On May 22, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a sweeping budget reconciliation package that includes a transformative provision: the complete removal of suppressors (silencers) from the National Firearms Act (NFA). By embedding Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, H.R.1 eliminates the $200 tax stamp, federal registration, and lengthy ATF approval process, affirming that suppressors are essential hearing protection devices, not the nefarious tools of cinematic lore. This federal shift is a long-overdue correction, but in California, it’s colliding with an outdated state law—Penal Code Section 33415(c)—that threatens to disrupt silencer supplies to law enforcement and military. Worse, California’s blanket ban on civilian silencer use under Section 33410 perpetuates an irrational policy, punishing residents for protecting their hearing. The California legislature must act decisively: amend Section 33415(c) to ensure law enforcement access and deregulate silencers entirely, aligning with federal law and prioritizing public health.
Silencers reduce gunshot noise by 20-35 decibels, bringing dangerous sound levels (often 150-170 dB) closer to the safe threshold of 140 dB. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that unprotected firearm noise can cause permanent hearing loss, tinnitus, or auditory damage. Silencers function like mufflers, safeguarding shooters, hunters, and law enforcement while reducing noise pollution. In nations like New Zealand and Norway, silencers are unregulated, treated as standard safety equipment.
There’s no evidence-based reason to regulate silencers as dangerous. They don’t enhance a firearm’s lethality or concealability, and their use in crime is negligible—FBI data shows suppressors in fewer than 0.1% of gun-related offenses. The NFA’s 1934 restrictions, born of Prohibition-era paranoia, are relics. H.R.1’s deregulation reflects this, treating suppressors like standard firearms under the Gun Control Act, subject only to background checks. California’s Section 33410 ban and restrictive Section 33415 exemptions are not just outdated—they’re a public health misstep, denying residents a proven hearing protection tool.
The removal of suppressors from the NFA under H.R.1 marks a pivotal moment in U.S. firearms policy, dismantling a nearly century-old regulatory framework that no longer serves a rational purpose. To understand the significance, let’s unpack the NFA, the deregulation process, and its implications.
Enacted in 1934, the National Firearms Act was a response to violent crime during Prohibition, targeting weapons like machine guns, short-barreled rifles, and suppressors, which were perceived as tools of gangsters. Suppressors were included due to fears they enabled poaching or silent assassinations, despite scant evidence of widespread misuse. The NFA imposed a $200 tax stamp (equivalent to about $4,500 in 2025 dollars), mandatory registration with the ATF, and rigorous background checks, creating a cumbersome process that could take 6-12 months. For suppressors, these restrictions were particularly disproportionate, as they’re safety devices, not inherently dangerous weapons.
Over decades, the NFA’s suppressor regulations became a lightning rod for criticism. Gun rights advocates, including groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Rifle Association, argued that the tax and red tape burdened law-abiding citizens, particularly hunters and sport shooters, while doing little to curb crime. The Hearing Protection Act, first introduced in 2015, gained traction as a bipartisan effort to reclassify suppressors as standard firearms, emphasizing their role in preventing hearing loss. By 2025, shifting political dynamics and public support for Second Amendment protections set the stage for change.
H.R.1, passed by the House with a narrow 215-214 vote on May 22, 2025, is a budget reconciliation bill designed to streamline federal spending and enact key policy priorities. Tucked within it is Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, which achieves a singular goal: removing suppressors from the NFA’s purview. This provision:
The inclusion of this provision in a budget bill reflects strategic legislative maneuvering. Reconciliation bills, which require only a simple majority in the Senate, are immune to filibusters, making them ideal for contentious reforms. The House’s passage signals strong Republican support, bolstered by advocacy from President Trump’s administration, which campaigned on reducing NFA restrictions.
The deregulation of suppressors is driven by multiple factors:
Nationally, the impact is significant. In states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida, where civilian silencer ownership is permitted, residents can now purchase suppressors with a simple background check, likely increasing their adoption for hunting and sport shooting. Ranges and gun shops will see reduced administrative burdens, and the ATF can redirect resources from processing tax stamps to other priorities. However, the change doesn’t preempt state bans, leaving states like California, New York, and New Jersey to grapple with their own restrictions.
While the House’s passage is a milestone, H.R.1 faces hurdles in the Senate. As of May 22, 2025, the bill is under review, with several considerations:
The Senate’s deliberations will determine whether this historic reform becomes law, but the House’s vote signals a strong push to modernize suppressor policy.
California’s silencer laws are unforgiving. Section 33410 bans civilians from possessing, manufacturing, selling, or transporting silencers, with felony penalties. Exemptions under Section 33415 allow limited use:
Section 33415(c)’s reliance on NFA registration is its Achilles’ heel. With suppressors removed from Chapter 53, dealers and manufacturers no longer need NFA-specific licenses (e.g., Class 3 SOT)—a standard FFL suffices. This renders Section 33415(c)’s requirement obsolete, potentially making the exemption inapplicable.
If Section 33415(c) becomes inoperative:
This crisis is wholly preventable. California’s insistence on treating silencers as dangerous, rather than as safety tools, is creating chaos for those who serve.
The California legislature must act urgently to resolve this crisis and embrace reason. Here’s the two-pronged solution:
California should follow the federal lead, recognizing that silencers don’t belong alongside machine guns or explosives. States like Texas and Arizona allow civilian silencer ownership with no crime spikes. California, a public health leader, should not lag on auditory safety.
This crisis exposes California’s silencer laws’ fragility, tied to an obsolete federal rule. But it’s an opportunity. By amending Section 33415(c) and repealing Section 33410, California can modernize its approach, support law enforcement, and protect public health. The alternative—inaction or stricter enforcement—risks legal battles, supply shortages, and harm to shooters’ hearing.
Gun rights groups like CRPA, SAF, FPC, and/or GOA may challenge Section 33410 under Bruen (2022), as silencers lack a historical basis for heavy regulation. California can avoid litigation by acting proactively.
As H.R.1 heads to the Senate, California must prepare for NFA deregulation. Dealers and law enforcement agencies concerned about losing access to silencers should consult firearms attorneys like The Davis Law Firm, law enforcement should advocate for legislative fixes, and civilians should urge representatives to support deregulation, emphasizing hearing protection.
Monitor the California DOJ’s Firearms Bureau and groups like GOA for updates. The legislature’s response will determine whether California prioritizes hearing safety or clings to an irrational ban.
The federal removal of suppressors from the NFA is a triumph of reason, recognizing them as hearing protection tools. But California’s Section 33415(c) threatens a crisis for law enforcement and dealers, while Section 33410 denies civilians a health necessity. The legislature must amend Section 33415(c) and deregulate silencers, aligning with federal law. Silencers save ears, not lives—they don’t belong in felony statutes. California can lead by embracing this public health imperative. The time is now.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.