislation legalizing suppressors under the new regulatory structure. The problem is, that process could take years, and some states might decide not to do so.

“Some of the blue states are saying, if the NFA goes away, then we’ll make them illegal here. It’s another part of the equation that people will have to work on,” Maddox said.

The good news–or the bad news, depending on your perspective–is that these lawsuits will likely take years to work their way through the court system. In the meantime, states can decide how they want to approach suppressor ownership in light of the NFA’s demise.