Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

U.K. Moves to Legally De-suppress Suppressors

Monday, July 14, 2025

U.K. Moves to Legally De-suppress Suppressors

On July 4th, President Donald Trump signed into law his “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which included a provision that eliminated the tax stamp fee of $200, but did not deregulate suppressors under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The fee elimination will not take effect until January 1, 2026, and suppressors will still have to be registered under the NFA, with the standard government overreach of forms, fingerprinting and government approval. In the meantime, the NRA and other gun rights advocates have announced plans to file “a new strategic lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the NFA in Federal Court.”

Gun control groups like Everytown and Giffords, however, maintain that the “NFA has kept silencers out of criminal hands for over eighty years,” and that suppressors “are inherently dangerous devices” that “present a serious public safety concern” and “should not be widely available to civilians.” Suppressors, they allege, do not protect a shooter’s hearing, and the “real reason the gun lobby wants to deregulate silencers is so that the industry can profit off their sale.”

Such claims would lead one to expect that the United Kingdom, as rabidly weapon-adverse and anti-gun as Giffords and Everytown and their supporters could ever wish, would likewise maintain draconian legislative controls on these “inherently dangerous devices that criminals may use to suppress the sound of gunfire and mask muzzle flash.”

Yet, in fact, the opposite appears to be happening.

In 2024, the U.K. government published a public consultation paper seeking input regarding its proposal to remove “sound moderators” from firearm licensing laws. Sound moderators, a.k.a. suppressors or silencers, are controlled under section 57(1)(d) of the Firearms Act 1968, which (much like the U.S. Gun Control Act and NFA) defines “firearm” to include “an accessory to a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon where the accessory is designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon.”

The consultation document explained the background. A firearms certificate, issued by the police, is necessary to acquire and possess a sound moderator, which incurs costs both for the individual applying for a certificate, and for registered firearms dealers in checking that a potential purchaser has the necessary authority to acquire the item. However, sound moderators are not firearms: these “are entirely inert objects and contain no moving parts and do not of themselves create a risk to public safety.” Existing legislative controls were motivated by “concerns about the use of these devices by poachers, enabling them to shoot game illegally by reducing the noise of their rifles. Such concerns have dissipated over time and are now considered to be outweighed by the health and safety benefits to professional rangers and others in the exercise of their legitimate, lawful functions.”

At the end of the consultation period – open to anyone who wished to participate – almost 20,000 responses had been received. Respondents were asked to self-identify as one of eight defined categories, including member of the public, shotgun/firearm certificate holder, firearm dealer, police/law enforcement body (those responding officially on behalf of a policing or law enforcement body, such as a police force), shooting body, a general “community/third sector/gun control” option (anyone responding on behalf of an entity that fell within this category), and “other.” “Member of the public” meant a person who did not fall into any of the specific categories listed.

All were asked to respond to the questions below, as well as provide any additional comments they felt were relevant:

Q1. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the requirement to obtain a certificate from the police in order to acquire and possess a sound moderator should be removed?

Q2. To what extent do you agree or disagree that there is no risk to public safety in removing sound moderators from licensing controls?

Q3. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the health and safety benefits of using sound moderators are important?

The Home Office released its “consultation outcome/government response” report last month, which included a breakdown of the responses. While the majority of the responses (85%) were from shotgun/firearms certificate holders, responses were also tracked within each separate category. That’s where things get interesting.

Significantly, the responses show not just exceptionally high levels of public support for deregulating sound moderators, but from official representatives of police/law enforcement bodies as well. Even the “community/third sector/gun control” group support never fell below 89% in favor for any of the three questions.

Overall, 94% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with Q1, that a firearm certificate should no longer be required to acquire and possess a sound moderator. Within the categories of “representative of police/law enforcement body” and “member of the public,” the agree/strongly agree responses came in at almost the same level of support (92% and 94%, respectively).

Q2, on the risk to the public posed by deregulation, had the highest level of overall support, with 98% of all respondents strongly agreeing/ agreeing that removing the licensing requirement posed no safety risk to the public. Here, too, the support from members of the public was almost identical (97%) to the overall support. The police/law enforcement body support dropped to 88%, which was just a hair below that of the respondents in the “community/third sector/gun control” category (89%), but both were, nonetheless, still overwhelmingly in favor.

Q3, on health and safety benefits of using sound moderators, also had high levels of overall and within-category support. Ninety-four percent of members of the public were in favor, as were 92% of law enforcement representatives; overall, 95% of all respondents had an agree/strongly agree response.  

The government “carefully considered the responses” and comments. In some of these additional comments, respondents “drew attention to the savings in police time that would arise if they were no longer required to administer variations to firearms certificates each time a firearms certificate holder acquires a sound moderator or disposes of one.” Many respondents “questioned whether there was any evidence to show that sound moderators had ever featured in crimes involving firearms.” Others insisted that “whatever the arguments for or against the de-regulation of sound moderators, any relaxation of firearms controls should be resisted, and that there could remain some value in the police making checks” of certificate-holders.

Taking all of these viewpoints into account, the conclusion reached by the government was that there “are strong arguments in favour of removing sound moderators from firearms licensing controls. As set out in the consultation paper, these items are a firearms accessory that present no danger in themselves to the public.” Despite this finding and the overwhelming public consensus, the government still opted to couple deregulation with a recommendation that possession of sound moderators be limited to those in possession of a valid firearms certificate. The next step would be to make the necessary changes through legislation to remove “sound moderator” from the Firearms Act 1968, and “we will seek to make this change when Parliamentary time allows.”

Suppressors in this country are likewise “entirely inert objects” with no public safety justification for their federal taxation and regulation. There are millions of registered suppressors in America. Far from being the alleged “inherently dangerous devices that criminals may use,” a 2007 study by the Western Criminology Review notes that “[t]ens of thousands of Americans each year use silencers for perfectly harmless activities (such as target shooting) or even beneficial activities (such as shooting rats and rabid animals),” and that the “use of silenced firearms in crime is a rare occurrence.” The study author was able to locate only two cases, between 1995 and 2005, of a silencer being used in a murder in the United States.

Similarly, in 2017, Ronald Turk, the Associate Deputy Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the Obama administration, recommended removal of suppressors from the NFA, citing both the burden/costs of enforcement and the negligible role that suppressors played in crime: “silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings,” making it “reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification.”

If suppressors are almost unanimously accepted as non-dangerous and having important health benefits in a place as unswervingly committed to restricting civilian firearm ownership as the United Kingdom, it is clearly high time for the United States to reconsider its treatment of suppressors and the fallacies underlying their outdated classification within the NFA, and deregulate suppressors entirely. Here at the NRA, we’ll continue the fight for the complete elimination of the NFA and analogous state-level bans and restrictions of suppressors.

TRENDING NOW
North Carolina: Pro-Gun Bills Advance in Veto Override Session

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

North Carolina: Pro-Gun Bills Advance in Veto Override Session

During a veto override session on Tuesday, July 29th, both chambers passed House Bill 193 (H193) and defeated Governor Josh Stein's veto.

NRA, Other Leading Second Amendment Groups File Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of the National Firearms Act

News  

Friday, August 1, 2025

NRA, Other Leading Second Amendment Groups File Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of the National Firearms Act

Today, the National Rifle Association (NRA), American Suppressor Association (ASA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two members of the organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality ...

Report: Newsom Rejected Gifted Handgun Because California Law is Too Complicated

News  

Monday, July 28, 2025

Report: Newsom Rejected Gifted Handgun Because California Law is Too Complicated

In a video interview with Tennessee-based podcaster Shawn Ryan published earlier this month, anti-gun California Governor Gavin Newsom appeared to accept a gift of a Sig P365 XMACRO semi-automatic handgun from the former U.S. Navy ...

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

News  

Second Amendment  

Thursday, May 22, 2025

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1 the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, completely removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Monday, July 7, 2025

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed the Florida Budget for Fiscal Year 2025–2026, which includes a Second Amendment sales tax holiday from September 8 through December 31, 2025. The NRA is thankful for Governor DeSantis’ strong ...

Legislation Introduced to Prevent States from Enforcing Firearm Rosters

News  

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Legislation Introduced to Prevent States from Enforcing Firearm Rosters

On July 23, Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA-48) and Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21) introduced the Modern Firearm Safety Act (H.R. 4676). This legislation would reject the effort by anti-gun radicals to utilize unconstitutional “handgun rosters.” These rosters prevent law-abiding ...

Minnesota: Shotgun-Only Hunting Zones Repealed

Friday, June 20, 2025

Minnesota: Shotgun-Only Hunting Zones Repealed

On Monday, June 9th, outside of regular session, the Senate passed the Environment Omnibus bill, removing shotgun-only hunting zones in the state. 

North Carolina: Update on Gun Bills Moving through the General Assembly

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

North Carolina: Update on Gun Bills Moving through the General Assembly

Recently, House Bill 193 (H193) was reported favorably out of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Rules Committee, with amendments.

Sen. Murphy and Political Performance Art

News  

Monday, July 28, 2025

Sen. Murphy and Political Performance Art

Readers of our alerts know, very well, that U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) does not believe in the Second Amendment, and would probably like to see virtually every law-abiding American disarmed. And he has held ...

Montana: Governor Gianforte Signs Legislation Protecting Against Localized "Red Flag" Laws

Monday, May 12, 2025

Montana: Governor Gianforte Signs Legislation Protecting Against Localized "Red Flag" Laws

On Thursday, May 8th, Governor Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 809 into law, protecting citizens against localized "red flag" laws and any outside funding intended to promote the use of such schemes. 

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.