FN Catch 22Ti rimfire suppressor silencer

In a move lauded by Second Amendment supporters, Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) is poised to introduce legislation that would remove gun silencers from federal regulation, a significant shift in firearm accessory laws. Titled the Silencers Help Us Save Hearing Act, or SHUSH Act, the bill aims to entirely deregulate suppressors, eliminate associated penalties, and extend concealed carry privileges with silenced firearms to current and retired law enforcement officials.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Rep. Good expressed his broader intention behind the proposed legislation, emphasizing both Second Amendment rights and the reduction of bureaucratic hurdles in firearm safety accessory procurement. “I oppose any form of regulation or tax on the people’s right to keep and bear arms,” Good told the Examiner. “No constitutional right should be at risk due to public opinion, or subject to regulatory and tax burdens. These rights certainly extend to the procurement of safety accessories for firearms.”

Suppressors, intermittently referred to as silencers, attach to the barrel of a firearm to minimize the noise and muzzle flash produced upon firing. Despite common misconceptions fueled by their portrayal in films and television, suppressors do not silence guns but reduce the firing sound to safer levels, helping prevent hearing loss among shooters.

The current legal process for acquiring a suppressor is governed by the National Firearms Act, which mandates a thorough approval process, including registration with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and a $200 tax. This process can delay the acquisition of a suppressor for over a year, frustrating many potential buyers.

Moreover, the SHUSH Act would overturn suppressor bans in several states and territories, including California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, where these devices are currently prohibited.

Rep. Good’s proposal represents a significant deregulatory effort in the realm of gun laws, aiming to streamline processes and affirm constitutional rights without the burden of what supporters consider excessive regulation. As the bill moves toward introduction, it stirs a potent discussion on the balance between firearm regulation and individual rights, setting the stage for a robust debate in Congress.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

50 COMMENTS

  1. I wouldn’t mind this bill if not for the stinkin’ LEO carveouts… how about a clean bill FOR ALL !

    • Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough. I agree with your sentiment but gotta start somewhere and keep going.

        • Would love to see it but not going to happen that way. This one we will probably have to attack the same way the commies have been attacking our rights for over a century (incrementally).

    • It probably got tacked on in committee to garner support among PD rank and file… I cant imagine many daily gats being carried with a can attached.
      Remember what they say about laws and hotdogs having in common – no one would like to know what goes into them or how they’re made.

  2. If that were to pass it would be hilarious to see how the initial rollout would look in NY where threaded barrels on semi auto pistols and rifles with detachable magazines are a big nogo…….. shotguns might be good to go as would any lever/bolt/pump action rifle though. Ah well do what we can with what we have till then.

    • There are these things called “integrally suppressed” wherein the suppressor + barrel are one.

      Also, one law at a time.

      • I did forget to mention them and that probably would be the initial NY semi auto option. Full agreement on the other part, we just have to keep chipping away everywhere we can I just tend to enjoy the absurd hilarity at times.

      • 500 rounds, that’s like one pack of .22. Or just over one ammo can of 556. 10 boxes of pistol ammo. Some people shoot that much in a range session or two. I would like to see a photo with a police officer removing a bulk pack of scary 22.

        Maybe a couple guns? Big scary arsenal. Did they find the ghost? How many people had the ghost killed?

        • There were a few long arms of which 2 may have been scary ghost salt rifle. But no idea on the ammo. Will post the other link next but it typically gets moderated

        • … as it turns out, they DID find the ghost and made an arrest. He was released on his O R, as it turns out Casper is a friendly ghost. Not sure he’ll actually appear at arraignment

      • Yep, I have run through well over 500 .22 in a single afternoon. My daughter and I ran through over 3 times that at an Appleseed a few years ago. I don’t usually go through more than about half that in center fire stuff in a range session.

        Arsenal is a big scary word lefties use to frighten each other with.

  5. Not flawless but I would take it.

    Of course, it’s only introduced when it has no chance in Hell of becoming law. A bit of theater, as it were.

    Being the opposition party has its bennies. You can shovel out red meat for the base and always blame the party in power for not allowing you to pass those things.

    • Yes, i already several jackets for that “cold day in hell” moment when the ATF & NFA go into history as former.

      Not that I’m in hell. Or plan on going there.
      That’s why I took up buddhism.
      No hell, good karma and all that…

    • Yes, i already several jackets for that “cold day in hell” moment when the ATF & NFA go into history as former.

      Not that I’m in hell. Or plan on going there.
      That’s why I took up buddhism.
      No hell, good karma and all that…

      • Crazy that posted twice.
        Sometimes I can’t get it to post at all.

        Must be good karma.

        • WP’s comment system ain’t great.

          It’s never been fantastic and it’s gone downhill in recent years.

  6. Is this like the Hearing Protection Act that had 200+ co-sponsors, but the Republican leadership never let it get to a vote?
    Introducing a bill is all well and good…but means almost nothing without serious intentions to get it passed.

  7. This bill will go absolutely nowhere.

    Nothing significant will change when it comes to federal firearm laws until:

    Republicans win at least 64 seats in the U.S. Senate (enough to overcome their self-imposed “cloture” rule and allow for a few RINOs to oppose).
    AND
    Republicans acquire a 20+ seat majority in the House of Representatives (enough to pass with a majority of the House and allow for a few RINOs to oppose).
    AND
    A conservative Republican is President of the U.S.

    Of course the odds of all three of those elements happening in our lifetimes are slim to none (and Slim just left the room).

    Like it or not, that is the truth.

    In the meantime, if we can get cases to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supremes may very well strike down many (most?) federal firearm laws–as long as they have a 6-to-3 conservative majority.

    • I agree with your assessment.Just ain’t gonna happen during the Biden Administration. Second, I do not see how a federal law can overturn a state statute; just because they are not regulated under federal law does not prevent a state regulating them under state law. California is one of those states that will never change its stripes, at least as long as the welfare checks keep coming.

      • “just because they are not regulated under federal law does not prevent a state regulating them under state law.”

        Federal law doesn’t trump state law?

        • Geoff PR,

          Our U.S. Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” elevates federal laws above state laws if they conflict. While that may sound all well and good, if state laws conflict with federal law, someone in the state whose laws conflict with federal law would have to sue in the courts to get their state law overturned.

          Thus good (for us) federal firearm laws are not a Panacea on the state level.

          • “…if state laws conflict with federal law, someone in the state whose laws conflict with federal law would have to sue in the courts to get their state law overturned.”

            It takes a lawsuit?

            AFAIK, silences are determined to be firearms under the NFA.

            Someone in California applies for a form 4 silencer transfer, gets denied, and now has standing for a lawsuit. The lawsuit cites ‘Bruen’, since there was no silencer regulation at the nation’s founding, and wants that stamp as relief.

            Change my mind…

      • Couldn’t the Feds sell that to courts as being enforcement of the 2A via the 14A Incorporation Doctrine?

        Kinda like Civil Rights legislation?

        • I’ve been saying in here for *years* to use the full civil rights playbook to restore gun rights to their natural place…

  8. Just an attempt to get more 2A donations from us. Biden would veto if it got that far, which it won’t. Trump wouldn’t sign it either and Johnson would make sure it never came up to vote on. This is a Republic which means you can vote for and support anything you like, but if the damned politicians don’t want it, nothing is gonna happen.

  9. As long as I have to jump through hoops for a can it’s no can do. Then there is that 14.5″ barrel weld on something to make it 16″ and a hair, another no can do. In other words rip the law from the books that carries the name of an agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide called the 1968 Gun Control Act…On the other hand an imbecile gets the grease…
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=O8zECUU9Dqo&feature=shared

    • Thank God this mindset didn’t prevail over the last 40 odd years trying to get concealed carry passed.

      • Forgive me…
        I didn’t realize concealed carry was part of the NFA or even a federal thing. I thought that was a state thing.

        The mindset changes when it’s states vs. DC. Permitless carry doesn’t require the presidents signature or congressional approval.

        • And being a bitch about getting any rights back for either to the point of tanking achievable laws isn’t relevant for either?

          • Just keep in mind that there are all kinds of things rejected. People refusing to buy or do. That’s the nature of the world in firearms.

            Many gun owners refuse to own anything Ruger (Bill Rugers 10 round magazine thing) or any gun made by Springfield Armory. I wont own anything that bears the name Rap-Pee’d or ammo labeled for Zombies. It’s just stupid stuff I’d rather avoid. These are things I don’t see as throwing anyone under the bus, antigun, or caving to the enemy. Although it’s understandable to refer to people as FUDDS for thinking no one needs rifles other than bolt actions.

            If she refuses to pay for the tax stamp and submit to NFA regs for a can, I really can’t fault her for it. This is why so few gun owners outside of Texas have them. Well, that and for believing the lies from the left (which doesn’t apply here). I question the idea of refusing to jump through hoops in general because we are ALL forced into that (even her). I don’t really think that’s what she meant though.

            • Perfectly fine with not buying products and do my best to avoid Turkey China and a few others for various reasons but not supporting a law that improves our rights even incrementally is asinine on it’s face and self defeating long term. The assholes got us limited by taking a bite at a time and we would be retarded to not do anything in return.

            • This is why so few gun owners outside of Texas have them.

              Pretty much every gun store I know of that’s not a big chain sells mufflers. Considering the number of people selling them there must be a fair number of buyers.

    • “As long as I have to jump through hoops for a can it’s no can do.”

      Does that also apply to your new gun purchases?

    • “Biden wont sign it.”

      Biden damn sure wouldn’t, the next president likely would.

      “Congress wont push for it.”

      It’s amazing what can happen with a majority in the lower house…

  11. Got to the cop carve out and stopped reading.
    What’s good for one should be good for the other.

  12. That would be nice if it was removed. Being an NFA item, we can’t cross state lines without paperwork. My AR 300 pistol is suppressed with a Trash Panda and being a pistol, I can’t take it with me going into Idaho for camping without stepping through whatever ATF hoops I have to do to do that. I don’t know what it is exactly because I’ve never done it, but you can’t take NFAs across state lines.

  13. If you have already registered a silencer, YOUR name is on the Special Persons List & will always be on that list. Can’t put the Genie back into the bottle.

    • It’s amusing that you don’t think this applies to damn near all legal gun owners, regardless.

  15. Why are there always extra privileges for the little blue fudge packers? It says, “the right of the PEOPLE…”

Comments are closed.