Donald Trump could be about to lift an almost 100-year-old law and it’s left people in complete shock
The President of the United States has made it clear that he is committed to safeguarding the liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
The possibility that Donald Trump may repeal a long-standing weapons regulation has left many in shock.
The president has hinted at overturning a 91-year-old law on firearm silencers, originally introduced to combat gang violence during the Prohibition era. This move follows his recent decision to lift a 20-year ban on selling silencers to non-citizens— a restriction put in place in 2002 to prevent U.S.-manufactured silencers from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations.
The Trump administration argues that rolling back these restrictions would boost American manufacturers and uphold the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
According to The Reload, President Trump recently directed newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi to review federal weapons policies, specifically targeting potential unlawful restrictions—particularly those implemented under Vice President Joe Biden’s administration.
Biden’s sweeping gun reform efforts included stricter background checks for buyers under 21, funding for “red flag” laws allowing authorities to confiscate firearms from individuals deemed a threat, and closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” which bars those convicted of domestic abuse from owning a handgun.
According to Cowboy State Daily, gun rights advocates see this as a potential sign that Trump is accelerating his efforts to eliminate restrictions on silencers—regulations that some argue have been in place far too long.
The National Rifle Association Hunter’s Leadership Forum explains that suppressors, which attach to rifles, work by trapping blast pressure and gases at the muzzle, typically reducing gunshot noise by 20 to 35 decibels.
In an interview with The Daily Mail, gun owner Adam Ashmore described the difference firsthand, stating that while his AR-15 produces a sharp crack when fired, it isn’t significantly louder than a .22 rimfire rifle with a suppressor. He emphasized that Hollywood has misled the public, adding, “They watch movies and think it’s completely silent, but it’s not like that.”
Mark Jones, director of Gun Owners of America, emphasized that suppressors are widely used by big-game hunters to protect their hearing, while other advocates argue that they also help reduce rifle recoil. To advance this cause, Representative Ben Cline and Senator Mike Crapo plan to reintroduce the Hearing Protection Act.
Cline defended the proposal, stating, “Americans who enjoy hunting and target shooting should be able to do so in a fashion that is both safe and legal, without having to contend with burdensome regulations from the government.”
He further explained that the act would reclassify suppressors, making it easier for responsible gun owners to safeguard their hearing while participating in recreational shooting.
However, the idea has sparked controversy, with many critics taking to social media to voice their opposition. One viral tweet bluntly argued, “Law-abiding citizens don’t need suppressors—nor a firearm.”
Another critic scoffed, “If it hurts your poor little ears, don’t shoot them.”
Others suggested simpler solutions, with one person arguing that “foam earplugs that cost fifty cents would be a more suitable alternative to a weapons suppressor.”
Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, suppressors are subject to a $200 tax stamp, a requirement for restricted weapons and accessories. Prospective owners must undergo a lengthy application process, obtain a specialized license, and once approved, are prohibited from lending their suppressors to fellow hunters.
According to the American Guns Trade website, the law’s “underlying purpose” was “to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in non-federal firearms.”
The document further explains that Congress viewed these firearms as a “significant crime problem due to their frequent use in gang-related violence, including infamous incidents like the Valentine’s Day Massacre.”
If the proposal were to be scrapped, prospective buyers would no longer face bureaucratic red tape or extra costs. Instead, they would simply need to present identification and complete a background check form— a process that typically takes just a few minutes in-store.
Meanwhile, UNILAD has reached out to the White House for comment.
