Update: Thanks to your support the Republican led house included and passed removing suppressors from the NFA. Now we need to do the same thing with our senators. This morning I called Senators Sheehy and Daines in Montana. Please urge them to include suppressors and SBRs in the senate bill.
This is a last minute article and Time Sensitive! On May 21st it is imperative you contact your legislators regarding removing suppressors and Short barreled rifles “SBR” from the National Firearms Act (NFA). Hopefully this article won’t be relevant past midnight on May 17th but if it is the battle will continue and the post is still relevant.
This is it. The moment we’ve been waiting for. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enact real, meaningful NFA reform, and it hangs in the balance tonight (May 21st 2025). We have until midnight to make our voices heard and ensure that the vital issues of removing suppressors and SBRs from the National Firearms Act are included in what is being called “Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill.” This is not hyperbole; key legislation like the Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act, which would achieve these crucial reforms, are currently being debated for inclusion in this reconciliation bill, and a compromise is being sought.
While some proposals are attempting to merely reduce the tax stamp, we must demand full removal from the NFA to truly free law-abiding gun owners from this archaic and burdensome regulation. Your immediate action is paramount: contact your legislators today and urge them to support the full inclusion of NFA reform for suppressors and SBRs. This is our chance to fundamentally shift the landscape of gun rights and ensure that our laws reflect modern realities, not outdated fears. Do not let this moment pass.
Need help contacting your legislator? We have a template below at the end of the article that you can copy paste. Need help finding your legislators contact info? Use google dude……it’s 2025.
Here is a template you can use, be sure to include your contact info as that helps them determine whether or not you are a voting threat in their district:
Dear [Recipient’s Name],
I urge you to consider removing short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA). These items are heavily regulated under laws that no longer reflect modern firearm technology, usage, or public safety needs.
SBRs functionally overlap with AR-style pistols, which are legal and unregulated under the NFA, rendering the distinction arbitrary and the regulation outdated. Similarly, suppressors are safety tools that reduce hearing damage and noise pollution but are treated as criminal instruments. Countries with far stricter gun laws allow suppressor ownership with minimal regulation for exactly these reasons.
The NFA’s cumbersome application process serves as a barrier to responsible ownership without deterring criminal misuse, as both SBRs and suppressors are rarely used in violent crime. Removing them from the NFA would reduce regulatory burden, support responsible gun ownership, and bring our laws in line with current realities and international norms.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
Why We should Remove Suppressors and SBR’s from the NFA
The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 stands as a relic of a bygone era, a piece of legislation born out of a desperate attempt to curb gang violence during Prohibition. While its initial targets included machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, its reach has since extended to encompass items like short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and suppressors – items that, in the 21st century, bear little resemblance to the dangerous instruments the NFA sought to control. It’s time to critically re-evaluate the NFA’s continued application to SBRs and suppressors, as their inclusion is arbitrary, inefficient, and ultimately undermines responsible gun ownership and public safety.
The NFA’s cumbersome regulatory framework for SBRs and suppressors is a bureaucratic labyrinth, imposing a lengthy application process, a $200 tax stamp for each item, and mandatory registration. This system was designed to make these items difficult and expensive to acquire, ostensibly to keep them out of the hands of criminals. However, in practice, it primarily serves as a barrier to law-abiding citizens, creating a chilling effect on responsible ownership without meaningfully deterring illicit use. Criminals, by definition, operate outside the law; they neither register their firearms nor pay taxes on them. The NFA, therefore, becomes a punishment for the compliant, not a deterrent for the malicious.
Let’s begin with the curious case of the short-barreled rifle. An SBR is defined by the NFA as a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length less than 26 inches. The rationale behind this classification was rooted in the perception that shorter rifles were more easily concealed and thus more dangerous. Yet, this distinction has been rendered functionally obsolete by the proliferation of AR-style pistols. These firearms, often virtually identical in form and function to SBRs, are legally classified as pistols because they lack a traditional rifle stock and are typically fired with a single hand (though many are equipped with stabilizing braces that allow for shoulder firing). The result is an absurd regulatory paradox: an AR-style pistol with an 11-inch barrel is largely unregulated under the NFA, while an AR-style rifle with the same 11-inch barrel is subject to stringent NFA controls.
This arbitrary distinction makes no sense from a public safety perspective. Both firearms possess similar ballistic capabilities, portability, and potential for use. The NFA’s regulation of SBRs, while ignoring their pistol counterparts, is a classic example of a law failing to keep pace with technological advancements and market realities. It forces law-abiding citizens to jump through expensive and time-consuming hoops for an item that is functionally indistinguishable from one that can be purchased over the counter with minimal paperwork. Removing SBRs from the NFA would simply acknowledge this reality, leveling the playing field and reducing an unnecessary regulatory burden without compromising public safety.
Then there are suppressors, often pejoratively labeled “silencers,” a term that conjures images of assassins and covert operations. This perception, largely fueled by Hollywood, is a gross misrepresentation of their true purpose and function. A suppressor, more accurately called a sound moderator, does not silence a firearm; it merely reduces the sound signature, typically to levels still above the threshold of pain but below those that cause immediate and permanent hearing damage. They are, in essence, hearing protection devices.
The NFA’s treatment of suppressors as inherently dangerous instruments is particularly baffling when viewed through the lens of public health and safety. Recreational shooting, hunting, and even professional training can expose individuals to dangerously high decibel levels, leading to cumulative and irreversible hearing loss. Suppressors mitigate this risk, making shooting sports safer and more accessible. Furthermore, they reduce noise pollution, a benefit for communities near shooting ranges or for hunters in rural areas.
Consider the international perspective. Many countries with far stricter gun control laws than the United States, including nations in Europe, regulate suppressors with minimal fuss or even encourage their use. In places like France, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, suppressors are often treated as common firearm accessories, available for purchase without the prohibitive NFA framework. Their rationale is simple: suppressors are safety devices that protect hearing and reduce environmental noise. The notion that they are primarily tools of crime is largely a uniquely American misconception, perpetuated by outdated legislation and sensationalized media portrayals.
The argument that removing suppressors from the NFA would lead to a surge in violent crime is unsupported by evidence. Suppressors are exceedingly rare in criminal activity, (but not entirely absent). The vast majority of violent crimes involving firearms are committed with unsuppressed weapons. Criminals, focused on immediate gain and avoiding detection, are unlikely to bother with the expense, paperwork, and waiting periods associated with NFA-regulated suppressors. Their illicit activities do not hinge on minimizing muzzle blast. Treating suppressors as criminal instruments rather than safety tools is a dangerous fallacy that harms responsible gun owners and ignores genuine public safety concerns.
Beyond the practical absurdities, the NFA’s application to SBRs and suppressors represents a significant infringement on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Its core purpose is to ensure the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes. The NFA’s burdensome regulations on SBRs and suppressors impose a substantial obstacle to exercising this right, turning commonplace accessories and functionally equivalent firearms into objects of suspicion and excessive government oversight.
The NFA’s rationale for these regulations is rooted in a historical context that no longer applies. In the 1930s, the concern was largely about readily concealable firearms wielded by organized crime. Today, the landscape of firearms technology and usage is vastly different. Modern firearm designs have blurred the lines between pistol and rifle, and the understanding of sound suppression has evolved. Clinging to outdated laws based on antiquated perceptions does a disservice to both responsible gun owners and the pursuit of effective public safety measures.
The continued regulation of SBRs and suppressors under the NFA creates an unnecessary drain on government resources. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) expends considerable time and effort processing NFA applications, conducting background checks, and maintaining records for items that pose no inherent threat to public safety. Deregulating these items would free up valuable resources that could be redirected towards combating genuine criminal activity, rather than processing paperwork for law-abiding citizens.
Removing SBRs and suppressors from the NFA is not a radical proposal; it is a common-sense reform that aligns our laws with modern realities, international norms, and the principles of responsible governance. It would eliminate an arbitrary distinction between functionally identical firearms, recognize suppressors for what they truly are – safety devices – and alleviate an undue regulatory burden on law-abiding citizens. This reform would foster responsible gun ownership, promote hearing health, reduce noise pollution, and allow law enforcement agencies to focus their efforts on actual threats.
The time for clinging to outdated and ineffective regulations is over. It is time to modernize the NFA, to remove SBRs and suppressors from its purview, and to embrace a regulatory framework that is based on facts, not fear, and that genuinely serves the interests of public safety and individual liberty. By doing so, we can move towards a more rational and effective approach to firearm regulation in the United States.
Ready to help convince our weak kneed lawmakers to remove them? Contact your legislator ASAP and request they support removing them today!
PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE OR SIMILAR ONES ON SOCIALS!
Discover more from BlackSheepWarrior.Com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
