Committee debates amendment to make possession of suppressors by prohibited persons a felony; law enforcement and gun-rights groups back change

A committee debate on a bill affecting suppressors and suppressor definitions produced extended discussion about federal-state interplay, enforcement, and public-safety effects.

A sponsor presented a late amendment that would add a new subsection to existing law, making it a felony for a prohibited person to possess a suppressor independent of a firearm. The sponsor said the amendment is intended to ensure that if federal law changes (for example, the National Firearms Act is modified), lawful, federally-registered suppressor owners in Georgia would not be made criminals by accident; the amendment would also give law enforcement an additional state charge to use against prohibited possessors.

Witnesses and stakeholders testified. Notch Williams, introduced by the sponsor as president of the American Suppressor Association, described suppressors as "hearing protection devices" and said nothing can make a gunshot silent. "Suppressors are hearing protection devices, plain and simple," he said, and cited multiple medical and safety organizations that recommend suppressors for hearing protection. The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly referenced a figure of "270,000" suppressors in Georgia as part of their argument to protect current lawful owners from unintended criminalization.

Gun-rights organizations such as Georgia Gun Owners and Georgia Second Amendment spoke in favor of the amendment, urging the committee to adopt the change to prevent lawful owners from becoming criminals if federal rules shift. Law enforcement stakeholders (including the Georgia Sheriffs Association) signaled support for the amendment after the sponsor incorporated clarifying language to make possession by prohibited persons a felony while keeping lawful owners compliant with federal registration.

Committee members probed technical and enforcement issues: whether state law should rely on federal registration and whether federal law enforcement would continue to prosecute unregistered suppressors; witnesses said federal enforcement occurs and that manufactured illegally-obtained suppressors are subject to prosecution. Members also asked whether suppressors materially reduce decibel levels and whether that impedes gunshot-detection technologies; witnesses said suppressors reduce sound (e.g., by tens of decibels depending on caliber) but do not make gunfire silent and that shot-detection systems still function.

The transcript records lively back-and-forth and multiple supporting public commenters; the committee ended the day's session and scheduled continuation at the next meeting. The transcript does not record a final committee vote on the suppressor amendment during this session.

Next steps: debate will resume; sponsors and stakeholders indicated additional technical edits and conversation with law enforcement and advocacy groups may continue.