The House included a silencer tax cut and deregulation provision in its version of the reconciliation bill earlier this month.
The bill would repeal the $200 federal tax required for each silencer transaction and remove the sound-suppressing devices from the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) definition of “firearm.” That would mean those who buy them would no longer need to register their silencers with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or submit their picture and fingerprints to the agency–though they would still need to complete a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check under the Gun Control Act.
The bill has now moved to the Senate, where the strict rules governing reconciliation will determine whether the silencer provisions make it through to the end. The Reload spoke to half a dozen sources with knowledge of how the bill is shaping up and reached out to every Senate office to determine where things stand today.
Senate Republicans largely responded by backing both parts of the silencer provision. Senators Budd, Ricketts, Daines, Schmitt, Sullivan, Crapo, Lee, Cassidy, Moran, Sheehy, Tuberville, and Cornyn supported the tax cut and delisting. Many have previously backed silencer deregulation through legislation like the Hearing Protection Act, which has 34 Republican co-sponsors in the Senate.
More moderate Republican Senators, like Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, did not respond to our request for comment. Neither is a co-sponsor of the Hearing Protection Act.
Additionally, there was at least one Republican who said they were concerned about the delisting portion of the plan.
Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis expressed opposition to the idea. Her office said she is concerned delisting could lead to state-level problems for some silencer owners.
“Senator Lummis is supportive of reducing the suppressor tax to zero, but she’s not supportive of taking it out of the NFA because that makes it illegal in several states, including Colorado,” a staffer told The Reload.
The issue stems from NFA mirror laws. Many states have adopted provisions that regulate silencers, short-barrel firearms, machineguns, and other NFA items. Some of those state laws make it illegal to possess a silencer unless the owner has already registered it under the NFA, which may become impossible if the devices are removed from the NFA’s purview.
Knox Williams of the American Suppressor Association said his group is working to dissuade Senators of concerns over state laws. He argued that most states don’t have the kind of NFA mirror laws that present a problem for delisting, and those that do can be fixed through legislation or litigation. He said even the wording of Colorado’s state law, which requires silencer owners to have a federal license to legally possess them, is dubious and may not outlaw silencer ownership even if Congress delists the devices from the NFA.
Williams, other gun-rights activists, and Republican Senate staffers who spoke to The Reload remain confident the Republican caucus is broadly supportive of the silencer provisions overall. They expect both will make it into the legislative language when it drops as early as next week (although, a push to add short-barrel rifles and shotguns to the desliting effort seems less likely to succeed).
Plus, the Republicans who did speak to The Reload on the record were adamant that the silencer provisions were good policy.
“Removing suppressors from the NFA is a win for responsible gun owners. Suppressors protect hearing and make recreational shooting safer,” Nebraska Senator Pete Ricketts said. “This is a common-sense provision that respects both the Second Amendment and the safety of our communities.”
“I’m glad to see the House stand up for the Second Amendment rights of Americans and get rid of unnecessary red tape placed on law-abiding gun owners,” Senator Tuberville told The Reload. “For too long, unelected bureaucrats have been on a power trip by overregulating the use of legally-owned firearms and accessories. I was glad to see this included in the House’s version of reconciliation and hope it remains in the Senate’s version.”
None of the Senate Democrats have publicly supported the silencer provisions. The only Democrats who responded to our inquiry were Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Mark Warner. They slammed the idea in the starkest terms.
“The Republican tax plan being pushed through Congress not only cuts critical services Virginians rely on in order to give huge tax breaks to billionaires, but it also makes our communities less safe by weakening gun safety measures on silencers,” they said in a joint statement. “Part of the reason that these registration and ownership requirements exist is because silencers, like the one that was used in the Virginia Beach mass shooting, make it harder for law enforcement to locate and respond to an active shooter. Americans deserve to feel safe in their communities, and we will oppose this disastrous bill when it comes to the Senate floor.”
Senator Wyden went even further.
“Republicans are cutting taxes for murderers and gang members who buy gun silencers, but they’re leaving millions of poor kids behind,” he said in his own statement.
While other Democratic Senators didn’t respond to our inquiry, some made their positions clear during a Thursday press conference and floor speech. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy said they would push to have the provisions stripped from the bill.
“Parents don’t want silencers on their streets. Police don’t want silencers on their streets,” Schumer said on the Senate Floor. “The only ones who do? The gun lobby – and that’s exactly who this provision is written for.”
Schumer promised Democrats would object to the silencer language during reconciliation, arguing it violates the Byrd Rule because the goal is to remove the regulations on the devices rather than have an impact on the budget. Gun-rights activists argue the NFA is a tax law, and the regulations on silencers are merely there to enforce the tax, making the whole provision concerning silencers a budgetary measure.
The parliamentarian, who multiple sources said had not yet made a determination on the silencer provisions, will ultimately decide what stays and what goes.
Republican Senators decried Democrats’ rhetoric around the devices and the bill, including Senator Murphy’s false assertion that it would eliminate background checks on silencer purchasers. Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy specifically called out misconceptions around the devices.
“Anyone who thinks suppressors are movie ‘silencers’ clearly has never shot with one,” he told The Reload. “It’s great that the House included provisions to allow law-abiding citizens to protect their hearing and exercise their Constitutional Rights.”
Kansas Senator Jerry Moran argued that silencers are needed to protect lawful hunters and shooters.
“Hunters and recreational shooters rely on suppressors to help protect their hearing while using firearms,” he told The Reload. “I cosponsored the Hearing Protection Act, which modernizes the process for purchasing suppressors, ensuring that hunters, sportsmen, and recreational shooters can legally obtain noise suppressors to help make their sport safer without having to navigate bureaucratic red tape.”
Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt said delisting silencers was about removing unnecessary restrictions.
“I look forward to supporting this provision to ensure no burdensome taxes or unnecessary regulations infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners, “he told The Reload.
Ultimately, Texas Senator John Cornyn summed up the Republican consensus on the bill. He said the NFA’s tax and registration scheme on silencers was unconstitutional, and Congress needs to repeal it.
“Firearm silencers should not be subject to overregulation and unconstitutional taxes that hamstring Texans’ freedoms and pocketbooks,” he said in a statement. “I’m proud to see the House stand up for law-abiding gun owners, eliminate senseless red tape, and proudly defend our Second Amendment rights, and I will continue to fight for this as the Senate works to pass President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.”
The first draft of the Senate bill could come as early as Monday. However, it will take several weeks from there to get it through the budget reconciliation process and to a final vote.
Benjamin Owen contributed to this report.
