Fact-Checking the Myths: Suppressors and Short-Barreled Rifles

Zion Patriot,

In the ongoing debate over firearms regulation, few topics stir more confusion and misinformation than suppressors (often called “silencers”) and short-barreled rifles or shotguns (SBRs/SBSs). Here’s a straightforward fact check addressing some of the most common claims made by opponents of firearm deregulation.

Claim 1: “Suppressors won’t require a background check.”

✅ False.
Even if suppressors are removed from the National Firearms Act (NFA), they would still be classified as firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968. That means:

  • Buyers must still pass a background check through NICS.
  • Buyers would need to submit a Form 4473 just like when purchasing a firearm.
  • Transfers must still go through a federally licensed dealer (FFL).
  • Suppressors would remain regulated, serialized, and traceable.

Eliminating the NFA’s $200 tax stamp and paperwork backlog wouldn’t change the existing background check requirements.

Claim 2: “Police won’t be able to determine the location of a shooter if using a suppressor.”

✅ Misleading.
Suppressors reduce the sound pressure of a gunshot—typically by 20 to 35 decibels—but do not make firearms silent. Most suppressed firearms still produce:

  • An audible gunshot, especially with supersonic ammunition.
  • A visible muzzle flash.
  • A ballistic crack from high-velocity rounds.

Police and trained personnel can still triangulate a shooter’s location based on sound, flash, and impact. Suppressors offer hearing protection, not invisibility.

Claim 3: “Suppressors are only used by criminals.”

✅ False.
Suppressors are rarely used in crimes. According to ATF data and Department of Justice statistics:

  • Over 3 million suppressors are legally owned in the U.S.
  • Suppressor-related crimes are exceedingly rare—less than 0.003% of federal cases involve suppressors.
  • They are used by hunters, recreational shooters, and firearm instructors for safety and noise reduction.

Criminals overwhelmingly prefer unregistered handguns—not serialized suppressors requiring background checks and months-long ATF approval.

Claim 4: “Suppressors and SBRs can’t be removed from the NFA through reconciliation due to the Byrd Rule.”

✅ Misleading.
The Byrd Rule limits what can be included in budget reconciliation bills—it doesn’t create permanent policy barriers. If removing items from the NFA has a budgetary impact (like eliminating the $200 tax stamp), it can and does qualify for reconciliation.

  • The Hearing Protection Act of 2017 was potentially eligible under reconciliation.
  • The failure to pass such bills has been political, not procedural.
  • The Byrd Rule does not prohibit deregulation, it only affects how it can be legislatively pursued.
  • The $200 “Tax Stamp” to purchase a suppressor, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun is a tax, not a fee!

Claim 5: “Suppressors are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.”

✅ Debatable—but the law is shifting in their favor.
Suppressors are defined as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. While accessories have historically received less legal scrutiny, recent court decisions (especially Bruen, 2022) have changed the playing field.

  • The Supreme Court in Bruen stated that gun laws must be consistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.
  • There is no historical precedent for suppressor bans from the 18th or 19th centuries.
  • Courts are increasingly being asked to determine if suppressors qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

It’s no longer just a theoretical question—it’s one working its way through the courts with momentum.

Claim 6: “Short-barreled rifles and shotguns are more concealable and dangerous than full-length guns.”

✅ Exaggerated and outdated.
This claim stems from Prohibition-era fears that led to the 1934 NFA. But modern reality tells a different story:

  • Handguns are far more concealable and are the weapon of choice in most crimes.
  • Short barrels often reduce accuracy and velocity, especially at longer distances.
  • SBRs and SBSs are popular for home defense, tactical use, and vehicle deployment, not crime.

The danger of a firearm lies in its misuse, not its barrel length. A firearm is a tool, the danger is the tool using it.

⚖️ So, Are Suppressors Protected by the Second Amendment?

While not automatically guaranteed just because the GCA defines them as “firearms,” that classification strengthens the legal argument for protection. In a post-Bruen legal landscape, any restriction must now be historically justified—and the federal government can’t point to a founding-era tradition of suppressor bans.

The text of the Constitution protects the right to bear arms. The modern interpretation increasingly suggests that includes suppressors and other common tools used for lawful self-defense and sport.

🔚 Conclusion

As with many topics in the gun debate, fact and rhetoric are often at odds. Suppressors and short-barreled rifles are not tools of criminals—they are safety devices and specialized firearms platforms used by millions of law-abiding Americans.

Let’s keep the conversation grounded in truth—not fear.

2A News