Posted: 6/16/2026 6:41:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: spmx7777][Edited]
|
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/bfa-again-testifies-favor-sb-214-remove-suppressors-ordnance-definition BFA again testifies in favor of SB 214 to remove suppressors from ordnance definition 6:00am Wednesday, June 10, 2026 On Tuesday, June 9, 2026, Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) testified before the House Public Safety Committee in favor of Senate Bill 214. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kyle Koehler (R-Springfield), proposes revisions to the Ohio Revised Code, eliminating suppressors and mufflers from the definition of dangerous ordnance and removing language that mandates suppressor registration under the National Firearms Act of 1934. This was the committee's second hearing on the bill, which passed the Senate in March. Here is the testimony of Jim Samuel, BFA's legislative affairs director: Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas and members of the House Public Safety Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify as a proponent of Senate Bill 214. My name is Jim Samuel, and I serve as Legislative Affairs Director for the Buckeye Firearms Association. BFA is Ohio’s leading organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the Second Amendment rights of Ohio’s 4 million gun owners. Our organization has consistently advocated for legal, safe, and responsible firearm use for self-defense, hunting, competition, and recreation. And that includes the use of suppressors as a hearing safety device. The history of suppressor over-regulation dates back to the Prohibition era. Hollywood popularized the myth that every gangster used a suppressor and that they were a common tool for spies and assassins. However, in the real world, suppressors are rarely used in crime. And they do not “silence” a gun. They simply reduce the noise to a safer decibel level. Anyone who shoots or hunts frequently has likely experienced some degree of hearing loss. And noise complaints frequently plague outdoor ranges. This is why suppressors can be a useful tool to promote hearing safety and reduce noise pollution. In many European countries, where firearm laws are much stricter than in the US, suppressors are widely encouraged as standard, respectful hunting equipment. In countries such as Norway, Finland, and Poland, suppressors are treated similarly to accessories or ammunition. Gun owners can purchase them over-the-counter with zero additional paperwork. Senate Bill 214 is a straightforward yet important piece of legislation that simply removes suppressors and mufflers from a list of dangerous ordinances in the code that includes grenades, rocket launchers and artillery pieces. It seeks to treat suppressors as the safety accessory they are. We want to thank Senator Koehler for sponsoring the bill, as well as his 16 fellow senate cosponsors. The bill was unanimously reported out of senate committee and passed the Senate with another bipartisan vote of 31-1. Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer questions from you or other members of the committee. |
|
Originally Posted By rDigital: This is a pretty important one with the popularity of suppressors, and the issue of suppressors being in the same category as missile launchers.  Whats wrong with missile launchers? Get rid of the whole dangerous ordnance list... |
|
Originally Posted By spmx7777: Serious question. Why is this something BFA is spending political capital on? If suppressors are removed from the dangerous ordnance definition how does that affect anyone? I guess it has to do with laws punishing misuse of dangerous ordnance. Is that right? My understanding is that if supressors are removed from thr NFA, there will no longer be a way to purchase them in Ohio. The stamp is an affirmative defense. This is already happening with the recent court ruling on $0 stamps. Beat. 
|
|
Originally Posted By JKH62: Got into it with a county sheriff detective when I had his boss sign my form 1 for a suppressor build. Detective issued me this : https://i.imgur.com/LuSJSpQ.jpg That may be the 2nd one ive ever seen. Supposedly the state fire Marshall issued them? There is supposed to be a form to apply and its like 50 bucks. But I have never found the form, short of calling the fire Marshall. I used to know the form number. The other guy i know got his from the fire marshall and they pretty much told him it wasnt necessary, but he insisted and they issued it to him. Maybe we should all call and get the application. Send them in and ask for a blanket approval for "NFA items" or something like that |
|
Originally Posted By SGT-Fish: That may be the 2nd one ive ever seen. Supposedly the state fire Marshall issued them? There is supposed to be a form to apply and its like 50 bucks. But I have never found the form, short of calling the fire Marshall. I used to know the form number. The other guy i know got his from the fire marshall and they pretty much told him it wasnt necessary, but he insisted and they issued it to him. Maybe we should all call and get the application. Send them in and ask for a blanket approval for "NFA items" or something like that Mine came from the sheriffs department and the guy that issued it said I was in violation of Ohio law not having one for each of my suppressors and other class 3 toys. He told me that they issued them to armored car companies and others to carry firearms before there was any carry permits. No idea but it cost me zero and no idea if its still a thing but it took me several trips and multiple go arounds with the detective. The sheriff told me just let him issue you the stupid permit / he did not care. |
|
Originally Posted By JKH62: Mine came from the sheriffs department and the guy that issued it said I was in violation of Ohio law not having one for each of my suppressors and other class 3 toys. One of those is the exemption where you have one of these OH issued permits, and another one is having the item registered under the federal NFA. So really, you're not in violation of OH law if you did the NFA registration but not the OH permit, which is why 99% of Ohio NFA owners have never even heard of that permit. Though, now that we stand on the edge of this possible removal of SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors from the NFA this makes things a bit interesting. Even if that happens, they're still DOs in Ohio, so you'd have to do something to be exempted from the law (until the law changes, which would be ideal). Maybe one route would be to get this OH permit instead of an NFA stamp... Also interesting is that the ORC for using suppressors while hunting explicitly requires they be registered under the NFA, so technically any of those non-NFA registered suppressors, even if otherwise legal, couldn't be used for hunting.  |
|
Originally Posted By spmx7777: Serious question. Why is this something BFA is spending political capital on? If suppressors are removed from the dangerous ordnance definition how does that affect anyone? I guess it has to do with laws punishing misuse of dangerous ordnance. Is that right? The recent court ruling will allow over the counter suppressors on a 4473, no form 4. This currently does not apply in Ohio, as Ohio outlaws suppressors, unless they are registered on the nfa. |
Trusting your life to the benevolence of an armed criminal is not a strategy, it is stupid!
|
Originally Posted By JKH62: Got into it with a county sheriff detective when I had his boss sign my form 1 for a suppressor build. Detective issued me this : https://i.imgur.com/LuSJSpQ.jpg I asked Gemini AI to research and create instructions for Ohio residents to get this permit. As with anything AI, it can be wrong on some details but at least we have a path we can work with. The document images show historical examples of the official "Application to Acquire, Possess, Carry or Use Dangerous Ordnance" issued under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) § 2923.18. These applications from Lorain County highlight how the process worked prior to the modern NFA e-Forms era—specifically showing a 1989 approval to manufacture a .22 suppressor and a 1993 approval for a 12-gauge Short-Barreled Shotgun (SBS). If an Ohio resident wants to apply for a Dangerous Ordnance License/Permit under ORC § 2923.18, the step-by-step procedure follows state statutory guidelines: Step-by-Step Application Process (ORC § 2923.18) Step 1: Identify the Local Issuing Authority Applications must be submitted directly to either: The Sheriff of the county where you reside (or where your principal place of business is located), or The Chief of Police / Safety Director of the municipality where you reside. Step 2: Complete the Written Application Under Oath You must fill out the official triplicate form (or current local law enforcement equivalent) in front of a Notary Public. As shown on the form, the required information includes: Personal Information: Full name, date of birth, residential address, occupation, and employer. Item Description: Exact details of the item (e.g., "12 GA. Short-Barreled Shotgun, Model Defender, Serial #..." or "Parts to manufacture .22 silencer"). Storage Location: Specific description of where and how the item will be securely kept (e.g., "Residence at above listed address"). Intended Use Location: Where the item will be used (e.g., "All lawful places"). Statement of Purpose: The legal justification for acquiring or possessing the item. Competence Statement: Declaration of experience or qualifications in handling the item safely. Step 3: Establish a Statutory "Legitimate Purpose" Under ORC § 2923.18(A), the issuing authority can only grant a permit if the applicant meets explicit criteria: The applicant must be at least 21 years old and not otherwise disqualified by law. The applicant must demonstrate competence to safely handle the item and have proper security precautions in place. The purpose must fall under a recognized category: legitimate commercial/industrial work (explosives), research/educational/scientific purpose, armored guard service, or—at the discretion of the issuing authority—a bona fide collector or other proper purpose. Step 4: Pay the Required Application Fee Submit the required fee along with your notarized application: $5.00 for a Temporary Permit (issued for casual/consumable use, valid up to 30 days). $50.00 for a License (issued for nonconsumable items, like firearms/suppressors; historically listed as "Indefinite" or specified for at least 1 year). Step 5: Background Check & Issuing Authority Discretion The Sheriff or Police Chief conducts a record check. Unlike mandatory ("shall-issue") concealed handgun licenses, ORC § 2923.18 grants the chief law enforcement officer broad discretion. If approved, the Sheriff signs off on the form. Step 6: Distribution of Copies Once approved, the triplicate copies are distributed: White Copy: Provided to the Applicant as their official permit/license. Yellow Copy: Forwarded by local authorities to the Ohio State Fire Marshal to maintain a permanent statewide registry. Blue Copy: Retained in the Sheriff’s or Police Department’s permanent files. Is the Application Available Online for Download? No, there is no centralized state web portal or universal online PDF download for this form. Unlike Ohio's Concealed Handgun License (CHL) application—which is standardized statewide by the Ohio Attorney General and hosted on state websites—the Dangerous Ordnance application is administered locally under ORC § 2923.18(B). How to Obtain the Form Today: Direct Request from Local Law Enforcement: You must contact or visit the Sheriff's Office in your county of residence or your local Municipal Police Department / Safety Director. Local Agency Provision: Because applications under ORC § 2923.18 are so rare for personal firearms, most county sheriffs do not maintain a digital download link on their public websites. Local agencies either provide physical paper copies of the traditional BSSA form or issue their own internal department template upon request. Notarization Requirement: Regardless of where you receive the physical form, the application must be signed and executed under oath in front of a Notary Public prior to submission to your local sheriff or chief of police. |
|
BFA is respectfully but enthusiastic encouraging our State Lawmakers in the Ohio House to pass SB 214 asap. It has already passed the Senate. Stay tuned to Buckeyefirearms.org for updates and sign up for our newsletter. Credit where it is due - We should give a tip of the hat to Congress and President Trump for the Big Beautiful Bill making this legal challenge/victory a possibility. Originally Posted By _B_: This |
|
Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode: BFA is respectfully but enthusiastic encouraging our State Lawmakers in the Ohio House to pass SB 214 asap. It has already passed the Senate. Stay tuned to Buckeyefirearms.org for updates and sign up for our newsletter. Credit where it is due - We should give a tip of the hat to Congress and President Trump for the Big Beautiful Bill making this legal challenge/victory a possibility. Hopefully they are mustering the political will in the GA to remove the whole verbiage pertaining to "Sawed-off Firearms" as well. And all this shines more light on the importance of the Governors race if this stuff drags out into next year. |
|
Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode: BFA is respectfully but enthusiastic encouraging our State Lawmakers in the Ohio House to pass SB 214 asap. It has already passed the Senate. Stay tuned to Buckeyefirearms.org for updates and sign up for our newsletter. Credit where it is due - We should give a tip of the hat to Congress and President Trump for the Big Beautiful Bill making this legal challenge/victory a possibility. @KnightofTheOldeCode Any idea of a timeline for the next movement on this bill or when it might get passed? |
The posts made on this forum are purely my private opinion and don’t represent any employer or entity I am professionally associated with.
|
Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode: BFA is respectfully but enthusiastic encouraging our State Lawmakers in the Ohio House to pass SB 214 asap. It has already passed the Senate. Stay tuned to Buckeyefirearms.org for updates and sign up for our newsletter. Credit where it is due - We should give a tip of the hat to Congress and President Trump for the Big Beautiful Bill making this legal challenge/victory a possibility. Awesome to hear BFA is on this, we need to get a letter writing campaign in motion and make this happen fast. I want to be able to spoil myself without Form 1's or 4's this Christmas 
|
|
Just to be clear, the recent court ruling does not cover short barrel rifles or shotguns. Separate from the NFA, the GCA 68 requires those to be approved by the attorney general and the only current mechanism to do that is a form 1 or 4. I suppose this is subject to change, but thats the way things are today. |
Trusting your life to the benevolence of an armed criminal is not a strategy, it is stupid!
|
Originally Posted By shotar: Just to be clear, the recent court ruling does not cover short barrel rifles or shotguns. Separate from the NFA, the GCA 68 requires those to be approved by the attorney general and the only current mechanism to do that is a form 1 or 4. I suppose this is subject to change, but thats the way things are today. Originally Posted By shotar: Just to be clear, the recent court ruling does not cover short barrel rifles or shotguns. Separate from the NFA, the GCA 68 requires those to be approved by the attorney general and the only current mechanism to do that is a form 1 or 4. I suppose this is subject to change, but thats the way things are today. The Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF case ruled that all of the NFA items that had their tax lowered to $0 in the BBB could not be regulated under the NFA any longer, that included SBRs and SBSs, at least in the case of the established plaintiffs. It is correct that this case had no effect on the GCA parts of the USC, and there are some relevant entries that still stand, the main one of contention is: 18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts (a) It shall be unlawful ... (4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; -AND- (b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver ... (4) to any person any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; and... (a)(4) deals with the interstate transport issue, which would only come into play if you were trying to cross state lines with said item, so it's a narrow case issue. (b)(4) seems to be the one a lot of people mention, but note it's only applied to the selling or delivering (i.e. transferring) of an NFA item to any person from a licensed FFL. So under the current ruling, because 18 USC 922 is unaffected by the lawsuit, you could NOT do a form 4 transfer of an SBR or SBS from an FFL to an individual without going through the NFA registration process. However, I find nothing in 18 USC that would prohibit someone otherwise able to do so under state law AND a plaintiff party to the lawsuit from making a new SBR or SBS without having to file a Form 1. |
|
Originally Posted By JamesJones: So we can't have sbr's or suppressors? I read through the thread but I'm a simple man and don't understand? I know cans fall under dangerous ordinance and hopefully that doesn't screw us but why no sbs and sbr? Registration in the NFA was always a defense from prosecution for possessing them. |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: Same reason, Suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs are all Dangerous Ordnance in OH, has been for a long time. Registration in the NFA was always a defense from prosecution for possessing them. Originally Posted By D_Man: Originally Posted By JamesJones: So we can't have sbr's or suppressors? I read through the thread but I'm a simple man and don't understand? I know cans fall under dangerous ordinance and hopefully that doesn't screw us but why no sbs and sbr? Registration in the NFA was always a defense from prosecution for possessing them. What are the odds of this getting cleared up for us? Happy for everyone else but a bit jealous too. |
|
Originally Posted By JamesJones: What are the odds of this getting cleared up for us? Happy for everyone else but a bit jealous too. If you remember years ago when the Shockwave type shotgun came out, for a time they were not legal in OH because of the same reason, but the Assembly worked to get it fixed and now they're legal. |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: Fairly good, especially if the Fed side goes first. There is currently a bill that passed our Senate and has to go through the House to remove suppressors from the DO law, that's the first step. If you remember years ago when the Shockwave type shotgun came out, for a time they were not legal in OH because of the same reason, but the Assembly worked to get it fixed and now they're legal. Originally Posted By D_Man: Originally Posted By JamesJones: What are the odds of this getting cleared up for us? Happy for everyone else but a bit jealous too. If you remember years ago when the Shockwave type shotgun came out, for a time they were not legal in OH because of the same reason, but the Assembly worked to get it fixed and now they're legal. Fingers crossed |
|
I contacted my House Rep Tex Fischer (R-59) to have the House support SB 214. I got a response back within 5 mins letting me know he co sponsored SB 331 to remove suppressors, SBR and SBS from the dangerous ordinance part of the ORC. Bad news... It's been assigned to the Public Safety committee. He also said it most likely would not be acted on until the lame duck session in Nov/Dec and they have no idea if Dewine will even sign it. |
"Life is Hard, its Harder if You're Stupid" - John Wayne
|
Originally Posted By laxman09: I contacted my House Rep Tex Fischer (R-59) to have the House support SB 214. I got a response back within 5 mins letting me know he co sponsored SB 331 to remove suppressors, SBR and SBS from the dangerous ordinance part of the ORC. Bad news... It's been assigned to the Public Safety committee. He also said it most likely would not be acted on until the lame duck session in Nov/Dec and they have no idea if Dewine will even sign it. HB331 doesnt mention SBRs or SBSs |
|
Originally Posted By CavVet: Don't have that leverage over dewine anymore. That's not good, he's becoming more liberal by the day You're right, he said he would support expanding the bill to cover them. Attached File |
"Life is Hard, its Harder if You're Stupid" - John Wayne
|
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: @KnightofTheOldeCode Any idea of a timeline for the next movement on this bill or when it might get passed? Yeah, once the general assembly returns from their summer break they should see it as a priority, our legislative affairs director Jim Samuel is pushing hard and he was on the LEPD On Target show today to discuss it if you want to look up the episode on Facebook or YouTube. But it should move once they get back into recess so hopefully by or before November. And also correct it appears to only remedy suppressors, not SBR and SBS's. We added a fix to an Ohio a few years ago to allow Mossberg Shockwaves in Ohio, but as far as I can tell the Judges ruling in the Suppressor Shop versus the NFA only cover suppressors anyway, correct me if I'm wrong on that.. |
|
Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode: We added a fix to an Ohio a few years ago to allow Mossberg Shockwaves in Ohio, but as far as I can tell the Judges ruling in the Suppressor Shop versus the NFA only cover suppressors anyway, correct me if I'm wrong on that.. However, as I laid out in the post up above in this thread, there are other sections of federal law not addressed in the SS lawsuit that continue to prevent transfers of SBRs and SBSs. But the act of making an SBR, SBS, or suppressor is fair game. |
|
Originally Posted By Ohioan: If supressors, SBSs, and SBRs are removed from being DO, will that mean we can finally conceal carry them? I’d love to be able to keep a p365 raider with suppressor in a bag. I don't see why you couldn't carry suppressed? Also Any updates on this issue? Is It looking good for us or is Ohio staying an nfa state most likely? |