As Congress debates the future of suppressors through the budget reconciliation process, what gun rights advocates are calling the “Big Beautiful Bill,” gun control activists are hitting the panic button. William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, has stepped forward to dismantle the widespread fearmongering surrounding suppressors. In a recent video hosted from the Securité Gun Club in Woodinville, Washington, Kirk explains how four major myths continue to distort public understanding and hinder policy reform.
Kirk makes it clear: the push to deregulate suppressors is not some wild, untested idea – it’s a practical, overdue move grounded in safety, legality, and basic logic. While some lawmakers scramble to characterize suppressors as tools of chaos, Kirk takes a sledgehammer to the narrative.
Myth #1: Suppressors “Silence” Gunfire
Kirk addresses the first and most popular myth head-on: that suppressors turn gunshots into whisper-quiet “pfft” sounds like in the movies. They don’t. “They’re called suppressors for a reason,” he emphasizes. “They don’t silence firearms.”
To prove the point, Kirk and armorer Travis at the Securité Gun Club conducted real-world tests with decibel meters. Using a Staccato P 9mm handgun and a 5.56 rifle, both suppressed and unsuppressed, they demonstrated that while suppressors significantly reduce the decibel level, the firearms remain loud. This isn’t Hollywood – no assassin is creeping through a hallway with a whisper-quiet death machine.
Suppressors reduce hearing damage and noise pollution, especially for shooters and nearby communities. And in many European countries, Kirk points out, suppressors are commonly available over-the-counter – no background checks, no registration, and certainly no panic.
Myth #2: Criminals and Mass Shooters Use Suppressors
One of the most damaging narratives, according to Kirk, is the idea that suppressors are regularly used in crimes or mass shootings. “That’s just flat-out false,” he says. Despite combing through news archives and online sources, he found almost no legitimate examples.
The only high-profile case he could point to was Luigi Manion – an outlier rather than the rule. “If these things were used regularly in crime,” he explains, “you’d see it plastered across headlines. But you don’t. Because it just doesn’t happen.”
Kirk’s takeaway is important: suppressors are owned by millions of Americans, and yet almost no criminal cases involve them. That fact alone undermines the entire justification for keeping suppressors under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
Myth #3: Deregulating Suppressors Means No Background Checks
Perhaps the most hysterical myth, Kirk says, is the belief that removing suppressors from the NFA means they’ll be handed out “like candy” with no background checks. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
As Travis from Securité Gun Club explains, even if suppressors were moved from NFA regulation to oversight under the Gun Control Act (GCA), buyers would still be required to fill out ATF Form 4473, undergo a federal background check, and in many states, observe a waiting period.
“Nothing changes except the $200 tax stamp and the fingerprinting,” Kirk states. “All the same safeguards apply.” And as Kirk notes, most gun owners have already been fingerprinted through concealed carry permits, pre-purchase licensing, or other firearm-related processes. This isn’t removing regulation; it’s removing redundancy.
What Really Changes Under the “Big Beautiful Bill”?
According to Kirk, the bill in its current form strips suppressors from the NFA and places them under the GCA. That means they’re treated like any other firearm: still regulated, still background-checked, and still tracked via Form 4473.
The only real difference is the absence of the tax stamp and the long ATF Form 4 process. What takes months today could soon take just days. “The idea that this turns suppressors into untraceable ghost guns is complete fiction,” Kirk asserts.
And with that, one has to ask: if the end-user experience isn’t fundamentally changing for law-abiding citizens, why all the panic? That’s where Kirk sees through the political noise – this is about control, not crime.
State Laws Could Still Trip You Up
Kirk also raises an important warning: federal deregulation does not override restrictive state laws. In his home state of Washington, suppressors are legal only if “registered in accordance with federal law.” If the federal registration requirement disappears, state law could technically make possession illegal again.
That’s not just a technicality – it’s a trap. “You could be in compliance with federal law and still be a criminal in your own state,” he warns. Washington isn’t alone in this; several states have conditional language that relies on federal registration for suppressor legality.
Why Section 3 of the SHUSH Act Matters
Here’s where it gets serious. The original SHUSH Act included a Section 3 “catch-all clause” that would’ve protected gun owners in these states by declaring federal compliance sufficient for state compliance. But Kirk notes that Section 3 is not currently included in the budget reconciliation package.
He urges gun owners, especially those in restrictive states, to contact their legislators and push for Section 3 to be added back in. Without it, the bill could do more harm than good for people in states like Washington, where outdated statutes could be used to criminalize otherwise legal suppressor ownership.
A Tool for Safety, Not Violence
Suppressors have long been demonized thanks to Hollywood fiction and anti-gun rhetoric. But Kirk’s demonstration cuts through that noise. Suppressors are safety tools. They protect hearing. They reduce recoil. They minimize noise complaints from neighbors. And they make range shooting more pleasant.
It’s ironic, isn’t it? The same lawmakers who push for OSHA hearing protections and complain about “noise pollution” are often the ones fighting to keep suppressors expensive and hard to access. Suppressors are more popular than ever for a reason – because they serve the public, not just the gun community.
The Real Question – Why Are We Still Regulating These?
When it comes down to it, Kirk’s breakdown shows just how outdated suppressor regulations really are. The NFA was designed in 1934 to fight mobsters and machine guns, not to burden modern-day hunters and range shooters. Millions of suppressors are already in circulation, and crime statistics don’t justify their current treatment.
So the real question becomes: why are we still doing this? Why is there still a $200 tax and a months-long wait for something that’s already functionally regulated like any other firearm?
The answer, it seems, is fear – manufactured and maintained by politicians who benefit from misunderstanding.
Suppressors Deserve Better Laws – And Better Press
William Kirk’s video doesn’t just debunk myths – it exposes the deep contradictions in America’s suppressor laws. His clear, evidence-backed presentation reminds us that suppressors are not weapons of war; they are safety devices. And while the media may not be eager to report on that, the facts are there for anyone willing to listen.
If the “Big Beautiful Bill” moves forward, especially with Section 3 included, it could mark a turning point in suppressor legislation. But for now, vigilance is key. Know your state laws. Push your representatives. And above all, reject the fear-driven narrative that paints lawful tools as criminal ones.
Follow the Right Voices
To stay informed, Kirk recommends watching Braden at Langley Outdoors Academy and Jared from Guns & Gadgets, both of whom are covering the bill’s development daily. His message is clear: don’t get distracted by myths. Get educated. Speak up. And fight for policies based on fact, not fear.
Suppressors aren’t the problem. The misinformation is.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.