Major Firearms Manufacturer Allegedly Is Lobbying Against Your 2A Rights

A storm is brewing in the gun rights world – and it’s not from anti-gun politicians this time. It’s from inside the Second Amendment community. Reports and speculation have emerged suggesting that Silencer Central, one of the largest suppressor manufacturers and retailers in the United States, may have lobbied against full deregulation of suppressors under the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). That would mean keeping suppressors on the National Firearms Act (NFA) registry, which many see as an infringement on gun rights.

These concerns were first reported in a detailed article by John Crump at AmmoLand News, who reviewed lobbying disclosure documents and spoke to anonymous sources on Capitol Hill. Although Silencer Central later issued a statement claiming to support deregulation, critics remain skeptical due to the vagueness of both the lobbying language and the company’s official responses.

The Heart of the Allegation: Lobbying for “Tax Stamp Conservation”

At the center of the controversy is a 2024 lobbying disclosure that lists Silencer Central as the client behind a $50,000 lobbying campaign described as supporting “suppressor tax stamp conservation legislation.” As attorney Tom Grieve pointed out in a YouTube video, that phrasing sounds suspiciously like a move to preserve the NFA system rather than dismantle it.

Grieve emphasized that “conservation” means to maintain or preserve, and that using this term in relation to the NFA’s tax stamp system could imply an effort to keep suppressors right where they are – regulated and registered. While the company also paid another lobbyist to work on the “Hearing Protection Act,” no position was stated in that filing.

John Crump Confirms the Documents – and the Mystery

John Crump, a respected investigative journalist for AmmoLand, confirmed the authenticity of the lobbying filings and brought attention to Silencer Central’s absence from a Gun Owners of America (GOA) letter supporting the full repeal of suppressor regulations. While companies like Silencer Shop signed on without hesitation, Silencer Central did not – and when asked why, they offered no direct answer.

Crump’s reporting shows that Silencer Central’s business model could be threatened if suppressors are removed from the NFA. As he explains, the company’s ability to ship suppressors directly to customers in 42 states is a benefit allowed under current NFA rules – but not under the Gun Control Act (GCA), which would govern suppressors if they were delisted from the NFA.

VSO Gun Channel: Smoke, Fire, and Vagueness

Curtis Hallstrom of the VSO Gun Channel shared his own concerns in a recent video. Like Grieve, he focused on the vagueness of the lobbying language and the company’s online statements. Silencer Central has repeatedly said they support “reducing barriers to suppressor ownership,” but never clearly stated whether they support full deregulation.

Hallstrom said he’s received credible but anonymous tips that Silencer Central did lobby to keep suppressors under NFA regulations. He directly challenged the company: “Did you, or did you not, lobby to preserve suppressor tax stamp regulations? That’s all we need to know.”

Guns & Gadgets: Accusations Grow Louder

Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets, didn’t hold back. In his video, Yanis reported that sources on Capitol Hill told him Silencer Central had worked directly with Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN) to keep suppressors on the NFA – a claim that, while unconfirmed, has now been echoed by multiple sources.

Yanis expressed frustration, saying this is the closest gun owners have come in a generation to removing suppressors from the NFA. He blasted any company that would allegedly stand in the way for financial self-interest, calling it “unacceptable.” He noted that while the $200 tax stamp might go away under the proposed budget bill, registration and regulation would still remain, and that’s the heart of the issue.

A Convenient Business Model?

One of the most consistent concerns raised by all sources is Silencer Central’s business model, which relies heavily on direct-to-consumer suppressor shipping. Under the NFA, this is allowed. Under the GCA? Not so much. If suppressors were deregulated and reclassified under the GCA, Silencer Central might lose a key part of its business advantage.

This has led many to believe that the company’s alleged lobbying is rooted in self-preservation. Tom Grieve, for one, made it clear: “Follow the money.” If a business benefits from a broken system, it may not want that system to change – regardless of what it says publicly.

The Official Statement Leaves More Questions Than Answers

In response to the growing backlash, Silencer Central finally issued a public statement, shared with AmmoLand and repeated by Curtis Hallstrom on VSO. CEO Brandon Maddox stated:

“We have always been vocal supporters of the HPA, as well as the current proposed provision of a $0 tax stamp. Our priority has always been… advocating for deregulation and 2nd amendment rights.”

But critics like John Crump and Tom Grieve point out that this statement, while helpful, doesn’t directly address the specific lobbying actions in question. Why support “conservation” of tax stamp legislation if you want full deregulation? Why skip the GOA letter? Why not explicitly say you want suppressors removed from the NFA?

The GOA Letter and the X (Twitter) Challenge

Adding fuel to the fire, Jared Yanis and Curtis Hallstrom both discussed a GOA industry letter calling on Congress to pass Section 2 of the HPA – the part that would remove suppressors from the NFA entirely. While several major companies signed it, Silencer Central didn’t. When challenged on X (formerly Twitter), their response was, once again, vague.

They said they support “any effort that reduces barriers to make suppressor ownership more accessible.” Critics argue that this could easily mean supporting a $0 tax stamp but still requiring NFA registration – not true deregulation.

The House Moved – But Left Out the Important Part

Meanwhile, the House Ways and Means Committee passed a budget bill that includes removing the tax stamp fee – but not removing suppressors from the NFA registry. That’s a partial win at best. And it’s been widely reported, including by Jared Yanis, that Silencer Central may have had a hand in this outcome by urging legislators not to pursue full deregulation.

The bill will now move to the Senate, where Section 2 of the HPA could be reinserted. Gun owners and advocates like Yanis, Crump, and Grieve are calling on Americans to pressure their senators and push for the full text of the HPA, including removing suppressors from the NFA entirely.

Incrementalism Isn’t Always Harmless

Silencer Central’s approach, as revealed in an earlier 2024 AmmoLand interview with Maddox, seems to favor a “crawl, walk, run” strategy. But here’s the problem: incrementalism only works if you don’t abandon the finish line. If deregulation of suppressors is the goal, then taking only the first step, and stopping there, doesn’t help.

As a supporter of the Second Amendment, it’s hard to ignore that silencers have been wrongly restricted for nearly a century, and this may be the best chance we’ve had in decades to fix it. If any company is standing in the way of that, even quietly, gun owners deserve to know.

The Smoke Is Thick – Where’s the Fire?

As Tom Grieve stated clearly: we don’t 100% know what happened behind closed doors. But the paper trail, the timing, the business incentives, and the public silence on key questions all point to a real possibility that Silencer Central prioritized its own bottom line over gun rights.

If this isn’t true, then a crystal-clear, public answer is overdue. If it is true, then this is a turning point – a moment when the 2A community must decide whether to support companies that fight for our rights or those that benefit from keeping infringements alive.

For additional info, check out the Ammoland article here, Tom Grieve’s video here, The VSO Gun Channel’s video here, and the Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News video here.