Trump Administration Fixes Policy Concerning Suppressors

by
posted on August 13, 2020
** When you buy products through the links on our site, we may earn a commission that supports NRA's mission to protect, preserve and defend the Second Amendment. **
aac-lifestyle_mg_0241.jpg

Last month, the Trump Administration fixed a U.S. Department of State policy on suppressors that had kept American suppressor makers out of the international market for these hearing-safety devices.

According to the NRA-ILA: “The Department of State has rescinded its April 18, 2002, firearms sound suppressor policy. This policy … restricted their export to only official end users such as government or military entities…. The old policy completely excluded American suppressor manufacturers from competing in foreign markets where firearm suppressors are perfectly legal. It was also based on the misguided idea that suppressors completely silence firearms and that similar suppressor technology isn’t already available in the rest of the world.”

NRA-ILA also said, “This policy reversal is long overdue and just one more step the Trump administration has taken to help law-abiding gun owners and American manufacturers.” 

“I see this as pro-business and pro-America,” said Brandon Maddox, MBA and the founder of Silencer Central. “Now, the reality is that U.S. silencer makers are so highly regulated, it may be difficult for them to price competitively in the international marketplace; however, this change might increase manufacturing and sales volumes and reduce overall costs, which manufacturers could pass on to American consumers.”

Never a group to pass up a chance to mis-represent anything to do with the Second Amendment, the gun-control group Brady: United Against Gun Violence used the change in policy as part of its recent fund-raising efforts. As an article in Townhall noted, a Brady fund-raising email claimed that this Trump administration change could lead to the deaths of U.S. troop stationed overseas: “The harm is clear: This [suppressor] repeal will increase the risk that U.S. service members will be shot or killed with American-made guns and accessories. This repeal is immoral. It’s unpatriotic. It’s lethal.”

“It’s also complete BS,” wrote Mark Oliva, director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “Brady should learn to conduct a basic fact check. Even checking Wikipedia would suffice.”

It is true, Oliva confirmed to A1F.com, that the original Department of State policy banning suppressor exports cited—among other things—that U.S.-made suppressors might be used against U.S. servicemen and women. 

“Of course, back then [2002], everything was done in the name of anti-terror, so it was the politically expedient thing to do,” Oliva said. “But it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now.”

As he noted in his Townhall article, “A quick internet search could easily reveal that suppressors are not just legal for use in foreign countries, some actually require their use. In Finland and France, suppressors are available over the counter. The notion that the rest of the world is devoid of suppressors because U.S. companies could not export them is preposterous.”

Oliva is also a retired Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant with 25 years of service, including tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Albania and Zaire, so he was speaking from this experience. “Brady’s ‘do it for the troops’ assertion would be laughable if they weren’t so serious in their outright dishonesty,” said Oliva. “Brady isn’t doing anything about illicit international arms trade. They’re only out to deny law-abiding Americans their God-given rights. They don’t care how unscrupulous they are in that goal.”

The anti-gun extremists truly don’t care, even when at issue is a product that actually provides a public-health benefit like hearing protection.

Latest

Holiday Gift Guide

The Trade Association for the Firearms Industry is Calling Out JPMorganChase

The CEO of JPMorganChase, Jamie Dimon, went on Fox News and claimed that JPMorganChase does not debank individuals, associations or corporations for ideological reasons. But the NSSF points out that Dimon has said different things before.

Gun Review | Rost Martin RM1C

I would like to introduce you to the Rost Martin RM1C—and yes, anyone familiar with the Glock 19 will immediately see its lineage. I nevertheless became intrigued by this gun, as I believe you might, thanks to some of its special features—and thanks to its price tag.

The NRA is Still Fighting for Our First Amendment Freedoms

Though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the NRA's argument in NRA v. Vullo, the decision sent the case back to a lower court, which ruled the offending government official had "qualified immunity." As a result, this case is ongoing.

Policing Should Not Be A Political Issue

Crime is a complicated topic, but there is an extremely simple rule that must be observed before one can begin to fight it effectively: One must genuinely wish to deal with the problem. Without such an elementary ambition, no amount of legislation, activity, taxpayer money or speechmaking will make the slightest bit of difference.

Gun-Control Group Inadvertently Admits Armed Citizens are Effective

The gun-control group Everytown inadvertently admitted that lawfully armed citizens stop a lot of crimes in America.



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.