Careful What You Wish For

With the House passing the Budget Reconciliation bill, HR1 (One Big Beautiful Bill), with the included amendment to strike Suppressors from the NFA, gun rights activists are cheering. But this move may have unintended consequences.

Suppressors are a lightning rod in the American gun debate. To some, they’re harmless accessories—tools for protecting hearing and reducing noise. To others, they’re nefarious devices fit only for Hollywood villains. But one of the most confusing aspects of suppressor regulation is their legal classification.

Here’s the question: Are suppressors actually firearms?

Suppressors Under Federal Law

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the definition of a firearm is pretty straightforward:

“Any weapon… which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”

A suppressor doesn’t expel a projectile. It doesn’t fire anything. By that standard, it’s not a firearm at all.

But under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the term “firearm” includes:

• Machine guns
• Short-barreled rifles and shotguns
• Destructive devices
• And, notably, any silencer or suppressor

So, in the eyes of the NFA, suppressors are firearms—even though they don’t function like one.

This is one of the most confusing and counterintuitive parts of American gun law.

Why It Matters for the Second Amendment

This legal fiction has a big upside for Second Amendment supporters:

If suppressors are classified as “firearms,” then they may fall under Second Amendment protection, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling (2022), which demands that gun laws align with the historical text and tradition of the Constitution.

In contrast, if suppressors are considered mere “accessories,” they could fall outside 2A protection entirely—making them vulnerable to bans, taxes, or restrictions at any level of government.

In fact, the 10th Circuit Court ruled in U.S. v. Cox (2019) that a suppressor is not a “bearable arm” and thus not protected under the Second Amendment.

So ironically, suppressors being considered firearms might be the only reason they enjoy any constitutional defense.

The Coming Shift: Removing Suppressors from the NFA

If HR1 becomes law:

• Suppressors would no longer be considered NFA “firearms.”
• They’d be treated like standard accessories under the Gun Control Act.
• They might lose the very classification that gave them a foothold in Second Amendment court battles.

This could be a double-edged sword:

• Pro: Easier access, no tax stamp, no lengthy wait.
• Con: Future courts might say suppressors aren’t protected at all under the Second Amendment.

If suppressors are no longer protected by the 2A then a future democrat majority administration could easily draft legislation to ban or severely restrict ownership of them.

So, Are Suppressors Firearms?

Functionally, no. Legally—under the NFA—yes. And that odd distinction may be the thread that’s protected them in court thus far.

As we move toward deregulation, gun rights advocates may need to shift their legal strategy from “suppressors are firearms” to “suppressors are essential to the safe and lawful use of firearms.”

Because the answer to the original question—“Are suppressors firearms?”—may soon go from “yes” to “not anymore.” And that could change everything.

Gun owners and advocates should celebrate this progress—but remain vigilant. The battle over how suppressors are defined isn’t just legal; it’s strategic. And the next chapter will be written in the courts.

Dangerous in the U.S., Courteous Everywhere Else?

In much of the world, suppressors are seen as tools of etiquette—used to protect hearing and minimize noise pollution. In fact, in places like the UK, Finland, and New Zealand, suppressors are widely available, lightly regulated, and in some cases encouraged or expected.

Only in the U.S. are they treated as suspicious or criminal by default.

It’s one of the stranger ironies of American gun law: the land of the Second Amendment treats suppressors more harshly than countries with almost no civilian gun rights at all.

What is even more ironic (moronic?) is that many of these countries are pointed to by gun control advocates as the model of firearms regulations the US should follow. When it comes to suppressors, I agree – we should deregulate them and make them over the counter like they are in New Zealand.