ASA Reports from Richmond – Virginia Ban on Suppressor Sales Passes Out Of Committee

Since the Commonwealth of Virginia turned blue last Fall, Democratic lawmakers have introduced a slate of anti-gun legislation, along with bills that would curtail freedom of speech.

The American Suppressor Association has been hard at work in Richmond, lobbying to prevent the banning of suppressors.

This is their report on the current state of affairs.

RICHMOND, VA — This morning the Virginia House Public Safety Committee voted 12 – 9 in favor of passing an amended version of House Bill 961. Knox Williams, President of the American Suppressor Association, was on hand to testify in opposition. The vote took place on party lines, with the exception of Delegate Joshua Cole (D-28), who abstained. Now that the bill has passed committee, the House of Delegates will have until Tuesday, February 11th to pass this legislation prior to the crossover deadline.

The amended version of HB 961 makes several key concessions regarding suppressors. Chief among them is that lawfully obtained suppressors in Virginia will no longer be subject to confiscation. That means, should the bill become law, anyone who possesses a suppressor in the state prior to July 1st would be able to keep them. ASA spoke with legislators who said that the educational groundwork laid by the Association over the past month – including meetings with every member of the committee or their staff – was a key factor in their decision to amend the suppressor provisions of the bill. While this is a step in the right direction, HB 961 remains a bill that we oppose.

When asked during the hearing by Delegate Sam Rasoul (D-11) to clarify our stance on the bill, Williams made the following statement:

“Our position is essentially that these have been heavily federally regulated since 1934 and that those federal regulations are more than exhaustive; that additional state level regulations should not be imposed upon suppressors.”

ASA would like to thank Chairman Patrick Hope (D-47) for granting us time during the hearing to provide expert testimony to the committee.

The new language, which was not made available until several minutes into Delegate Mark Levine’s (D-45) opening testimony, reads:

18.2-308.11. Import, sale, transfer, etc., of silencers; penalty.

For purposes of this section, “silencer” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a firearm, including any part or combination of parts designed or intended for use in assembling or fabricating such a device.

It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, or purchase a silencer, provided that a person may transfer a silencer in accordance with the provisions of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.). A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 6 felony.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) any government officer, agent, or employee, or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire a silencer and does so while acting within the scope of his duties; (ii) the manufacture of a silencer by a firearms manufacturer for the purpose of sale to any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or to a law-enforcement agency in the Commonwealth for use by that agency or its employees, provided that the manufacturer is properly licensed under federal, state, and local laws; or (iii) the sale or transfer of a silencer to any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or to a law-enforcement agency in the Commonwealth for use by that agency or its employees.

63 Responses to “ASA Reports from Richmond – Virginia Ban on Suppressor Sales Passes Out Of Committee”

  1. Sam says:

    If I am reading this correctly, it would allow suppressors purchased and brought into the state prior to 1 July to be finish being transferred to the individual via the NFA after 1 July… ASA, is that correct?

    • Baldwin says:

      It won’t matter. One way or another the democrats want your stuff…all of it…your firearms, your firearms parts, your ammo, your rights. What they don’t specify this time, they will specify the next time around. Once that is all gone they will think of something else to take away…for your own good…forever.

      • Gerald says:

        Can’t have the subjects capable of defense, that would prevent full communism from being implemented.

      • TominVA says:

        Not happening. The Dems are a mess. Sorry about the suppressors.

        Just for fun, if you were Trump (in his own mind) for a day, what firearms, if any, would you consider banning? Or should private citizens have access to any weaponry they choose?

        • Stash says:

          In case anyone forgot, Tom has advocated, on this site, for a nationwide full turn in AWB numerous times.

        • Philip says:

          You can GFY with a cactus, Tom. Your style of statist bootlicking is partly why we’re where we are presently.

          No more discussion, no more compromise. Enough has been given away already.

        • Amish says:

          Tom, FOH with your pathetic Fudd attitude.

  2. LGonSS says:

    If I was a current suppressor company, I would refuse to sell to any state government that placed limitations on it’s non-military citizens. It also pisses me off that police get special loopholes.

  3. Israel Hoffman says:

    Where are the militias at now?? Everyone wants to be a patriot if it’s peaceful….

    • Jeb says:

      Everyone wants to be a militiaman until it’s time to do militia things.

    • TominVA says:

      So…what should the militias do?

      • Ross says:

        The Second Amendment is there to ensure we the people have the tools necessary to effectively & violently resist tyranny and oppression in all its forms. Maybe the militias should start with shooting some of these tyrants in the face.

    • Gerald says:

      Hunting clubs. Not militias.

    • Yawnz says:

      So where are you Billy Badass?

      • Jeb says:

        Obviously the sarcasm and humor were lost in the play on words. As for what I’ve done…I followed the lead of another patriot and shipped mags to VA and WA on my dime and time at NO cost. I’ve also financially supported initiatives to counter these bills through various organizations.

        Yawnz, I’m at home taking care of my responsibilities and finding time in between to support my fellow Americans. That’s where I’m at. Problem with it?

        Tom, I don’t have that answer for today’s climate. Forefathers and great influencers of the last 100 yrs would advocate civil disobedience. Noncompliance.

        • TominVA says:

          Before you attempt noncompliance, and possibly prison and loss of income, you might consider becoming more politically active – organize, protest, engage with your reps and members of congress, etc. Those options are still there.

        • LGonSS says:

          @Jeb same.

          Since my state became constitutional carry, half of my gun rights donations money has been given to states in danger (CA, VA, etc) to their local citizen defense leagues.

          • Jeb says:

            LGonSS, I find it the only way to fight back as someone who was born and raised in Calif before moving to a friendly state. Sadly, my new home has gone down the toilet over the past 15 yrs and we will be finding ourselves in VA’s boat before too long. So AZ or GA for me once obligations are done here.

            TominVA, I never advocated for non compliance. But the framers of this country sure did. But since you’re in VA, allow me these questions with an honest response, what would YOU do if VA outright banned ownership? Do you participate in NFA ownership? And finally, what good has engaging in politics, organizing peaceful protests and writing letters to congress critters gotten VA other than allowing grandfathering of current NFA ownership and +2 more rounds then what was originally in the bill? I suspect VA is about to become one poor state with a massive diaspora (proper analogy here) of residents moving WITH their tax dollars.

            • Stash says:

              Tom WANTS an AWB. That’s his perspective and it’s not worth engaging the ardent gun control advocate.

            • TominVA says:

              Jeb, VA won’t ban ownership. If it did, it would be quickly challenged in the courts. It’s just not gonna happen. BUT, let’s say the day comes when there is a national ban – heck let’s say the 2A is repealed. I guess I’d turn in my guns.

              No I don’t own NFA weapons. I just own normal guns.

              Stash, I don’t think I actually advocated an AWB, but I can’t remember. I seem to recall suggesting it was a reasonable response to the mass shootings. I remember getting all worked up prior to the first AWB going into effect. Then I realized it didn’t bother me at all.

              • Jeb says:

                Tom, then you probably shouldn’t be heard in this conversation. In fact, even if you had a point to make it wouldn’t have any weight. You have nothing to say to me that would make your voice relevant.

              • Ross says:

                “heck let’s say the 2A is repealed. I guess I’d turn in my guns”.

                That says it all. Firearms ownership to a lot of us is about freedom & freedom is worth fighting, killing and dying for. But with your above statement I guess you wouldn’t know anything about that.

                BTW: NFA weapons are normal guns.

                • SSD says:

                  It doesn’t matter if there’s a second amendment. That was just a reminder to our government about inherent rights granted by our creator. We have a right to bear arms regardless of whether it’s written down somewhere.

                  • Terry Baldwin says:


                    I am constantly saddened by the number of people in this country who think that the “Bill of Rights” GRANTS citizens their inalienable rights. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

                    The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution were articulated specifically and literally to place foundational RESTRAINTS on the National Government – and by extension State and Local Governments.

                    A rational conversation on the 2nd Amendment – or any of the others – has to start from that fundamental understanding. The Founders clear words and intent, not mine.

                    I admit, I am getting tired of trying to educate – rather than choke out – ignorant individuals who start to babble about “not needing an AR to kill a deer.” Is it too much to ask that people have a basic understanding of the Constitution’s tenets before they try to change it?


                  • Ross says:


                  • TominVA says:

                    Our creator grants us free will. How we choose to exercise that will and how He expects us to exercise it are obviously two different things. God gives us the “right” to head out to Nevada for a long weekend of gambling, drugs, and prostitutes. Pretty sure He doesn’t really want us doing that, though. I think there are many who would infer from your statement about inherent rights that God expects us to own firearms. Highly debatable.

                    • SSD says:

                      That was the goofiest attempt at a deflection I’ve ever seen. As to the question of whether God wants us to be armed? He certainly encourages it.

                      You really need to go read some Locke.

                      The right to bear arms is an inalienable right. Neither you, nor a mob can take that right away. Attempts to obfuscate aren’t going to change that.

                    • TominVA says:

                      I wasn’t deflecting. I was addressing your implication ( or maybe just my inference) that God wants us to have guns.

                      Where do you read that He encourages this?

                      Certainly we can infer from Locke the right to firearms ownership, but I don’t think he ever comes out and says such a thing does he? And even if he does, so what? Do we not allow for constraints on the exercise of personal liberty for the benefit of society, say in the case of convicted felons and firearms for instance?

                  • TominVA says:


                    Copy all regarding restraints and the founders’ intent. But…

                    There are many who refer to the founders in almost deific terms. Come to think of it, I don’t recall ever hearing anything like it outside discussions on the 2A. The founders were imperfect men who created an imperfect document and they knew it (hello 3/5 compromise, one of our “Constitution’s tenets”)Hence the mechanism for amending it. Still, it has worked pretty well for the most part. This is due to our commitment to our institutions (a quality absent in our current POTUS) and the regular exercise of our 1A rights and our right to vote, a point I’ve tried to make elsewhere in this thread.

                    Were they alive to see all that we have achieved, I don’t think the founders would object to some “reasonable” limits on firearms ownership. Besides, I wasn’t joking all that much with the video link above. Technology’s not far off that will make 2A irrelevant apart from hunting and personal and home defense.

                    • Terry Baldwin says:


                      First, I appreciate that you have the courage of your convictions and are willing to voice an opinion that, I think it is fair to say, puts you clearly in the minority on this site.

                      Still, I certainly think you are on the far wrong side of this subject. I agree with you that the Founders were imperfect men and they did not create perfection in the Constitution. However, IMHO they got about as close to perfection as humanly possible. I have written exactly that in a couple of past articles here on SSD.

                      I am not well qualified to speak of God’s intent, but I will attempt to answer your comment about “free will” as best I can. I believe that free will is inherently part of our human DNA. Whether one chooses to believe that characteristic is because of the intentional design of a Creator or from random natural selection. On a side note, the Bible is full of examples where people are divinely encouraged to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and their nation.

                      If there is Divinity in the equation, God’s covenant with individuals is to allow the unimpeded exercise of free will without direct Devine intervention. Assuming that an individual is of sound mind, he or she also has the intrinsic capacity to discern right from wrong and make moral decisions accordingly. God reserves the right to final judgement and grades on a curve. He does not demand zero defects of humans, but rather provides any number of options for ultimate redemption. However, there is no explicit or implicit intent to establish any sort of “power sharing” balance between God and the individual.

                      The Founders of our Republic, in their wisdom – and fully understanding human flaws and foibles – created a practical and innovative “social contract” in the Constitution. That contract explicitly and implicitly provide a power sharing arrangement between elements of the state and the individual. They built in “checks and balances” that provides mechanisms of friction and polarity between five competing centers of power. Three within the Federal Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial), the individual States, and finally the individual citizens.

                      Related to the subject at hand, the Founders recognized that the individual would always largely be at the mercy of the government unless significant restraints on federal power were put in place. Thus the 1st, 2nd, and 4th thru 8th Amendments in particular. The Constitutional construct itself acknowledges the existence of free will, but is designed to articulate and shield unwarranted infringement of individual civil liberties by government.

                      The Founders thought that the right to keep and bear arms was fundamental to both sustain the Republic (the common defense) and provide the ultimate guarantee to individual liberties. The 2nd Amendment was not an afterthought, it was central to the Constitutional framework.

                      Certainly, the Founders acknowledged that individual liberties are not infinite. In a functioning civil society, the free exercise of my rights has to be balanced against the free exercise of the rights of other citizens. That said, the Founders clearly opposed restricting or abolishing any civil liberties in the name of “security” or “public safety” as dangerous precedent and inimical to a free society and Republic.


                  • TominVA says:

                    I appreciate the thoughtful response.

                    With respect to God’s role in this debate, I think there are many who project their desires on to Him rather than honestly try to perceive His.

                    I won’t challenge your position on the Founders’ intent (well, not right now anyway). Given it was birthed in the days of flintlocks, for the sake of this discussion, I can easily accept it.

                    I do think they would be astonished at the kind of firepower available today to the average citizen – the kind that allows one man to murder 58 people and wound over 400 more in only, what? 10 minutes? We can’t know what their thoughts would be, but I think it’s a safe bet it would give them pause.

                    • Terry Baldwin says:


                      I will dodge anymore speculation about God. I am not qualified and do not want to risk bursting into flames or getting struck by lightening.

                      Consider this, the founders were much more afraid of a government’s potential of abusing power than citizens abusing their civil liberties.

                      Civil and criminal laws takes care of the latter. The Constitution had only to provide safeguards from the former.

                      Also, I have yet to see a technology that changes the core principles behind the base document or the Amendments.

                      The telegraph, telephone, radio, television, internet, or social media, communications mechanisms did not and should not change the 1st Amendment’s intent.

                      It could be argued that those new “free speech” tools – because of their speed and reach (firepower if you will) – are more dangerous than the printing press (musket) and must be restricted or even banned from citizen ownership. I would strongly disagree.

                      Any tool can be used or misused – depending not on the nature of the tool but rather only on the nature of the person using the tool.

                      Again, laws are in place to deal with individuals. Indeed, violent crime in this country has been dramatically reduced in the last 30 years. While the number of guns per capita has increased.

                      Moreover, 2/3s of all gun deaths are suicides and not victims of “gun violence” at all. Facts do matter.

                      On the other hand, the risk of unfettered government abuse of power has not diminished in the last 244 years. I would never advocate making any “adjustment” to the Constitution that would loosen or weaken those constraints. Eternal vigilance is still warranted.

                      Now, some of the comments here have been a little hyperbolic. The sky is not falling. Most of the states in the country – as reported on SSD – have actually been moving in the other direction. I consider that the good news.


  4. Joe_K says:

    Sic Semper Tyrannis

    • Jack Griffin says:

      Yet another state that now has an Orwellian motto.

    • TominVA says:

      Democracy works like that sometimes – you don’t always get what you want. The silver lining is you have a voice and a vote. You get to try again. Hardly tyrannical.

      • Joe_K says:

        We supposedly live in a Constitutional Republic, and even if a state has gone full Socialist Democracy, a State isn’t supposed to be able to do what VA and several other states have done before it, they have willfully trodden on the rights of free Men, simply because of a 12-9 vote.

        • TominVA says:

          I live in VA. I’ve still got my guns. What rights don’t I have?

          • Mike says:

            To transfer an “assault weapon” or suppressor after the deadline or to possess standard capacity magazine.

            As long as you only own revolvers, bolt actions, full stock pump shotguns, and maybe a lever action you should be okay. You can also have muskets, which is good because it seems to be the only type of rifle you think should be permissible by the crown.

      • Jeb says:

        Democracy is as much a unicorn as finding three smoking hot lesbians in your bed that you didn’t pay for. It doesn’t exist. Mainly, because like democracy, smoking hot lesbians who like hot dogs are magical entities.

  5. frokost says:

    Maybe, given current regulations, smarter to mandate suppressors on all weapons if they really want to control things…
    But they are not smart.

  6. Mehmaster says:

    Love a.m.a I also give oodles of hard earned bread to support them ,the n.r.a slush fund and the a.s.a.b.a.c.m.o the American suppressor and bumpstocks againts country music organization. Don’t stop with supressors boys these tyrants won’t stop our peacful ownership of claymores ,80mm motars and cool ass flame throwers

    Sic semper tyranis!

  7. Amer-Rican says:

    The democrat party= socio-fascism like Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

  8. Josh says:

    If HB 961 clears the house (likely) once in the senate the odds are decent it won’t pass. Several “moderate” Dem Senators aren’t backing it….this time at least. The VA Senate is currently 21D-19R. During this session the Senate has killed some far less draconian bills with Democratic support. Unfortunately this is Iike being a 95 year old terminal cancer patient and being told the cancer has gone into remission. Be it next month or next year, the end is near.

  9. Bert says:

    At some point this is going to go violent.

    I really wish this was not the case.

    But they brought this on.

    May they reap the whirlwind.

    • TominVA says:

      How would it go violent? Why should it? Just vote the Dems back out.

      • Ross says:

        This will end in violence, when all legal avenues have been exhausted and voting no longer works and the tyrants have taken control and oppress the people the people’s only recourse is to invoke the second amendment as intended by the framers and resort to violence and remove these tyrants though force of arms.

  10. Josh says:

    I don’t know. I take a fundamentalist view of the 2nd, but have you walked around the local Walmart and taken stock of the average gun owner? I love the story of resolute Patriots taking up arms against our urbanite progressive overlords, but I see obesity and high blood pressure stuffed into a pair of sweatpants with an Uncle Mike’s holster hanging of their hip and realize it’s just fantasy. The small percentage of people with the intelligence, charisma, and training to organize and do something should we ever get to that dire point, well…won’t, because we won’t get there. John Galt didn’t need to take up arms to stop the engine.

    The pendulum perpetually swings in this country. Every anti gun law can be defeated next election cycle if we remain politically engaged & actually show up to vote. Activism isn’t just for nerds. There very well may be a time between now and our countries demise to “hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats” but as much as I pray to Crom asking for that day, it won’t be in our lifetime. Just my opinion.

    • Terry Baldwin says:


      Well said! And if Crom does not answer your prayers – to hell with him!


    • El Terryble says:

      I don’t know. Our enemy consists mostly of effete, video game playing she-males that moved out of their mother’s basement three month’s ago, people like Mayer Pete Buttgig, old wind-sucking boomers like Bernie Sanders, nice pretty college girls corrupted by their gender studies professor into thinking they’re oppressed lesbians and that there are 47 genders, Muslims, illegal aliens, and the criminal element.

      Give me 150,000 well motivated, good men, and I think we could take them. There is always 10,000 men who haven’t bowed their knees to Baal in the Land of Israel.

      • El Terryble says:

        What my statement above implies is that all of this “gun-grabbing” isn’t going to be carried out by those mentioned above. Ain’t no lawyer in the Virginia House of Delegates going to jeopardize the sweet man-love he gets from his gender neutral boyfriend, going to put down his latte to take ANYONES gun. The Governor and Attorney General of Virginia dress in blackface, and the Lt. Governor is a rapist, they ain’t going to do nothing. No, they’ll get good, bootlicking apparatkiks in the law enforcement of Communist controlled sections of Northern Virginia to do their dirty work. That, however, would be a mistake, seeing that about 2/3 of the states law enforcement have declared themselves “sanctuary 2nd Amendment” jurisdictions. More importantly, other unnamed agencies are keeping an eye on the situation, noting, taking down notes. It would behoove some of these left-wing apparatkiks to take a look at what’s happening in New York with the NYPD and DeCommieO, or what happened under Barack Hussein in places like Dallas with BLM. Once they take all they patriots guns away, what do you think they are going to do to you? Give you a promotion? No. The Left will turn on you, just as it turned on all its executioners. Like Stalin turned on Trotsky. Like how the Great Terror was unleashed not on the Russian People, who were already groveling for crumbs of bread in the gulag, but on officers of the Red Army and the Communist Party. Just think about that before you start carrying out the order of Mayor Blumturd and “BlackFace” Northam.

  11. Papa6 says:

    The three “boxes” of our Republic:

    1. The voting box
    2. The jury box
    3. The ammo box

    In that order.

    • Terry Baldwin says:


      I’d suggest that “the Soap box” is the first of four. People have to be persuaded before resorting to the others.


      • El Terryble says:

        Most people are too stupid, or so utterly lacking in critical thinking skills due to being brainwashed by 12+ years in the government school monopoly, which is designed to make them compliant sheeple, as well as six to eight hours a day in front of some sort of TV or their smart phone so as to make them godless, immoral reprobates, that it is probably counterproductive to educate them to the fact that my and your 2nd Amendment rights are not subject to plebiscite or the whims of the mob. The rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are “inalienable”, meaning they are inherent to the individual and unable to be stripped from him baring his attempt to deprive another of his life, liberty, or property without due process. Natural rights, like the right to self defense, are given by God to each individual, and nobody can take them away, not the courts, not the government, not a plebiscite, not the mob. The 2nd Amendment was enshrined in the Constitution not only to encompass the individual right to self-defense, but for the collective self-defense of the People as a whole, as a last resort against tyranny.

        As the saying goes, democracy is when three wolves and two sheep decide what to have for dinner.

        A republic is when three wolves and two sheep vote to elect someone to decide what to have for dinner.

        And a constitutional republic, such as America was not too long ago, is where everyone decides for himself what to have for dinner and the sheep are armed.

  12. Jeb says:

    Terry B, I love you. No homo.

  13. El Terryble says:

    Kind of coincidental that the guy who more than likely won the Iowa Caucus, and is likely to win the New Hampshire Primary (and who sang the Internationale on his honeymoon in Moscow at the height of the Cold War while taking shots of vodka in a sauna) just had three of his paid campaign staffers in separate locations caught on tape by Project Veritas advocating for gulags, firing squads, and the liquidation of those “opposing the Revolution”; and in Virginia the Commies, err Democrats, are going balls to the wall gun confiscation like it was Venezuela circa 2008.

    I saw a movie that started out like this where they incrementally started taking people’s rights and confiscating all the firearms after they elected a tyrant to office. It was called “Schindler’s List”.

  14. El Terryble says:

    What’s happening in Virginia motivated me to watch the 1984 movie “Red Dawn” the other day. What a film, high school kids form a guerrilla unit and start liquidating Communist invaders. Wolverines, indeed. Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Story, and Abraham Lincoln always said that, if America were to fall, it would be from within. I guess we can start referring to Virginia as occupied territory. The Common Wealth of Commies, so to speak.