This message, from the American Suppressor Association, to the National Rifle Association was sent to me yesterday via back channels.
While, I think from past blog posts, I’ve made my position clear, any regulation on arms, is an infringement on the Second Amendment, and I view the Hearing Protection Act to be a farce, as if it’s passed and signed as it is now, it merely transfers suppressors from the National Firearms Act to the Gun Control Act. That means the Militia, will have to go to a gun store, fill out a 4473 and undergo a NICS check. I don’t view that as a victory, I view that as the GOP throwing us a bone. True reform, would mean deregulating suppressors completely. One thing which I’ve not read is if the minimum age for buying a suppressor under HPA as it currently stands will be 18 (the political class, which would be constitutional), or 21(which would be unconstitutional). Remember the Second Amendment is about the Militia, and says “arms”, remember “arms” means all the deadly implements of the soldier. And suppressors, while not “arms” in and of themselves, are a direct component of arms in this case firearms, therefore they are protected under the Second Amendment. As being a component to an arm, buying a suppressor should be no different than buying a trigger, butt stock, or hand guard and so forth.
Also, from what I’ve read, no where does it appear the GOP has considered what to do about the millions of suppressors which are currently registered as NFA items, and if they will be grand fathered into HPA, and if their owners will receive a $200 reimbursement for the ransom they paid Uncle Sam.
One thing you should know about this message, is the president/executive director of ASA, is Knox Williams, who wrote the message. While you be the judge as to the merits of the message, remember, Knox Williams, ran as a “reformer” during the recent 2025 NRA board of directors election, and won a directors seat. https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/2025-nra-board-election-results/ He placed 22nd. Notice he does not mention his directorship with the NRA in his message. As I’ve said before, I think it’s problematic, when people sit in leadership positions of more than one Second Amendment organization, as it begs the question, which organization will receive more of their attention? And also raises the other question of potential divided loyalties.
Here’s the message, which, as it was received via back channel, I redacted the source.
Leave a Reply