American gun owners who use suppressors could soon see major shifts in how these devices are regulated. Right now, two separate federal lawsuits are working their way through the courts while state legislatures are taking their own action on silencer laws.
South Dakota recently passed Senate Bill 2, which removes silencers from the state's list of "controlled weapons." The bill cleared both chambers of the state legislature and is currently waiting for the governor's signature. Under existing South Dakota law, silencers fall into the same category as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. Anyone caught possessing these controlled weapons without proper licensing faces felony charges.
The way the current law works is actually pretty straightforward. State code defines controlled weapons and makes them illegal to own unless they're properly registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act. That federal registration requires a tax stamp, which currently costs nothing for silencers after previously being set at $200.
So why would South Dakota lawmakers want to remove silencers from this definition if the ATF is still issuing tax stamps? According to statements made by legislators supporting the bill, they want to treat silencers as safety devices rather than weapons. The reasoning makes sense when you think about it. Machine guns and short-barreled shotguns can actually fire rounds on their own, but a silencer is just an attachment that reduces noise. It can't be used as a standalone weapon.
There's another angle to consider too. If the federal lawsuits challenging silencer regulations succeed, the ATF might stop issuing tax stamps altogether. That would create a weird situation where silencers would be legal at the federal level but accidentally illegal in South Dakota because there wouldn't be any registration system to comply with state law. By removing silencers from the controlled weapons definition now, the state prevents that problem before it happens.
The legislative session timing in South Dakota and many other states goes back to the old days when most legislators were farmers. They scheduled sessions during winter months when there wasn't any planting or harvesting to do. That tradition continues today even though most lawmakers aren't working the fields anymore.
Meanwhile at the federal level, some proposed legislation tried to increase the tax stamp price dramatically. One amendment to a defense bill would have raised the cost from zero dollars all the way up to $4,709 per silencer. That specific number comes from calculating what the original 1934 price of $200 would equal in 2026 dollars when adjusted for inflation. The proposal would have also increased the tax on "any other weapon" category items from zero to $55, up from the previous $5. However, this amendment didn't make it into the final version of the bill that passed the Senate.
The real action is happening in federal courtrooms. Two major lawsuits are challenging the National Firearms Act itself, both focusing on the same basic argument about whether a zero dollar tax can legally be considered a tax at all.
The first case is Brown v. ATF, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, National Rifle Association, and American Suppressor Association. These groups are arguing that the entire NFA should be thrown out for items that currently have a zero dollar tax stamp. Their legal theory centers on the fact that the NFA was originally upheld by courts because it was seen as a valid use of Congress's constitutional authority to levy taxes. But if the tax amount is zero, does that really count as a tax?
Both sides in the Brown case have filed summary judgment motions. This is a legal procedure where each party asks the judge to rule in their favor based on the arguments and facts presented so far, without going to trial. The judge could grant one side's motion and end the case at this level, or could order the lawyers to come argue their positions in person, or could deny both motions and send the case to a full trial. Right now everyone is waiting for the judge's decision.
Even if one side wins completely on summary judgment, the fight probably won't end there. The losing side would almost certainly file an appeal, which could eventually reach the Supreme Court. And even after an appeals court rules, the case might get sent back down to the trial court for more proceedings or even a full trial. The legal system moves slowly and has many steps.
The second lawsuit is Jensen v. ATF, filed in the Northern District of Texas back in October 2025. The plaintiffs are the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Texas State Rifle Association. This case makes similar arguments about zero dollar taxes not really being taxes at all. Even though some of the same organizations are involved in both cases, having them filed in different districts and circuits means completely different judges will hear the cases at both the trial level and on appeal. Like the Brown case, Jensen also has summary judgment motions pending with the judge.
If either case results in a complete victory for the plaintiffs and the NFA gets struck down, don't expect changes to happen immediately. The ATF would likely ask the court for a stay, which is a legal mechanism to keep the current law in place while they appeal the decision. Courts grant these stays pretty routinely, and there's good reason for it. Imagine if someone built a new silencer during the gap between the law being struck down and then getting reinstated by an appeals court. That person could end up in serious legal trouble through no fault of their own. A stay prevents that kind of messy situation.
The timing of these cases matters too. Even though summary judgment decisions could come any day, the appeals process could drag on for years. And if either case does reach the Supreme Court, that adds even more time to the timeline.
For gun owners who use silencers for hearing protection while hunting or shooting, these developments are worth watching closely. The combination of state legislative action and federal court challenges could reshape how suppressors are regulated across the country. South Dakota is taking a proactive approach by changing its laws ahead of any federal decision, while other states might wait to see how the lawsuits play out.
The fundamental question in both lawsuits is actually pretty simple to understand, even if the legal implications are complex. Can the government use its constitutional taxing power to regulate something if it's not actually collecting any tax money? The NFA survived legal challenges decades ago specifically because courts said Congress was exercising its power to levy taxes. Strip away the tax, and the legal foundation might crumble.
Whether you support or oppose these changes, the next few years will likely bring significant developments in silencer law. Court decisions in the Brown and Jensen cases could set precedents that affect firearms regulations beyond just silencers. State legislatures will be watching too, ready to adjust their own laws based on how the federal cases turn out.
For now, anyone who owns or wants to own a silencer still needs to follow all existing federal and state laws, including getting the proper tax stamp from the ATF where required. These lawsuits and legislative changes represent potential future shifts, not current reality. The legal battles are just getting started, and the outcome remains uncertain.
