Silencer Central Lobbying Against Removing Suppressors from NFA?

[brocksw]

I was involved in discussions where multiple conservation organizations were lobbying to get suppressor tax stamp money to go to conservation instead of the general fund. This was back in late 2023/early 2024. Which matches the timeline of that document. I was not directly involved in discussions with SC, but I know for a fact there was an effort to redirect tax stamp money to conservation, annd SC was involved in those discussions with conservation groups, along with reducing wait times.

SC has come out to be corporate sponsors for many of the orgs that were involved in the effort to redirect that money.

 

[gbflyer]

Tax away. Just end the rest of the procedure and sell them on a 4473 just like any firearm.

 

[BigDuckHunter]

Man if only we could be this critical when we vote

Unfortunately it’s not really possible to be. It’s either “vote for the guy who’s not super anti-gun” or “vote for the guy who is super anti-gun”.

I’ve had a couple conversations with Republican legislators from my state and they’re always “yes we support the 2nd amendment” but they pretty much steer clear of any pro-2A legislation. Meanwhile the person they’re running against wants to ban coyote hunting and keep me from owning a handgun. It’s kind of a lesser of two evils vote. Which I hate, but it is what it is.

 

[sz28]

It would be a lot more difficult to make money off of a YouTube video reporting about this more likely reason the lobbyist checks were cut.

Silencer Central Supports Bill to Redirect Tax Stamp Revenue for Conservation - Dallas Safari Club

Silencer Central, America’s largest silencer dealer, has rallied behind a groundbreaking bill introduced in Congress on November 9, 2023, which aims to redirect tax stamp revenue from the sale of suppressors to vital conservation efforts and expedite the processing of applications. “The Tax...

www.biggame.org

 

[DisplacedHusky]

That would be pressure you put on AB to have capitol Armory carry their cans. Same pressure to UM.

Email already sent.

 

[7RemMag]

It’s kind of a lesser of two evils vote. Which I hate, but it is what it is.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but why don’t the people of this country collectively demand better from our politicians, rather than settling and voting for “the lesser of two evils”? Why not instead of saying “Well, at least ____ is better than ______” we say “You’re both A-holes and we’re not voting for either of you”…

I suppose the time and place for that has come and gone, but I like to think had it been done a couple decades ago we’d be in a better position as a nation.

 

[JF_Idaho]

@sz28

If you watched the linked video he talks about all that.

The problem is they are STILL lobbying for that, which serves their interests and profits as well as doing some good for conservation. The money comes out of the government and goes to conservation and they keep their record profits. This is NOT a Pro 2nd Amendment stance.

Why wasn't their response "We here at Silencer Central prior to the introduction of this current legislation were focused on money from NFA tax going to conservation. In light of the introduction of this we 100% support The Hearing Protection Act in its entirety and will put our backing behind the passing of this legislation"?

Instead they had a weak response. Why?

 

[Marbles]

"Develop and support tax stamp conservation legislation," what exactly are you guys implying those words mean. Are you saying they lobbied to pass a law that said "suppressors really, really should stay on the NFA." Or was it broader, legislation more like "the NFA should never, ever be removed." After all, it had to be developed, and had to be legislation, neither of those describe opposition to legislation.

I mean I've never done business with them, I have no affinity for them, but this strikes me as rabid mob reasoning.

They explicitly say they support the enactment of the HPA, yet that gets interpreted as them not explicitly stating they support removal of suppressors from the NFA, but that is exactly what the HPA does.

@sz28

If you watched the linked video he talks about all that.

The problem is they are STILL lobbying for that, which serves their interests and profits as well as doing some good for conservation. The money comes out of the government and goes to conservation and they keep their record profits. This is NOT a Pro 2nd Amendment stance.

Why wasn't their response "We here at Silencer Central prior to the introduction of this current legislation were focused on money from NFA tax going to conservation. In light of the introduction of this we 100% support The Hearing Protection Act in its entirety and will put our backing behind the passing of this legislation"?

Instead they had a weak response. Why?

Are suppressors the only thing that is taxed? Should we say we don't care what is done with tax stamp money from SBRs and such?

I think mufflers should be removed from the NFA, hence I support the HPA. However, I would still like to see the remaining NFA tax that would still be collected be used for something like conservation.

If I understand the logic you express, as doing the above is "NOT a Pro 2nd Amendment stance" let me say that the HPA is NOT a Pro 2nd Amendment stance as it leaves the NFA in effect, supporting anything other than the complete repeal of the NFA is an anti-gun stance.

 

[sz28]

@sz28

If you watched the linked video he talks about all that.

The problem is they are STILL lobbying for that, which serves their interests and profits as well as doing some good for conservation. The money comes out of the government and goes to conservation and they keep their record profits. This is NOT a Pro 2nd Amendment stance.

Why wasn't their response "We here at Silencer Central prior to the introduction of this current legislation were focused on money from NFA tax going to conservation. In light of the introduction of this we 100% support The Hearing Protection Act in its entirety and will put our backing behind the passing of this legislation"?

Instead they had a weak response. Why?

I can't explain their response. I definitely see how it could be seen as a weak stance. I'm guessing they were probably a bit confused as to what was happening with how fast the mob moves on social media. Supporting the "DOGE the ATF" movement seems pretty inline with a pro 2a stance.

 

[z987k]

The reduction of the tax from $200 to $0 is honestly, who cares. It's the registry, the process and the insane penalty.
So now instead of going to federal prison for 10 years for not paying the government $200, you'll go to prison for 10 years not paying $0? How on earth does that make sense?
Parking tickets are more money, but you don't get a felony and 10 years.

 

[def90]

Nothing new. US gun and ammo manufacturers have always been behind import bans and anything else that they see as a threat to doing business.

 

[JF_Idaho]

@Marbles

A lot of what you say is fair. Although, the HPA does remove supressors from the NFA. There is also rumor, as in the above video that they are lobbying to have that removed. It's not the receipts alone, it's when you start adding all the circumstantial evidence together it starts to paint a picture. As said previously, the other big names signed on with the GOA in full support of HPA. People are smelling smoke.....

Edit:

Sorry, I now see what you meant about the NFA in relation to 2nd amendment stance, and you understand HPA. Took a second. That's a little bit of a leap. Not that I disagree with your premise, but your essentially saying the same as if I said "Their lobbying for ATF money, but not the rest of gov money is not a 'pro-conservation' stance".

Edit: Also, if you notice the verbiage in the lobbying declaration above, which you mis-quoted, to your point.

"Develop and support supressor tax stamp conservation legislation"

It does not say "support NFA tax stamp conservation legislation".

 

[Macintosh]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but why don’t the people of this country collectively demand better from our politicians, rather than settling and voting for “the lesser of two evils”? Why not instead of saying “Well, at least ____ is better than ______” we say “You’re both A-holes and we’re not voting for either of you”…

I suppose the time and place for that has come and gone, but I like to think had it been done a couple decades ago we’d be in a better position as a nation.

yes. But, to be fair, TONS of people are already doing that, the evidence for that being that even the most contentious national elections are struggling to get much more than 50% voter turnout, so its up to the wackjobs on both ends of the political spectrum that are frothing at the mouth from the primaries, to decide our politics. Bottom line, if you dont vote, you are allowing someone else to decide for you. Unfortunately not voting for either clown is clearly not a solution. We still need to pinch our noses and vote, AND clearly tell the politicians and the parties where we do support them, and where we dont support them. The issue as I see it is the parties deciding on these bundled "platforms" that include a laundry list of topics and you get to decide if you want the entire list, or the other guys entire list, but there is zero opportunity to support selected elements from both lists. Until we can shift the convo to which parts of the list we support and which we want to see change, this will not change.

 

[WCB]

I know one thing...the "pro-2A" crowd jumps to conclusions A LOT and is wrong A LOT on some of these company or product line accusations. Remember when all the gun and ammo companies were sending product off in black helos, or dumping it into the ocean? I do because I dealt with those idiots that believed that b.s.

Now SC's exact stance I am not 100% positive on and at least one of the payments seems easy to explain away with tax money perhaps going to conservation. I bought one suppressor from them and everything went perfect no issues, but I have zero loyalty to them or really any company I buy product from. If any of those companies take a stance against my beliefs I simply don't purchase from them anymore. But I am also an adult and don't have to rant and rave like a 2 year old. Send a letter/email and back your stance. But my lord people take a breath. Most the guys saying they will never buy from SC wouldn't have bought from them anyways.

 

[maxx075]

Met a couple of their reps at the Expo last year - seemed like complete slimeballs, so not surprising.

 

[TxLite]

this strikes me as rabid mob reasoning.

Exactly. A lot of speculation, jumping to conclusions, and sensationalism going on here. I’ve never purchased anything from them either, and have no qualms with ending support for companies that actively betray the 2a community (there are several).

But I still haven’t seen anything that definitively shows that’s what SC is doing here.

 

[BigDuckHunter]

Exactly. A lot of speculation, jumping to conclusions, and sensationalism going on here. I’ve never purchased anything from them either, and have no qualms with ending support for companies that actively betray the 2a community (there are several).

But I still haven’t seen anything that definitively shows that’s what SC is doing here.

Yes definitely a lot of speculation based on circumstantial evidence.

I do find their response (or lack there of) pretty incriminating though. If I was in charge of a business and my name was being dragged through the mud for something that was false, I’d be putting out posts on every social media website and forum with proof of what I was actually doing with those lobbying dollars. And I’d be doing that within minutes. The fact that they have yet to explain anything points to there being at least some truth to what folks have been saying.

Edited to add that I’ll be very happy to support them and encourage others to do the same if they provide proof that they have been lobbying for the removal of suppressors from the NFA.

 

[doc holiday13]

i can see how SC would lobby to keep the NFA intack. You can sit on money for long periods of time and gain interest revenue or investment without actually having to deliver a product

However I would think they would want to remove the NFA so that they could move inventory faster and not have to have so much storage space

 

[TxLite]

Yes definitely a lot of speculation based on circumstantial evidence.

I do find their response (or lack there of) pretty incriminating though. If I was in charge of a business and my name was being dragged through the mud for something that was false, I’d be putting out posts on every social media website and forum with proof of what I was actually doing with those lobbying dollars. And I’d be doing that within minutes. The fact that they have yet to explain anything points to there being at least some truth to what folks have been saying.

Edited to add that I’ll be very happy to support them and encourage others to do the same if they provide proof that they have been lobbying for the removal of suppressors from the NFA.

Agreed. It would be a good time for them to make a public statement to clearly state their position if they want to save their brand

 

[Ucsdryder]

i can see how SC would lobby to keep the NFA intack. You can sit on money for long periods of time and gain interest revenue or investment without actually having to deliver a product

However I would think they would want to remove the NFA so that they could move inventory faster and not have to have so much storage space

Who knows but I think it could be argued that if the barriers to ownership were removed, SC would be done. Everyone would just go into their local cabelas, bass pro, scheels, or LGS and grab a suppressor.