Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

Americans for Responsible Solutions Claims NFA Isn’t Burdensome

Friday, September 1, 2017

Americans for Responsible Solutions Claims NFA Isn’t Burdensome

Earlier this week, gun control group Americans for Responsible Solutions continued their confused campaign against the Hearing Protection Act (S. 59 and H.R. 367) with a new line of attack. This vital legislation would remove firearm suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act, which requires suppressor purchasers to pay a $200 tax stamp and for the devices to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. According to the group’s latest perverse logic, the rapid growth of the suppressor industry in recent years somehow proves that the current regulatory scheme is not burdensome and that legislation to improve access to these important safety devices is unnecessary.

In an August 30 press release titled, “Silencer Regulation Soars in 2016, Despite Gun Lobby Claim that Regulations are Burdensome,” ARS cited data from the 2017 edition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “Firearms Commerce in the United States” to make their case. ARS Executive Director Peter Ambler noted, “the number of silencers registered with ATF has more than quadrupled in the past seven years, from just over 285,000 in 2010 to over 1,360,000 in 2016.” The group pointed out that this growth occurred “despite claims from the gun lobby that the federal regulations are too burdensome.” The crux of ARS’s argument is that the current regulatory scheme governing suppressors is not significantly burdensome and hasn’t deterred law-abiding gun owners from acquiring these items.  

It appears the ARS staff slept through Economics 101. The current regulatory scheme imposes a $200 tax on suppressor transfers. In many instances, this can amount to 50-100 percent tax per device. The addition of a tax on a good lessens demand for that good, as some are unwilling to pay the total cost of the item including the tax or are priced out of the market altogether. While former astronauts and ARS’s Washington consultants might have a difficult time relating to the burden of a $200 tax, paying such a sum represents a significant burden for many Americans. In addition to creating this substantial burden on individuals, an excise tax that reduces access to safety devices like suppressors runs counter to sound public policy.

Beyond to the pecuniary burden, prospective suppressor purchasers face administrative hurdles that can be time-consuming and implicate the purchaser’s privacy. Prospective purchasers must complete a lengthy application process that requires the individual to provide their personal information, a passport-style photo, and a set of fingerprints. Many individuals are rightly intimidated by this daunting paperwork. Others are reluctant to provide their personal information, including their status as a gun owner, for inclusion in a federal database. Those who might wish to acquire a suppressor through an NFA trust could be deterred by the financial burden of establishing said trust, which can include the cost of hiring an attorney.

ARS even contradicted its position that the current NFA process is not burdensome within its own press release. The group acknowledged that “wait times are unnecessarily long for law-abiding individuals to purchase silencers.” Might such an “unnecessarily long” wait be considered a burden by prospective suppressor buyers and deter many from accessing these devices altogether?

In another firearms-related context - the acquisition of Right-to-Carry permits - it has been demonstrated that increasing the pecuniary and administrative burdens placed on individuals results in a decrease of the number of people who are willing to exercise their rights. Discussing the data on this subject in the third edition of his book “More Guns Less Crime,” economist John Lott explained,

results show that for each $10 increase in fees, the population getting permits is reduced by about one-half of a percentage point. And requiring five hours of training (rather than none) reduces the number of permits by about two-thirds of a percentage point.

Moreover, while ARS cited the data showing significant growth in the number of registered suppressors as evidence that current suppressor regulations do not burden prospective purchasers, they failed to put these numbers in context. As of April 2017, the number of registered suppressors was 1,360,023. The recent growth is impressive, but the number of registered suppressors is still miniscule in the broad scope of American firearm ownership.

Using ATF’s manufacturing data, U.S. firearms manufacturers produced around 9 million firearms for the domestic market in 2015 (the latest year for which this data is available), and another roughly 4 million firearms were imported that same year. In regards to the total firearms stock, the Congressional Research Service has estimated that there are more than 300 million firearms in the U.S., while others have estimated that number to be far greater.

When placed in the context of the number of firearms acquired or manufactured each year, or total U.S. firearms ownership, suppressors are unfortunately still a niche item. Given the obvious safety benefits these items provide for gun owners, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the staggering disparity between total firearms stock and the total number of registered suppressors is due to the incredible burdens placed on acquiring these devices.

Earlier this year, ARS was criticized by NRA and the Washington Post for spreading easily disprovable misinformation about suppressor function in a half-baked attack on the HPA. Now the group is disregarding the laws of supply and demand to make a contrived argument that the current regulations aren’t burdensome, and therefore should be retained. It’s clear that ARS is uninterested in the facts on suppressors and will make any argument, no matter how far-fetched, to defend the burdensome and outdated NFA.   

 

TRENDING NOW
Let My Cans Go: Trump Administration Adds Sound Suppressors to Export Reform

News  

Monday, July 27, 2026

Let My Cans Go: Trump Administration Adds Sound Suppressors to Export Reform

Eight years ago, NRA filed comments in support of the Trump Administration’s plan to reform exports of firearms and ammunition – as well as their parts, components, and accessories. 

DOJ Withdraws Appeal in Challenge to Post Office Firearms Ban

News  

Monday, July 27, 2026

DOJ Withdraws Appeal in Challenge to Post Office Firearms Ban

Another significant victory has emerged in the ongoing effort to roll back unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms in places that millions of law-abiding Americans visit every day in every state in towns ...

“Hell, No!” to Beto 2.0

News  

Monday, July 27, 2026

“Hell, No!” to Beto 2.0

Remember “Beto” O’Rourke and his runs for political office, hellbent on gun control?  

Court Stays NRA Challenge to Virginia’s “Assault Firearm” and Magazine Bans, Keeping Statewide Injunction in Place Until Supreme Court Rules on “Assault Weapon” Bans

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Court Stays NRA Challenge to Virginia’s “Assault Firearm” and Magazine Bans, Keeping Statewide Injunction in Place Until Supreme Court Rules on “Assault Weapon” Bans

In the NRA’s challenge to Virginia’s “assault firearm” and magazine bans, Santolla v. Katz, the court today entered an order memorializing the parties’ agreement to stay the case until after the U.S. Supreme Court issues ...

En Banc Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s “Assault Firearm” and “Large Capacity Magazine” Bans in NRA Case

Friday, July 17, 2026

En Banc Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s “Assault Firearm” and “Large Capacity Magazine” Bans in NRA Case

In a landmark victory for the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today held that New Jersey’s bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and magazines ...

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Case Challenging Maryland’s Refusal to Recognize Out-of-State Carry Permits

Friday, July 24, 2026

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Case Challenging Maryland’s Refusal to Recognize Out-of-State Carry Permits

The National Rifle Association joined the Second Amendment Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Law Center, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, ...

New Hampshire: Governor Ayotte Signs Pro-Gun Reforms Into Law

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

New Hampshire: Governor Ayotte Signs Pro-Gun Reforms Into Law

On July 15, Governor Kelly Ayotte signed two pro-gun bills into law. 

Grassroots Spotlight: NRA 2A Day at Target Center, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Take Action  

Monday, July 27, 2026

Grassroots Spotlight: NRA 2A Day at Target Center, San Juan, Puerto Rico

NRA–ILA FrontLines activist Carmen Fontanez, held her most recent “NRA 2A Day” event in Puerto Rico, at Target Center in San Juan. 

“Property Rights” Critique of Wolford Misleads on Facts and Law

News  

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

“Property Rights” Critique of Wolford Misleads on Facts and Law

On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wolford v. Lopez. The case involved a Hawaii law that presumptively banned carry permit holders from carrying their arms onto publicly accessible private property, unless the carrier ...

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging Indiana Supreme Court to Protect Associational Standing

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging Indiana Supreme Court to Protect Associational Standing

The National Rifle Association joined a coalition of 23 nonprofit organizations, led by the ACLU of Indiana, in filing an amicus brief urging the Indiana Supreme Court to recognize the doctrine of associational standing. 

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.