Silencer Central Lobbying Against Removing Suppressors from NFA?

[thinhorn_AK]

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.

Exactly. I don't believe that any of these companies really want to see the barriers to ownership disappear. They can all say they are against it because they know that the government is never going to agree to lose the money they gain through tax stamps. They can state their stance and sleep well knowing that its never going to actually happen.

just politics.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Exactly. I don't believe that any of these companies really want to see the barriers to ownership disappear. They can all say they are against it because they know that the government is never going to agree to lose the money they gain through tax stamps. They can state their stance and sleep well knowing that its never going to actually happen.

just politics.

It seems like it is hard to get the government to change when revenue is lost. I’d gladly pay the 200 dollar fee so the government gets there’s, assuming you could purchase them either over the counter or similar to firearms with a standard background check.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

It seems like it is hard to get the government to change when revenue is lost. I’d gladly pay the 200 dollar fee so the government gets there’s, assuming you could purchase them either over the counter or similar to firearms with a standard background check.

It would definitely be better that way but still ridiculous that we have to pay 200 dollars in tax for a metal tube.

 

[doc holiday13]

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.

I wouldn't say they're done but investment. They could still have the bulk buying and hand off savings to consumer

 

[Reburn]

Most the guys saying they will never buy from SC wouldn't have bought from them anyways.

To be fair. Why buy from them when there are other companies that dont have suspect intentions?

Its not like they are a perfect company but for this one thing.
There are pages and pages of people that have had bad experiences with SC products and buying process.

 

[JF_Idaho]

Just to add more information:



Also to note: Silencer Central left the ASA (American Supressor Association) roughly around the same time they started their big support push for the HPA.

In contrast Silencer Shop has thrown in around 1 Million in support.

 

[sz28]

Just to add more information:

View attachment 880751

Also to note: Silencer Central left the ASA (American Supressor Association) roughly around the same time they started their big support push for the HPA.

In contrast Silencer Shop has thrown in around 1 Million in support.

"Also to note: Silencer Central left the ASA (American Supressor Association) roughly around the same time they started their big support push for the HPA."

Has anyone been able to find anything proving this? I can't seem to find anything other than social media posts regurgitating it. I can't find anything referencing that they were even a member.

 

[IDVortex]

"Also to note: Silencer Central left the ASA (American Supressor Association) roughly around the same time they started their big support push for the HPA."

Has anyone been able to find anything proving this? I can't seem to find anything other than social media posts regurgitating it. I can't find anything referencing that they were even a member.

I've always been under the impression they never were a member? I'll have to do some research on that.

 

[sz28]

I've always been under the impression they never were a member? I'll have to do some research on that.

So far all I've found is a dead link unfortunately

 

[Gila]

I suspected this was going on. Directing the tax to fund “conservation”. Pulling suppressors from the NFA will spark competition, push innovation and lower prices. But fortunately Republicans aren’t buying that tax re-directing BS. Right now the current state of the reconciliation bill is zero tax. NRA and other gun rights organizations are pushing the Congressional Sportmen’s Caucus to get a provision in the bill to remove suppressors from the NFA altogether. Link to CSC:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.congressionalsportsmen.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/27205926/CSC-Roster.pdf

 

[RockAndSage]

Couple of things:

1) More than 1 thing can be true at the same time - they may very well have been trying to get tax-stamp funding redirected to wildlife conservation, while also lobbying against removal of suppressors from NFA. It does not have to be binary. It could also be argued that getting that funding directed to conservation would make it even less likely to get suppressors removed from NFA, as far fewer hunters use suppressors than those who go unsuppressed, and the non-suppressed constituency would largely not want those "conservation dollars" taken away.

2) Regarding NFA status vs reducing taxes - taxing the right to self-defense and to protect one's body (hearing) in the process is no more constitutional than taxing free-speech or voting.

 

[wapitibob]

from another site

"Contacted them and talk about non answers. Got a rep, said they support a 0 dollar tax stamp but when asked if the company still supported the NFA I was told if I wasn't going to buy he couldn't help me. I asked who I could talk to and he ended the chat. Went back on and got hung up on again. So I assume the rumors are true."

SC doesn't seem to be concerned.

 

[Marbles]

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".

Thanks for the correction. However, there are not distinctions in tax stamps based on what the NFA item is, so there is no way to separate out suppressor vs SBR stamp revenue and the terms are effectively the same. As a company that deals with suppressors, it all strikes me as lazy wording on their part, not a nefarious attempt to misidentify what is being done.

MagPul, the Mule Deer Foundation, and National Shooting Sports Foundation have all hired the same lobbyist at Natural Resource Results LLC (Mitch Butler). The Boon and Crocket Club and other such organizations has hired the same company (but not the same lobbyist). Natural Resources Results LLC strikes me as a focusing on conservation in the typical use of that word.

But, hey, let there be blood. Can we go after the NSSF next? They employ their own lobbyists to the tune of nearly 7 million, yet they still gave money to the guy working with Silencer Central to keep mufflers on the NFA. Circumstantially, that looks pretty bad.

 

[JF_Idaho]

@Marbles

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was calling you out for misrepresenting. I know you weren't.

No argument conservation is a noble cause. Just not at the expense of the HPA, or on that note, a complete repeal of the NFA.

While supressors are tied to all NFA tax stamps at the moment, there is no confirmation on what "legislation" they were pushing for. So that could easily mean only pushing for supressor tax stamp money.

 

[JF_Idaho]

Silencer Central’s Suppressor Lobbying Sparks Controversy Over NFA Deregulation Stance

A bombshell controversy is shaking the suppressor industry. Lobbying disclosures show Silencer Central funded efforts tied to “suppressor tax stamp conservation,” raising serious questions about whether the company quietly supports keeping silencers under the NFA.

www.ammoland.com

 

[AkMtnRunner]

I am not a fan of directing funds collected by illegitimate means to a good purpose. Once that is accepted, the crime must continue for that good cause. Makes no sense, unless it’s good for your business.

I’d rather they shove my $200 up their arses.

 

[Kurts86]

Mean Girls 2: Gun Company Edition

We were besties until we suspected one of our peers maybe, possibly, sorta failed the ideological purity test. Now they are banished to the table with Liberty, Springfield Armory and Bill Ruger’s Ghost.

 

[displacedtexan]

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.

That's my position, and people on both sides don't like it.

 

[7RemMag]

That's my position, and people on both sides don't like it.

They sure do get testy when you point out the hypocrisy on both sides.

 

[idahodave]

Not voting doesn’t make you clever. Hold your nose if you must, but exercise your right for chit sake.

I have a buddy that likes to badmouth both sides and doesn’t vote because of his “disapproval” of the candidates. He sounds like a petulant child honestly.

Then again you never have to be “wrong” when you don’t pick a side. That sense of moral superiority must feel like a pretty warm blanket considering how many people lay under it.