Firearms suppressor

The laws of suppression and why Australians can’t use silencers

There is no logical excuse for Australia’s ongoing and seemingly non-negotiable ban on the use of suppressors by recreational shooters, so why aren’t we able to buy them at our local gun shop?

The simple answer is that existing law in Australia classifies suppressors as prohibited weapons (or similar, depending upon state legislation) and there’s a very strong desire to keep it that way.

The more complex answer involves police forces that are unwilling to accept there is no public safety issue involved, an anti-gun lobby that knows how to pull emotional strings, and a political establishment that has no interest in rocking a boat filled with the votes of a gun-fearing public.

Asked about suppressors, Australian gun control advocate Samantha Lee recently said, “If someone is shooting, you want people to be able to hear it so they can run.”

That kind of paranoid thinking, which implies all shooters are criminals and any ‘silenced’ shooting is murderous, sums up the basis for ongoing resistance to de-criminalising suppressors. 

Suppressors are not literally banned throughout Australia but their status as prohibited weapons in the more liberal states, available only under special permit, effectively outlaws them for the vast majority of shooters.

Recent changes in the ACT have made suppressors available on a very limited basis to non-professional shooters. 

In NSW, suppressors are available under the ‘genuine reason’ of recreational hunting and vermin control while still retaining their status as prohibited weapons. The NSW Firearms Registry has refused all but one application since the genuine reason was added to the application form in 2015, all on the grounds that a suppressor’s use was not deemed “necessary” as required by law.

It only gets worse in other states and territories.   


How does the rest of the world treat suppressors? The following is a quick overview spelt out in general terms, intended to give you an idea of the situation. 

The European Union is a federation of nations and each nation has its own laws. Italy and Spain effectively outlaw suppressors while Norway puts no controls on them at all. Other countries cover the range in between, and many allow licensed hunters to use them. In July 2022, Sweden became the latest liberalise suppressor laws, enabling licensed gun owners to own them without any further special permits or licences.

Over the past few years in the US, suppressors have become legal in more and more states. Now only eight states outlaw their use. Strangely, two states allow their use except by hunters.  

Russia outlaws suppressors, as does Canada.

Rifle suppressor; silencer

Suppressors are unrestricted and perfectly legal to use in New Zealand.

In many places suppressors are encouraged, as they reduce noise pollution and reduce stress in nearby people, livestock and wild animals.

However, it is not true that suppressors are compulsory by law in some countries. It may be that certain local jurisdictions enforce their use and there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that local landholders demand it. But compulsory by law? Not according to my research.


There is simply no evidence to back up the claims that silencers are the tools of criminals. There is no link between suppressors and gun crime. 

The vast majority of evidence of criminal use of suppressors comes from Hollywood movies.

The belief that widespread use of suppressors will increase gun crime appears to be very much a fiction but one that authorities are intent on spreading.

Steve Larsson, in a document prepared for the Shooters Fishers and Farmers Party in NSW, noted that, “Expert witnesses (police officers) appearing for the Commissioner of Police … have suggested suppressors may be used to conceal the use of a firearm in the course of criminal activity, however no evidence has been presented.”

Larsson has been keeping what he calls an “unofficial tally” of NSW murders in which gunshots were heard, and has counted 47 since January 2009. 

“Clearly, the criminals who commit these crimes have no interest in suppressing the sound of their firearms,” he says.

Even in the US, where studies on gun crime are much more common, there’s very little on the criminal use of suppressors.

A 2007 study published in Western Criminology Review looked at US federal laws that imposed a mandatory 20-year additional sentence if a suppressor were used in crime. It found the laws had been implemented on the basis of crimes in which suppressors had not been used at all. 

That study found no statistical link between suppressors and criminality.

“The data indicates that use of silenced firearms in crime is a rare occurrence, and is a minor problem,” said the study’s author, Paul A Clarke. “Moreover, the legislative history of silencer statutes indicates that these provisions were adopted with little or no debate.”

In New Zealand, where suppressors are freely available, there is again no substantial evidence of criminal misuse, a point brought up in a report by researchers from Edith Cowan University, WA. 

“The lack of extensive criminal misuse of moderators in New Zealand is highlighted as one of a number of valid reasons why Australian regulatory entities should re-consider whether the very low level of possible detriment, outweighs the benefits of sound moderation in firearms,” the researchers said.


While it has become easier for professionals to use suppressors in ACT, NSW, Victoria and SA, the resistance to them is rigidly entrenched in bureaucracies around the nation, especially when it comes to recreational use. 

It will take legislative change and, according to some of those working to make change, it’ll require a big shift in police culture.

Achieving either of those things is a long, slow and uncertain process. 

The Shooters Fishers and Farmers Party in Victoria tried to introduce legislative changes 2018 with a bill specifically written to put suppressors in the mainstream but it was roundly defeated by both major parties and the Greens: four votes in support, 36 votes against.

However, the shooting lobby is continuing to work at it. 

Change may come but it is likely to be some years away. 




Like it? Share with your friends!

What's Your Reaction?

super super
fail fail
fun fun
bad bad
hate hate
lol lol
love love
omg omg
Mick Matheson

Mick grew up with guns and journalism, and has included both in his career. A life-long hunter, he has long-distant military experience and holds licence categories A, B and H. In the glory days of print media, he edited six national magazines in total, and has written about, photographed and filmed firearms and hunting for more than 15 years.


  1. It’s kinda funny, but a silencer/suppressor do add to the overall length of a weapon, so those that are used for illegal use are longer and harder to conceal.
    Local super market/shops sell a noise suppressor by the shit load every day.
    I was told by a ex Police Officer, on why and as they only work on a low velocity calibers.
    And I don’t expect the company to stop selling this item to the public, even if they knew what use they can be used for after the customer is finished with the product.
    I suppose I’ll get a knock on the door soon after this reverlation.
    But! I am Mum on this.

  2. “weapon” – there’s part of the problem right there. Some police see all firearms as weapons or potential to be such. Weapon os an arm used in combat – may be a knife or a rock.

  3. Really need to take that word silencer out of the wording and use moderator, as people who know nothing just think of a Hollywood version of a silenced pistol, those of use in the know and who use moderator’s all the time know that the moderator brings the noise down about 35-40 DB from 150 to about 120 rifle crack does not disappear

        1. The difference is semantic, as far as I’m concerned. Both words apply to the same thing, but ‘suppressor’ is a more accurate description of what the device does; it reduces the sound of a gun shot but doesn’t completely silence it. ‘Silencer’ has come to imply something more sinister and threatening; it’s more emotive. For these reasons, firearms users prefer the word ‘suppressor’ and the antis prefer ‘silencer’.

  4. I couldn’t agree more. I now avoid using the term “silencer” as it really is a misnomer. And the pure paranoia and resistance to suppressor/moderator use seems to only come from inaccurate depictions from Hollywood and television.
    The question is; How to we educate those who are misinformed? If we put them next to any high velocity rife and demonstrated suppressor vs no suppressor, I’m sure they’d see it definitely does NOT silence them!

    If we are to advocate their use (I know I’d like to see them de-regulated a bit), what would a good compromise be between full de-regulated use and keeping the legislators happy? Hopefully one day we can reach a happy middle ground with everyone.

  5. The current bans seem to run contrary to most OH&S laws and principles, that state hearing protection is the a last resort when it comes to providing hearing protection. Indeed, engineering solutions, moderators, are seen as a higher priority in terms of reducing noise levels. Wonder what legal recourse shooters would have?

    1. Had this exact same thought, as good as this article is need to generate equal level of these articles to propaganda from antis. Feel like legal class action against Police for damages on hearing loss due enforcing licensing and safety that is not up to date or complies with oh&S.
      Hope this happens with one if shooting groups, would even like to contribute to the GoFundMe if it is bunch of people wanting to do class action

  6. Unfortunately the police will tell that they don’t force you to shoot It is your choice l think it is 1 in ten professionals gets a permit and they have to prove they have contracts usually government