Which is to be expected, of course. Removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act won’t make the United States a more dangerous place, but it would be a major setback for the gun control lobby, which would much rather put commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms on the NFA list of restricted items than see any NFA item become unrestricted. 

Everytown president John Feinblatt bleated that “In the name of gun industry profits, House Republicans are putting law enforcement and our communities at greater risk of being shot — all while gutting health care for millions of Americans.,” while Brady’s Kris Brown bloviated that the budget bill “simultaneously puts countless lives at risk and gives a ‘big, beautiful’ gift to gun industry executives and any mass shooter or assassin who intends to take lives.” 

Brady also claims that “ATF recovered and traced over 400 silencers from violent crime scenes in 2023 alone,” but the spreadsheet they link to appears to show that 293 silencers were subject to an ATF trace in 2022. The ATF trace data for 2023 does show 406 traces were conducted on suppressors that year (183 of which were conducted in Virginia, for some reason), but as the agency itself states, not every firearm that’s traced has been used in a crime. I’d love to know how the gun control group can so confidently assert that more than 400 silencers were recovered and traced from violent crime scenes two years ago when the most common reason for a trace that year was “firearm under investigation” (116,202 traces) followed by “possession of weapon” (103,104 traces). 

According to the FBI, by the way, there were more than 1.2 million violent crimes in the United States, so even if suppressors were involved in 406 of them (and there’s no reason to believe that’s the case), we’d still be talking about a small fraction of less than 1% of all crimes. And as we’ve seen with the one high-profile incident in recent years in which a suppressor was used in the commission of a violent homicide, that didn’t stop police from quickly finding and arresting the person they believe is responsible for the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Suppressors don’t allow criminals to get away with murder. They do, on the other hand, allow gun owners to lawfully use their firearms without destroying their hearing. And in the case of folks like me who can shoot on their own property, they allow us to be good neighbors by reducing the decibel level emanating from our shooting spots. 

Speaking of CEOs, Giffords continues to lean heavily into the “big, bad gun company CEO” rhetoric it’s deployed since Thompson’s murderl, with Executive Director Emma Brown declaring, “House Republicans just gave gun industry CEOs a $1.5 billion tax break to help boost their bottom line.”

Contrary to the claims of the anti-gunners (who aren’t nearly as financially illiterate as they appear, I suspect), gun company CEO’s aren’t going to get a tax break from the repeal of the NFA making and transfer taxes if that language is signed into law by President Trump. Those taxes are passed on to consumers, adding to the total cost of a suppressor. It’s those purchasing a suppressor who’ll directly benefit, though I’m sure makers are hoping to sell more of the devices if they’re removed from the NFA, which would in turn help their bottom line. 

The primary beneficiaries of the suppressor language, however, are going to be gun owners themselves. For the first time in decades the list of restricted items on the NFA could shrink, and that’s why the anti-gunners are shrieking. We can’t take anything for granted, however, and now’s the time to reach out to senators and not only urge them to keep this language in the budget bill, but to remove short barreled firearms from the NFA as well.