Over-the-counter suppressors legal in Nevada again? If the Hearing Protection Act passes through Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" and SBRs and silencers fall off the NFA, Nevadan's might find that they are not able to buy them because of state law. So it may be a while before you can buy suppressors in Nevada.

Short version: What probably happens is suppressors and SBRs, etc. can't be sold in Nevada at all due to state law. Someone might get a court injunction against this or the attorney general may release an opinion that the state law is unenforceable. A reasonable person would argue that if it is impossible to comply with federal licensure, because it no longer exists that the federal legality of these items constitutes a de facto license...but we have a Democratic attorney general. So basically there may be a time period where no one can get these de-listed items in Nevada.

Nevada’s firearm laws closely interact with federal regulations. Currently, Nevadans can legally own firearm suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), or short-barreled shotguns (SBS) only if they comply with federal law under the National Firearms Act (NFA). But what if the federal government removes suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA’s list of regulated items? In this article, we explore how Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 202.350 and related laws might apply in that scenario. We’ll consider whether these firearms accessories could be deemed illegal under current Nevada law even without federal restrictions, and then examine arguments for why they might not be illegal – all in accessible, non-technical terms. We’ll also discuss the role of the Nevada Attorney General in clarifying the law, touch on the legislative history behind these statutes, and conclude with a hypothetical look at how a legal challenge might unfold if state authorities remain unsympathetic to deregulation.

Nevada’s Law vs. Federal NFA Regulations (Current Rules)
Under federal law, suppressors (silencers), SBRs, and SBS are classified as restricted items by the NFA. To possess them legally, a person must go through a federal registration process (including background checks and tax stamps). Nevada law has essentially piggybacked on these federal rules. In other words, Nevada allows these items only if you’ve followed federal law to the letter. If you haven’t met the federal requirements, Nevada treats possession of these items as a crime.

NRS 202.350 is the key Nevada statute here. It makes it a felony to “manufacture, import, keep, offer for sale, give, lend, possess or use” a machine gun or a silencer, “unless authorized by federal law.” In plainer terms, Nevada prohibits owning a suppressor or machine gun unless you have the appropriate federal authorization (such as an ATF tax stamp or license). Similarly, NRS 202.275 bans possessing or making a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, with very narrow exceptions for people who hold federal firearm licenses or who have registered the weapon with the federal government. Violation of these laws is generally a felony in Nevada.

In summary, current Nevada law independently criminalizes these NFA-type weapons unless you’ve complied with federal law. Nevada basically uses the federal process as a filter: if the federal government says “yes, this person is allowed to have it,” then Nevada is okay with it. If not, Nevada can prosecute the person under state law. This cooperative scheme means state and federal law are in sync – for now.
Would These Items Become Illegal in Nevada Without Federal Oversight?

Now imagine the federal government deregulates suppressors, SBRs, and SBS – for example, by removing them from the NFA. On the federal level, they’d be treated like ordinary firearms or accessories, no special registration or tax stamp required. But what happens under Nevada law? The concern is that Nevada’s statutes, as written, might still outlaw these items outright if the federal “authorization” or registration process disappears.

To see why, consider the exact wording of NRS 202.350 and 202.275 and their built-in exceptions. Under these laws, possessing a suppressor or short-barreled firearm in Nevada is illegal unless one of a few exceptions applies:

• Federal Compliance Exception: For suppressors and machine guns, Nevada law exempts anyone who is “licensed, authorized or permitted to possess or use [the item] pursuant to federal law.” In practice, this means you have the federally-required paperwork (like an ATF tax stamp for a silencer). For SBRs/SBS, there’s a similar exception if “such a rifle or shotgun is registered with the United States Department of the Treasury” (the agency that handled NFA registration).
• Law Enforcement and Curios: The statutes also exempt law enforcement officers on duty and allow possession of registered short-barreled guns by federally licensed firearms dealers/manufacturers, or if the firearm has been classified as a collectible curio or relic. (These are niche cases not applicable to most people.)

Crucially, if the NFA no longer requires any license or registration for, say, a suppressor, a regular civilian in Nevada would no longer fall under the “authorized by federal law” exception – because there would be no federal paperwork or permit to show. The Nevada law doesn’t say “authorized or not prohibited by federal law”; it specifically requires affirmative federal authorization. So, at first glance, if suppressors were delisted from the NFA, anyone in Nevada possessing a suppressor might technically be in violation of NRS 202.350 because they could not prove they are “authorized by federal law” (there would be nothing to authorize or register at the federal level).

In plain language, Nevada’s law could suddenly treat formerly legal suppressors or SBRs as contraband, even though the federal government now treats them like any other firearm accessory. This odd, perhaps unintended result stems from Nevada’s law being written to depend on the federal status of the item. It was a “mirror” law – and without the federal reflection, the state law might cast a very harsh shadow.
It’s important to note that this interpretation is a real concern raised by firearm owners and legal experts. During past attempts to pass the federal Hearing Protection Act (which would have removed suppressors from the NFA), observers pointed out that several states (including Nevada) have laws that ban silencers unless federally registered. If those federal registrations ceased, those state laws could automatically make silencers illegal by default. Nevada is a prime example: NRS 202.350’s suppressor provision is literally contingent on federal law authorization. Likewise, NRS 202.275’s SBR/SBS ban has only a federal registration-based exception. Without a federal process to “bless” your short-barreled rifle or shotgun, Nevada law would still say possession is a felony.

So, under the current statutes, yes – there is a real possibility these items would be considered illegal in Nevada if federal restrictions are removed. An unwary gun owner might think, “Great, the feds say I don’t need a tax stamp for my suppressor anymore!” but then find themselves afoul of Nevada law. This outcome would be counter-intuitive, arguably unfair, and likely not what anyone truly intended – but it’s what the black-and-white text of the law suggests.

Could They Still Be Legal? – Arguments for Lawful Possession Post-NFA

Is Nevada really going to start arresting people for items the federal government no longer regulates? Many would argue “No”, and there are legal arguments and interpretations that could support a more gun-owner-friendly outcome. Here are a few key points that suggest these items might not be considered illegal in Nevada, even if federal oversight is dropped:

• “Authorized by Federal Law” – A Broader Interpretation: One argument is that if the federal government removes an item from the NFA, it is effectively authorizing all law-abiding citizens to possess that item (since there’s no longer a prohibition). In other words, absence of a federal ban could be seen as implicit authorization. A creative legal interpretation might hold that “authorized by federal law” in NRS 202.350 doesn’t strictly require a tax stamp or permit – it could be read to mean “not prohibited by federal law.” If federal law allows it, Nevada law would allow it. This is not an obvious reading of the statute (and it’s certainly not a guarantee), but a court or official could lean on this logic to avoid criminalizing conduct that Congress has decided to deregulate.
• Legislative Intent and Purpose: Looking beyond the text, one can examine why Nevada enacted these laws. The legislative history suggests that Nevada’s ban on silencers, SBRs, and similar weapons was originally put in place at the request of Las Vegas police, at a time when federal authorities were not aggressively prosecuting NFA violations locally. In essence, state lawmakers wanted a parallel law to cover what federal law already covered, ensuring that someone illegally possessing a sawed-off shotgun or unregistered silencer in Nevada could be prosecuted under state law if the feds didn’t step in. The intent was to target people violating federal law (by not registering NFA weapons), not to harass lawful owners.
• Avoiding Absurd or Unjust Outcomes: There is a general principle in law that statutes should not be applied in a way that leads to absurd or unreasonable results. Charging a person with a felony in Nevada for possessing a suppressor that is perfectly legal under federal law (and perhaps in most other states) might be viewed as an absurd result that the legislature couldn’t have intended. Lawyers could invoke the doctrine of “lenity” as well – the idea that ambiguity in criminal laws should be resolved in favor of the defendant.
• State Constitutional Right to Bear Arms: Nevada’s own constitution provides that “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for other lawful purposes.” While this right, like the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, can be subject to reasonable regulation, a blanket state ban on items that the federal government has legitimized could face constitutional scrutiny.

In summary, there are strong arguments that Nevada’s laws should be interpreted or updated to allow these items if the federal restrictions are lifted. The key will be having Nevada’s authorities – either law enforcement, prosecutors, or courts – recognize those arguments. This is where guidance from the state’s leadership would be critical.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Role – A Favorable Opinion?

Laws don’t change automatically just because federal regulations do. If the NFA were amended to drop suppressors, SBRs, and SBS, Nevada’s statutes would remain on the books until the state amends or repeals them. However, the Nevada Attorney General (AG) could play a powerful role in shaping how those laws are applied in the interim.

The Attorney General can issue legal opinions or guidance to law enforcement about ambiguous laws. In this situation, a forward-thinking (and gun-friendly) AG could issue an opinion clarifying that, for example, suppressors removed from the NFA are no longer considered illegal “silencers” under NRS 202.350. The AG might reason that “authorized by federal law” includes items that federal law no longer deems unlawful, effectively keeping Nevada in step with the federal change.

Furthermore, the AG could highlight the legislative history and original intent behind NRS 202.350 and 202.275. As noted, these laws were reportedly enacted to let local authorities tackle federal gun crimes on the local level – not to create new state-level gun bans in a vacuum. An AG opinion could explain that since the federal rationale for the law has evaporated, the state law should be read narrowly (or even considered effectively defunct for those items).

Of course, an AG’s opinion isn’t ironclad – a future AG or a local prosecutor might disagree. But a favorable AG opinion would carry significant weight. It could also spur the Nevada Legislature to take action. If the Attorney General and public pressure highlight the issue, the legislature might move quickly to formally amend NRS 202.350 and 202.275 to avoid any confusion.

Why Did Nevada Ban These Items? – A Look at Legislative History

Nevada’s restrictions on silencers, SBRs, and SBS didn’t appear out of thin air – and they’re not a recent anti-gun initiative. These laws date back several decades and were largely a product of their time. The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, imposing strict regulations on certain weapons nationwide. By the 1960s and 1970s, some state and local law enforcement agencies grew frustrated because federal authorities were not always pursuing NFA violators. To address this, Nevada enacted state laws to mirror the NFA’s provisions, allowing state prosecutors to charge individuals for possession of these prohibited weapons. Legislative records from the late 1970s indicate that Nevada’s lawmakers, urged on by Las Vegas police, outlawed short-barreled rifles and shotguns in 1977 and ensured that possession of silencers and machine guns was tied to federal authorization.

What If Nobody Budges? – A Hypothetical Legal Showdown

Let’s imagine a scenario: The federal government delists suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA, but Nevada’s legislature doesn’t amend NRS 202.350/202.275, and the Attorney General takes no action. Nevadans start buying suppressors or building short-barreled rifles without federal paperwork. But Nevada law on the books still says otherwise. This is a recipe for a legal conflict.

A Nevada gun owner is found in possession of an unregistered suppressor and is arrested under NRS 202.350. The local district attorney presses charges. The defense might argue that the client is “authorized by federal law” to have the suppressor, even though there is no longer a registration process. They might raise constitutional defenses under the Second Amendment and the Nevada Constitution. A judge could dismiss the charges or let it go to trial.

If it reaches the Nevada Supreme Court, the court could rule in favor of the gun owner by interpreting the statute permissively or strike down the law entirely. A federal court challenge could also be filed, arguing that the statute violates the Second Amendment.

Eventually, the Nevada Legislature might step in to fix the law, especially if public pressure mounts (if they get a Republican majority). If the federal government removes suppressors, SBRs, and SBS from the NFA, Nevada’s laws may unintentionally criminalize their possession. NRS 202.350 and related statutes rely on federal authorization that may no longer exist. That creates a confusing and possibly unjust situation. Nevada’s Attorney General and legislature have the tools to fix it – either by issuing guidance or amending the law. Until then, gun owners should stay alert, and advocates should press for clarity.

In what is the only second open carry related homicide in recent history, an open carrier in downtown Las Vegas was shot on April 23, 2025. At this time, details are few. A man entered a store acting erratcly. A customer was openly carrying inside the store. When the customer grabbed the firearm, the suspect got control of the firearm and shot the (formerly) armed citizen after a struggle.
 
A security guard told the Review-Journal that: “It’s getting worse and worse around here,” Bartley said. “I’ve had knives pulled on me. I watch out for who I confront now. You have to keep your head on a swivel.”
 
Once again, those who hate open carry and like to denigrate the practice based on their own fears and criticism of other armed citizens they consider beneath them will revert to blaming the victim. While questioning equipment and tactical choices is fair, blaming a victim for merely openly carrying is immature and as a vile as blaming a rape victim. Plenty of concealed carriers have been disarmed and even killed when unaware or trying to intervene in a crime.
 
The man criticisms that concealed carry supremacists level on open carriers is a lack of situational awareness and seriousness. These concerns are valid, but seemingly disappear as soon as a gun does behind a shirt. Anyone carrying a firearm in any way needs to be alert, maintain awareness of their surroundings (including who is behind them), use a retention holster that requires significant force and mechanical action to remove the pistol, and have some basic handgun retention training.
 
Open carry is, statistically speaking, a safe practice. Numerically, there have been about equal cases of open and concealed carriers being disarmed. Police officers are disarmed and killed with their own guns FAR more often than private open carriers. It is probably more dangerous to be a police officer with an openly carried gun.
 
Open carry can be done safely if the carrier is smart and prepared. It is an excellent outreach method to support the Second Amendment and firearms carry in general. A citizen who is prepared for
 
As police release more information, we will continue to update the community and analyze the points of failure. To open carry safely:

• Use a retention holster that secure the firearm with a snapping strap or locking system.
• Wear sturdy belt.
• Maintain situational awareness at all times.
• Learn to retain your handgun during an attempted snatching.
  

The suspect, Kyle Robert Capucci, is a convicted felon who failed to appear at a court hearing earlier in the day. In 2022, he attempted a robbery and was convicted of drug trafficking.

As for the disarming, the article provides these further details: “After a short interaction with an employee, Capucci lunged for the firearm on the victim’s waist and a struggle ensued. Capucci was eventually able to get the gun away from the victim before shooting him.”

The victim's death is clearly partially the fault of a lax judicial and corrections system that fails to imprison and isolate dangerous people from society.