It appears they may have lobbied to kill or alter the safe hearing act.



Here's a lobbying report:
https://www.scribd.com/documen...3-31-2024#from_embed

They may have lobbied to keep silencers on the NFA to save their business model but encourage the $200 tax stamp to be dropped. If silencers were reclassified under the GCA, then their business model evaporates.

More here...
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/...deregulation-stance/



Rumors have been swirling in the firearms community about a company lobbying Congress to keep silencers under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Lobbying disclosures show Silencer Central advocated for ‘suppressor tax stamp conservation legislation’ in 2024, prompting speculation about their stance on NFA deregulation.

AmmoLand News received similar reports from multiple sources but withheld coverage until corroborating documents and broader reporting emerged. With public discussion growing, we are now publishing what we’ve confirmed and what remains unclear.

Silencer Central is one of the largest sellers and manufacturers of suppressors in the United States. The company was part of the American Suppressor Association (ASA) but left the organization a year ago. The ASA represents manufacturers and sellers of hearing-saving devices. The ASA has lobbied for passage of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and publicly called for the removal of suppressors from the NFA.

Some industry insiders speculate, without public evidence, that Silencer Central’s lobbying may prioritize maintaining NFA regulations. Multiple sources familiar with Capitol Hill lobbying activities spoke to AmmoLand News under the condition of anonymity due to employment restrictions. While their statements are consistent with each other and with certain filings, these claims have not been independently confirmed.

Silencer Central’s business model is to ship suppressors directly to the buyer’s front door. This option is available for NFA items, but not for Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) items. They also make the Banish line of suppressors. If suppressors were removed from the NFA, they would likely be reclassified under the Gun Control Act (GCA), which does not allow direct-to-consumer shipping for such items. This would impact Silencer Central’s current business model, which is built around direct home delivery in 42 states.

When asked by a customer on X where they stand on HPA, Silencer Central responded, “As the nation’s largest online retailer of suppressors, we’re also one of the largest manufacturers. Our commitment to our customer[s] is unwavering, and we support any effort that reduces barriers to make suppressor ownership more accessible.”



When a follow-up question about suppressors remaining on the NFA was asked, the company did not respond. The post was about why they chose not to sign a Gun Owners of America (GOA) letter calling for the full passage of Section 2 of the HPA, which would remove suppressors from the NFA. Other companies like Silencer Shop signed the letter. Some gun owners questioned Silencer Central’s absence from the GOA letter, though the company has not publicly explained its decision.

Official Response from Silencer Central:
“Silencer Central is closely monitoring the ongoing congressional hearings surrounding the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). 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, and will continue to be, advocating for deregulation and 2nd amendment rights, while supporting any win we can get for our customers regarding their firearm and accessory ownership rights along the way. Regardless of the ever-changing regulatory landscape, we remain focused on delivering exceptional service and standing by the community we’re proud to be part of.” — Brandon Maddox, CEO, Silencer Central.

This statement marks the company’s first formal public response to questions about its lobbying strategy and its position on removing suppressors from the NFA.

Previous Concerns About HPA
In a 2024 interview with Dean Weingarten of AmmoLand News, Brandon Maddox, CEO of Silencer Central, stated he wanted to see the HPA pass but had concerns about it. He proposed a strategy different from those of other organizations, such as the ASA, National Rifle Association (NRA), and GOA.

“We are both a dealer and we also are manufacturers,” Maddox said. “We have a line of products that are some of the best-selling in the nation. People may not realize this, because people do not have access to them because we sell direct. We could sell a whole lot more if they became non-NFA items.”

“I think where we differ from some people is we feel there could be some sort of crawl, walk, run,” Maddox continued. “Some people are really focused on HPA, HPA, HPA. To me, it is obvious Biden is not going to sign that. I get trying to create some momentum for that. What we have been looking for is: Are there some key wins we can get for the silencers that would help us gradually get closer to getting approved for the Hearing Protection Act instead of focusing solely on that?”

The first public mention of Silencer Central being the company behind the lobbying against removing suppressors from the NFA was on the May 12 episode of the “We Like Shooting” Podcast. They called out the company by name, but the rumors were already spreading in the gun community before that episode was released. The ‘We Like Shooting’ podcast did not disclose its sources, and AmmoLand News could not confirm the claim.

“Allegedly, Silencer Central is working against removing suppressors from the NFA,” said host Shawn Herrin during the live broadcast.

YouTubers Braden Langley of Langley Outdoor Academy and Curtis Hallstrom of VSO Gun Channel suggested a company was lobbying against deregulation, which some interpreted as targeting Silencer Central, though no direct evidence was provided in their videos. According to a Q1 2024 lobbying disclosure filed by Natural Resource Results LLC, Silencer Central paid $50,000 for efforts described as “develop and support suppressor tax stamp conservation legislation.” A subsequent Q1 2025 filing from RBW Group LLC notes lobbying on the “Hearing Protection Act” and “regulation of suppressor purchases,” but does not detail any position for or against deregulation.

This effort could be tied to a proposal that would use tax stamp money collected from suppressors for the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. The act provides funding for states and territories to support wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter education and safety programs. Another lobbying report filed by RBW Group, LLC shows that Silencer Central hired them after terminating their contract with Natural Resource Results LLC. The lobbying issues are listed as “Regulation of suppressor purchases,” “Hearing Protection Act,” and “Hunting and recreational shooting access on public lands.”

In the Ways and Means Committee, the budget bill passed with Suppressors still listed on the NFA. The tax stamp fee will be lowered to $0 if it passes through Congress, which seems likely, but gun owners are upset because the registration requirements for suppressors remain in place, and the Ways and Means Committee could have sent it to the floor of the House with Section 2 of the HPA intact. It can still be modified on the House floor or the Senate. There is expected to be an effort in the Senate to alter the language to remove suppressors from the NFA.



Tony.

I’ve been following this elsewhere. It’s orders of magnitude worse than Bud Lite. These fucking traitors need to go out of business.

If anyone reading this at all considers themselves to be pro-2A, you absolutely need to be calling and emailing. We have an opportunity here to put the biggest dent in the curtailing of our firearms rights in nearly a century. If you ever gave a red cent to the NRA, ever typed or uttered the words “800lb gorilla in the room” and don’t make some noise about this one, then “Fudd” doesn’t even start to describe it.

The way I see this is that it all of us or just them.

I’m leaning towards all of us.

Plenty of smart people to get into the silence business. They will be missed but not for long.

I understand that could save their business model. Why are other suppressor companies not doing the same thing? How would keeping it on the NFA help only Silencer Central?

^ the other companies know and think like the rest of us and want no infringement regardless if they lose business. Apparently silencer central has donated $50k annually for years to keep the suppressors ON the tax and registration

quote:

Some industry insiders speculate, without public evidence, that Silencer Central’s lobbying may prioritize maintaining NFA regulations.

...

The first public mention of Silencer Central being the company behind the lobbying against removing suppressors from the NFA was on the May 12 episode of the “We Like Shooting” Podcast. They called out the company by name, but the rumors were already spreading in the gun community before that episode was released. The ‘We Like Shooting’ podcast did not disclose its sources, and AmmoLand News could not confirm the claim.

“Allegedly, Silencer Central is working against removing suppressors from the NFA,” said host Shawn Herrin during the live broadcast.

YouTubers Braden Langley of Langley Outdoor Academy and Curtis Hallstrom of VSO Gun Channel suggested a company was lobbying against deregulation, which some interpreted as targeting Silencer Central, though no direct evidence was provided in their videos.

I've bolded the important stuff.

I'm gonna need to see way more than mere speculation and the unsupported, unsubstantiated allegations of a couple of Youtube channels before I can put any weight behind this claim.

Y'know... some actual facts and evidence.

And even if they’re not 100% aligned with our goal, at least they aren’t dumb enough to try to pull this and act like we aren’t all completely justified in boycotting them into the ground. You can’t have it both ways as Silencer Central says with this “two things can be true at the same time” nonsense.

https://x.com/hardpass4/status...091011271532599?s=61



And here’s the link to the donations
https://lda.senate.gov/filings...e_max=&search=search

We have evidence that they've been paying lobbying groups.

But as the original article admits, we don't specifically know what they were paying them to lobby for.

It's speculated and alleged that it was to keep suppressors on the NFA, but there's so far been no actual evidence provided to show that.

Surely we need a higher bar than "some guy on Youtube claim it is so" before everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts busting out the torches and pitchforks?

quote:

Silencer Central paid $50,000 for efforts described as “develop and support suppressor tax stamp conservation legislation.” A subsequent Q1 2025 filing from RBW Group LLC notes lobbying on the “Hearing Protection Act” and “regulation of suppressor purchases,” but does not detail any position for or against deregulation.

This effort could be tied to a proposal that would use tax stamp money collected from suppressors for the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. The act provides funding for states and territories to support wildlife restoration, conservation, and hunter education and safety programs.

Another lobbying report filed by RBW Group, LLC shows that Silencer Central hired them after terminating their contract with Natural Resource Results LLC. The lobbying issues are listed as “Regulation of suppressor purchases,” “Hearing Protection Act,” and “Hunting and recreational shooting access on public lands.”

If true this is unforgivable.

well, they should come out and prove they are in support of removing them from the NFA list.

Anything short of that lends credibility to the assertion, they'll end up with a Springfield situation..

If it doesn't get approved, don't buy from them a nice 20 to 30% reduction in sales will be enough to humble anyone...

I don't know what is the truth when it comes to Silencer Central but I find it next to impossible to believe that silencers have the slightest chance of becoming unrestricted anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I don't know what is the truth when it comes to Silencer Central but I find it next to impossible to believe that silencers have the slightest chance of becoming unrestricted anyway.

They would still require a 4473 under the original wording of the HPA, but they would be removed from the NFA. So, seemingly the same federal legislations that apply to guns in regards to serial numbers, transfers, and prohibited owners would still apply. It's not like you could order them from Amazon... though I think we should be able to. They would not, however, require all the added nonsense that comes with NFA items and of course, the registry.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
It's speculated and alleged that it was to keep suppressors on the NFA, but there's so far been no actual evidence provided to show that.

Their own statements to the guy who wrote the article and asked for clarification were evasive. They didn't come right out and say any of this was incorrect.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Their own statements to the guy who wrote the article and asked for clarification were evasive. They didn't come right out and say any of this was incorrect.

I don't see where the guy who wrote the article asked them anything.

They did provide two statements, one to a customer's Twitter thread and then another public statement.

quote:

"As the nation’s largest online retailer of suppressors, we’re also one of the largest manufacturers. Our commitment to our customer[s] is unwavering, and we support any effort that reduces barriers to make suppressor ownership more accessible."

quote:

“Silencer Central is closely monitoring the ongoing congressional hearings surrounding the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). 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, and will continue to be, advocating for deregulation and 2nd amendment rights, while supporting any win we can get for our customers regarding their firearm and accessory ownership rights along the way."

What about these statements are evasive? Sounds like they're making a fairly straight-up statement that they support deregulation of suppressors. Specifically any deregulation efforts.

Besides, the article doesn't even include the original questions/statements to which these responses were provided, so how could you judge if these answers were evasive anyway?


This looks like a whole lot of hype, hysteria, and heartburn, but not much of any substance, at least thus far.

Despite that, the mob is already out for blood, calling them traitors and talking about boycotts. The standard of proof in the court of public opinion is awfully low these days.

Added context here that I'm drawing from:



It's raw and meandering, lots of dead air time and I'm just going to go ahead and say that's frustrating on the front end, but I can't do anything about it. They told him "two things can be true at once." They haven't come right out and say they didn't lobby to keep suppressors on the NFA. What you've quoted above doesn't do it, either. They also told him something about favoring a "crawl, walk, run" approach with regards to deregulation of suppressors that speaks to this.

Regardless, absent definitive proof that they didn't, someone got their fingers in this pie. Who stands to benefit? Well, offhand, I can think of a couple businesses that have an entire business model off the idea that they help the customer navigate a difficult and complicated process for a fee. The others came right out and said it wasn't them. How much money do they stand to make if you still have to navigate that seemingly complicated and difficult process that they can help you navigate if the tax stamp cost goes down to $0? Oodles. How much do they stand to make if every other online firearm retailer can just skip all that shit and send cans to dealers? Less than oodles.

I'm gonna go ahead and hang onto my pitchfork on this one because to me, it looks like what it looks like.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
They haven't come right out and say they didn't lobby to keep suppressors on the NFA.

Apparently this was emailed out to their customers earlier today.

It states, in black and white: "We are not lobbying against the HPA." And reiterates that they strongly support any legislative proposal that would allow more people to get suppressors.

They can lobby to have the HPA amended as it has been and that statement still be technically true. How is that even a stretch of the imagination?

I don't see how them stating publicly - twice - that they support any legislation that helps suppressors, still isn't a good enough denunciation for you.

No actual evidence + two formal outright denunciations = I have to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Back to what I said initially where I need actual evidence and facts before giving this any weight.

So we're going to agree to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
I don't see how them stating publicly - twice - that they support any legislation that helps suppressors, still isn't a good enough denunciation for you.

Because, again, nothing they've said specifically refutes what's being claimed. You can read it that way if you want to, I'm seeing that these are just general boilerplate statements on their part.

It's in the article, right at the top:

quote:

After publication preparation, Silencer Central contacted AmmoLand News to clarify its position. 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.”

At tax stamp means suppressors stay NFA, which means they get to keep their business model. That's the whole problem here. I don't get what you're missing.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
So we're going to agree to disagree here.

Yeah, I guess so.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
No actual evidence + two formal outright denunciations = I have to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Back to what I said initially where I need actual evidence and facts before giving this any weight.

That's where I'm at as well. My torches and pitchforks are staying in the garage for now.