The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recently made headlines after revealing it was acquiring rifle suppressors — and not just a few — for the express purpose of protecting agents’ “health and safety.” The logic? With agents required to undergo extensive training and quarterly firearms qualifications, they need suppressors to protect their hearing. Reasonable enough — until you realize that the very agency acknowledging the safety benefits of suppressors is also the biggest roadblock to Americans accessing them.
Let’s be clear: suppressors are safety devices. They reduce the risk of permanent hearing loss, minimize auditory trauma during emergencies, and make training less punishing on shooters and bystanders alike. That’s not speculation — it’s the very justification the ATF used for issuing $1,300 suppressors to its own personnel.
And yet, for the rest of us, these safety devices are buried under the regulatory weight of the National Firearms Act (NFA). That means:
-
A $200 tax stamp — the cost of which hasn’t changed since 1934.
-
A federal background check and approval process that can drag on for months.
-
A registration requirement that creates a government record of every suppressor and its owner.
-
And, critically, delays that leave law-abiding Americans waiting endlessly while the same agency that reviews their paperwork is issuing suppressors to itself without so much as a blink.
That isn’t just bureaucratic hypocrisy — it’s institutionalized two-tier access to safety.
Imagine telling a construction worker that hard hats were “restricted items.” Or that EMTs could use defibrillators, but you’d need federal clearance to buy one for your home. It’s ludicrous. Yet in the world of firearms, suppressors — which merely reduce sound, not lethality — are treated as if they’re military-grade weaponry.
As one reader put it best: “Suppressors are safety devices for the ATF, but a privilege for the rest of us.”
And it’s not just training shooters who benefit. In home defense situations, using a firearm indoors without hearing protection can cause immediate, permanent hearing damage. A suppressor can mitigate that risk — to the shooter, their spouse, their children. The same benefits apply at the range, where new shooters, bystanders, or even a forgotten pair of earplugs can turn a day of practice into a lifelong condition called tinnitus.
Here’s the bitter irony: the ATF’s use of suppressors is the strongest possible argument against the way they restrict civilian access to them. If suppressors are so effective at protecting health and safety that the agency insists on issuing them to its own agents, then why should citizens have to navigate a Byzantine process and wait months — or even a year — just to enjoy the same protection?
And no, suppressors are not “silencers” like in the movies. They don’t turn a gunshot into a whisper. They reduce decibel levels, often just enough to protect hearing — not to hide a firearm’s use. That’s why in countries like New Zealand, Norway, and even the UK, suppressors are often unregulated or encouraged for health reasons. In the United States, they’re wrapped in red tape, viewed with suspicion, and still treated as though they’re tools of assassins rather than accessories of responsibility.
