Based on firearm suppressor ownership in the United States and the number of bills to deregulate them, it’s clear that easing restrictions on firearm suppressors is popular with conservative legislators and their constituents. Which makes the position Silencer Central—a company specializing in selling suppressors—staked out on the recent vote to remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act a baffling one.
With the House passage of Donald Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill, restrictions on purchasing suppressors were to be lifted. Silencer Central’s lobbying records and public statements indicate that was not what they hoped would happen. The company found itself on the same side of the suppressor debate as anti-gun groups. Is it a good business decision to intentionally lobby against bills that your clients are almost guaranteed to support?
That is what Silencer Central did. In 2024, it spent $50,000 on lobbying to oppose legislation to ease suppressor regulations.
Aligning with anti-gun organizations is extremely risky for a company operating in the gun-control environment. Gun owners don’t tend to take kindly to perceived betrayals, and most supporters see easing suppressor regulations as not only logical but profitable. Why would a company selling suppressors to the public choose to alienate its customers and its potential future customers by falling in with groups hostile to the right to keep and bear arms? Is it some weird marketing bid? Is it politics? If you ask Silencer Central, it’s about backing a winning horse.
In a recent email, Silencer Central said it supports “any viable legislative proposal which would enhance or expand our customers to purchase, possess and legally use suppressors.”
The email also claims it is not lobbying against the Hearing Protection Act. However, considering there’s evidence of at least a $50,000 commitment on their part to “develop and support suppressor tax stamp conservation legislation,” it seems clear it is supporting anti-suppressor freedom legislation somewhere.
The questions now are: Which specific suppressor freedom bills are they fighting to kill? Will the gun-buying public let their anti-Second Amendment position go, or has Silencer Central signed its own proverbial death warrant? And why would a company take such a seemingly risky path?
Some might speculate that it’s a move designed to generate additional revenue for such a company as compensation for helping to streamline the National Firearms Act. In the same vein, it may also be intended to maintain high regulatory barriers, preventing competition from entering the marketplace and reducing the market share of such a company.
There has been a dramatic increase in the acceptance of silencers lately. In a relatively rapid evolution of public perception, suppressors have gone from exotic to almost expected safety items. Evidence of this growing acceptance is that legislators at the federal level are willing to put their names on legislation to ease or even remove the restrictions on silencers. The SHUSH Act, Hearing Protection Act, and Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill all make it easier for the public to access suppressors.
And these aren’t fringe efforts. They’re signs that suppressors have entered the “common use” category and are generally considered normal firearm accessories. Politicians are usually unwilling to stick their necks out for niche issues. The fact that suppressor deregulation has made it into multiple bills says a lot about which way the Overton window has shifted.
Despite regulations, sound suppressors have exploded in popularity since the mid-2010s. There are 4.9 million suppressors in the hands of American civilians. This rapid rise in ownership has been driven by a growing awareness of the benefits to shooting suppressed, a cultural normalization, and legislative momentum.
Why is a product with so much support so tightly regulated?
It goes back to the years after the Great Depression, when the United States was reeling from the unintended consequences of Prohibition. The prohibition on the commercial manufacture and sale of alcohol led to the rise of organized crime and the illicit sale of illegal alcohol. This underground commerce was highly profitable, and the abundance of money to be made in the illegal trade of alcohol inevitably led to competition between gangs, who engaged in violence to protect their revenue.
A few high-profile incidents, such as the Valentine’s Day massacre, enflamed passions and provided politicians an opportunity that would eventually give rise to one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation in American history, the 1934 National Firearms Act.
This bill required registration and a $200 tax to own any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, machine gun, silencer, destructive device, or any other weapon. Each of these items was targeted for specific, often dubious, reasons.
The first silencer was patented by Hiram Maxim, the famous designer of the Maxim machine gun, in 1909. “Silencer” was chosen specifically as a marketing term, not a technical descriptor. Firearm silencers do not, in fact, silence a gunshot; they only muffle the sound. The marketing against firearms in this dangerous era, including against silencers, took on a life of its own.
And it worked. Fears that mobsters would carry out quiet, undetectable murders led Congress to include a ban on silencers in the NFA. The logic was flawed then and remains flawed today.
Thankfully, the tide appears to be shifting back toward common sense. On May 22, the House of Representatives passed a version ofTrump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which included the complete removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act. Under this bill, suppressors are treated like any other firearm, which will ultimately streamline the purchasing process, reduce bureaucracy, increase civilian use, and create manufacturing jobs.
Silencer Central, in the meantime, is left to see the error of its ways when it tried to play politics against the interests of its own business model—and its own customers.
This article first appeared in DC Journal, and InsideSources publication, on June 18, 2025.
Silencer Central’s Response (hours later)
“Good morning,
I’m writing with regard to your digital media specialist, Brandon Williamson, and the article he penned for InsideSources/DC Journal (https://dcjournal.com/when-the-suppressor-industry-shoots-itself-in-the-foot/). Considering he is employed by a research center, we are disappointed that he is apparently unfamiliar with the concept. He failed to conduct any research or reach out to our company before launching an attack in his article against Silencer Central, repeating allegations that are patently false and have been proven so for weeks.
Regarding specifically, “The email also claims it is not lobbying against the Hearing Protection Act. However, considering there’s evidence of at least a $50,000 commitment on their part to “develop and support suppressor tax stamp conservation legislation,” it seems clear it is supporting anti-suppressor freedom legislation somewhere.” Had the author, your digital media specialist, actually done any research, he would have found payments had to do with a 2023-2024 effort to divert tax stamp dollars to wildlife conservation and range building efforts, the same way a portion of taxes from firearm and ammunition purchases are used. That legislation, and the payments, pre-date any Hearing Protection Act efforts.
Resources from our own site, publicly available:
https://www.silencercentral.com/blog/tax-stamp-revenue-transfer/
From the legislation’s author:
https://blakemoore.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-blake-moore-introduces-legislation-allocate-atf-tax-supportWords matter, dates matter, we hope this article is not reflective of the research done by your organization.
Joe Kurtenbach
Senior Manager, Media & Relationships”
CRC’s Response to Silencer Central’s Response
What Silencer Central seems to miss is that for suppressor owners, Second Amendment activists, and the gun community at large; it doesn’t matter where the money from the tax stamps goes. The issue is with suppressors being included in the NFA at all. Supporting legislation that only transfers revenue generated from a suppressor tax stamp will be seen by a sizeable portion of the gun community as tacit support for the NFA itself.
A post on the Silencer Central website regarding suppressor legislative efforts is here: brief run-down of the ‘Hearing Protection Act” and its status. In that piece, Silencer Central offers that they are “hopeful and encouraged by this progress” and “Silencer Central is a supporter of the HPA concept. We also would seek dissolvement of the $200 tax [although] we realize the Federal Government never likes to give up a tax. Customer demand for silencers would increase exponentially, which is [sic] would be a huge win for the 2nd Amendment Community.”
While these sentiments are shared by most gun owners, other aspects of Silencer Central’s website may raise questions in the minds of gun owners. A big question is “Why the vocal support of a milquetoast tax allocation bill but not the same vocal support for the HPA or SHORT act?” To quote Silencer Central’s Joe Kurtenbach, “words matter.” Indeed, they do. Unfortunately, discourse online (here, here, here, and here, for example) seems to indicate the gun community feels Silencer Central’s words are empty.
In the interest of transparency and information access, you can find Silencer Central’s lobbying disclosures here.
