BFA-backed SB 214 up for 4th hearing, removes suppressors from ordnance definition

An Ohio Senate bill that would remove suppressors from the dangerous ordnance definition in Ohio law is scheduled for its fourth hearing March 4 by the Senate's Armed Services, Veterans Affairs and Public Safety Committee.

SB 214 is backed by Buckeye Firearms Association, with testimony provided by Rob Sexton during the committee's second hearing last June. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kyle Koehler, proposes revisions to 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 (NFA).

Live video of the hearing, scheduled for 2:30 p.m. March 4, should be available here.

BFA also joined in on a letter led by American Suppressor Association in support of SB 214 and companion House Bil 331.

Speaking of NFA

BFA on Feb. 27 announced that it has joined a major new federal lawsuit challenging the remaining provisions of the NFA as unconstitutional following the elimination of federal taxes on key firearms and accessories.

The case, Roberts v. ATF, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, all in their official capacities. Plaintiffs include two individual Kentucky gun owners, Meridian Ordnance LLC, BFA, Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and the American Suppressor Association Foundation.

Since 1934, the NFA has imposed a special tax and an intrusive federal registration regime on items such as suppressors, short‑barreled rifles (SBRs), short‑barreled shotguns (SBSs), and “any other weapons” (AOWs). The federal government historically defended the NFA as “only a taxing measure” and justified the registration requirements solely as tools to enforce that tax. In 2025, however, President Donald J. Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which eliminated the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs while leaving the NFA’s registration and regulatory web in place.

The lawsuit argues that once Congress removed the taxes, it destroyed the NFA’s only constitutional foundation for regulating these items. With no tax left to enforce, the remaining registration, paperwork, and felony penalties can no longer be justified under the federal taxing power or any other enumerated power in Article I of the Constitution. As a result, the NFA’s application to these now‑untaxed items is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

The complaint also challenges the NFA’s restrictions on suppressors and short‑barreled rifles under the Second Amendment. Under the Supreme Court’s modern framework, suppressors and SBRs are in common use for lawful purposes such as hunting, training, home defense, and competition, and therefore fall within the heart of the right to keep and bear arms. The lawsuit explains that there is no historical tradition of imposing NFA‑style registration burdens and criminal penalties on such commonly owned arms, and that the current regime is incompatible with the Second Amendment.

Meridian Ordnance, a veteran‑owned Kentucky firearms business and fellow plaintiff, details in the complaint how the NFA’s requirements impose substantial compliance costs and drive away customers who are unwilling to submit fingerprints, photographs, and other sensitive personal information or endure months‑long delays simply to purchase a suppressor or SBR. BFA and the other organizational plaintiffs bring the case on behalf of their members, who face the same unnecessary burdens and legal risks.