Missouri committee holds public hearing on bills to allow in‑state manufacture and sale of firearm suppressors

State Representative Mike Caso and State Representative Ben Baker told the Missouri House Committee on General Laws on Tuesday that House Bill 548 (and companion HB 898) would legalize the manufacture and sale of firearm suppressors inside Missouri so long as the devices are made with Missouri materials and remain in the state.

"This is dealing with firearm suppressors. This will legalize firearm suppressors within the state of Missouri," Representative Mike Caso said in the committee hearing. He and Baker described suppressors as an accessory that reduces, but does not eliminate, gunshot noise and noted current federal regulation under the National Firearms Act requires a roughly $200 tax stamp and an ATF background process to obtain one.

Supporters told the committee suppressors reduce the risk of hearing damage in hunting and instructional settings. "They make it a little bit safer for the ears," Baker said, describing practical uses such as teaching children to shoot and hunting, and saying the requirement for a federal tax stamp and long waiting periods suppresses in‑state manufacturing and sales.

Both sponsors framed the bills as narrowly focused on intrastate commerce: manufacture in Missouri, using Missouri materials, and sale staying within Missouri. The bills also include a mechanism for a Missouri resident to file a written notice of intent with the state attorney general, prompting the attorney general to seek a declaratory judgment in federal court to resolve whether intrastate suppressors fall outside the scope of federal commerce‑clause regulation.

Committee members pressed sponsors on constitutional and procedural questions. Representative Engel asked whether suppressors are effectively banned at the federal level; Baker answered that suppressors are listed among NFA items and subject to the ATF tax and registration regime. Representative Dean and others repeatedly raised the likely prospect of federal litigation and the potential cost to the state if the law is challenged. Representative Dean said he is concerned about the expense: "I don't expect this bill to be any different, especially, with the way that things are going, with our income tax cuts that we're doing, revenues dropping. It just I cannot make sense of something ... that we know is going to go to court."

Legal background came up repeatedly in committee discussion. Sponsors referenced Wickard v. Filburn and other commerce‑clause jurisprudence to argue that intrastate manufacture for intrastate sale is a defensible line to draw; Baker said he has spoken to legal advisers who believe careful drafting could avoid the standing problems that led a Texas suit to be dismissed in the Fifth Circuit. Committee members noted that the Fifth Circuit dismissal there turned on standing and the way the petition was worded.

In public testimony, Arnie C. ACDinos, identifying himself as "state public advocate," and other witnesses supported the bills and urged the committee to move them forward despite the likelihood of litigation. A witness who identified herself as Susan Myers cited ATF tracing numbers and a small percentage of suppressors tied to crime scenes, and referenced medical associations that support noise‑reduction devices to prevent hearing loss.

The committee did not vote on the bills; the hearing ended after oral testimony. Committee leadership said executive‑session work on related substitute language remains ongoing and that only public hearings were scheduled for that day.

Ending: The committee's discussion focused on technical drafting to try to limit the bills to intrastate manufacture and use, and on how the bills' declaratory‑judgment language would be implemented. Sponsors said they expect litigation; opponents and some members warned of state litigation costs. The bills will return to committee for further drafting before any vote.