SHUSH Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 30, 2025
Bottom line
The SHUSH Act deregulates firearm silencers at the federal level, treating them like other firearm accessories and preventing states from imposing their own NFA-like regulations.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the SHUSH Act, fundamentally changes the federal regulation of firearm silencers by removing them from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and other federal statutes. It reclassifies silencers as ordinary firearm accessories, eliminating federal taxes, registration, and transfer requirements. The bill also preempts state and local laws that impose similar regulatory burdens on silencers.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that silencers are primarily hearing protection devices, not instruments of crime, and that current federal regulations are overly burdensome, expensive, and infringe upon Second Amendment rights. They contend that deregulation would encourage more shooters to use silencers, thereby protecting their hearing and reducing noise pollution at shooting ranges, without posing a significant public safety risk.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that deregulating silencers would make it easier for criminals to acquire and use them, making firearms more difficult to trace and increasing the lethality of gun violence. They argue that the current NFA framework is a vital tool for law enforcement to track these devices and that removing federal oversight would undermine public safety and empower those who seek to commit crimes.
The bill text is short and relatively easy to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions. However, fully grasping its implications requires familiarity with existing firearms law.
Section 2
Equal Treatment of Silencers and Firearms
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, specifically Section 5845(a), to remove 'any silencer' from the definition of a 'firearm' under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This change means silencers would no longer be subject to the NFA's stringent requirements, including the $200 tax stamp, federal registration, and background checks for transfers. The effective date for transfers is retroactive by two years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision eliminates an unnecessary and burdensome tax on a safety device, making hearing protection more accessible to responsible gun owners. They contend that the NFA's regulation of silencers is an outdated relic from the Prohibition era.
Critics contend
Critics argue that removing silencers from NFA regulation would make them easier for criminals to acquire and use, hindering law enforcement's ability to track these devices and potentially increasing the lethality of gun violence.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to reduce regulatory burdens and enhance hearing protection for gun owners against concerns about public safety and law enforcement's ability to monitor potentially dangerous devices.
Section 3
Treatment of Certain Silencers
This section adds a new subsection (f) to Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code, stating that anyone acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with Chapter 44 of Title 18, United States Code, will be considered as having met the registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA) as they existed before the bill's enactment. Essentially, it grandfathers in existing NFA-registered silencers.
Section 4
Preemption of Certain State Laws
This section amends Section 927 of Title 18, United States Code, to explicitly state that any state or local law imposing a tax, marking, recordkeeping, or registration requirement on firearm silencers as a condition of their lawful making, transfer, use, possession, or transport in interstate or foreign commerce shall have no force or effect. This means states cannot create their own versions of the NFA for silencers.
Section 5
Silencers and Mufflers Not to Be Federally Regulated Under Title 18
This section makes several amendments to Title 18, United States Code. It removes firearm mufflers and silencers from the definition of 'firearm' in Section 921(a)(3) and strikes the specific definition of 'firearm muffler or firearm silencer' in Section 921(a)(25). Consequently, it also removes references to silencers/mufflers in federal criminal penalties (Section 924) related to crimes involving firearms, and in provisions concerning concealed carry for qualified law enforcement officers (Sections 926B and 926C).
Section 6
Excepting Silencers from Regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission
This section amends the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5)) to add firearm mufflers or silencers to the list of products explicitly excluded from the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) regulatory authority. This means the CPSC would not be able to regulate silencers for safety or other consumer product standards.
These subsections amend Sections 926B(e)(3) and 926C(e)(1)(C) of Title 18, United States Code, which pertain to the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers, respectively. By striking references to 'firearm silencer or firearm muffler,' these changes remove specific restrictions related to silencers for these officers.
Section 5(c) and 5(d)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice, as the changes are a logical consequence of the broader reclassification of silencers under Title 18. It's not necessarily evasive, but it requires careful reading of cross-referenced code sections.
Case for: Supporters would argue that if silencers are no longer considered 'firearms' or restricted devices, then law enforcement officers should not face specific restrictions on carrying them, especially if they are using them for training or duty-related purposes where hearing protection is beneficial.
Case against: Opponents might argue that even if silencers are deregulated for civilians, maintaining specific restrictions for law enforcement could be a way to manage their use in public settings, though this is a less common argument given the general support for law enforcement carrying necessary equipment.
Estimated impact: The direct impact is on a specific subset of law enforcement personnel, clarifying their ability to carry silencers. The broader impact is symbolic, reinforcing the bill's reclassification of silencers as ordinary accessories.