Ohio’s Unfinished Suppressor Reform Leaves a State-Law Trap for Gun Owners

For years, Second Amendment advocates have pointed to an incongruity in Ohio law: a firearm suppressor is classified as “dangerous ordnance.” Ohio Revised Code § 2923.11(K)(5) expressly includes “[a]ny firearm muffler or suppressor” in that definition. The same definition that separately includes explosives, grenades, mines, rocket launchers, and other military-type weapons. A suppressor is not itself statutorily classified as an explosive, but Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance framework nonetheless places it in a legal category far removed from an ordinary firearm accessory.

That classification has serious consequences. Under R.C. 2923.17(A), a person generally may not knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous ordnance. A violation is a felony of the fifth degree. R.C. 2923.17(D).

For ordinary civilian suppressor owners, the principal statutory protection is found in R.C. 2923.17(C)(5): the exemption for owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record under 26 U.S.C. § 5841. Ohio also provides a separate, limited hunting-related provision through R.C. 2923.17(C)(8) and R.C. 1533.04. But for the ordinary owner outside those narrow circumstances, Ohio law ties lawful possession to federal NFA registration.

The Problem SB 214 Addresses

Senate Bill 214 was introduced to eliminate that needless state-law vulnerability. Sponsored by Senator Kyle Koehler, the bill would amend R.C. 1533.04, 2923.11, and 2923.17 to remove firearm mufflers and suppressors from Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance classification.

The point is straightforward. Suppressors do not make firearms silent. They are commonly used to reduce firearm noise, including the harmful impulse noise associated with shooting, and to reduce disturbance to nearby people and property. Yet Ohio continues to treat them under a statutory regime designed for dangerous ordnance.

More importantly, Ohio’s current framework leaves lawful possession dependent on a federal registration mechanism. If Congress were to remove suppressors from the NFA registration scheme, or if federal law otherwise changed so that a particular suppressor was no longer required or capable of being registered in the NFRTR, Ohio’s separate dangerous-ordnance prohibition could remain in force.

Absent a corresponding amendment to Ohio law, a person possessing a suppressor no longer registered in the NFRTR could lose the principal exemption in R.C. 2923.17(C)(5), unless another statutory exemption applied. That is not merely a federal law issue; it presents a potential Ohio felony issue under R.C. 2923.17(A) and (D).

The Senate Acted

The Ohio Senate recognized the need for reform. On March 25, 2026, it passed SB 214 by a 31–1 vote. The bill would remove suppressors from the dangerous-ordnance definition and eliminate the resulting mismatch between Ohio law and any future federal change to suppressor regulation.

The bill then moved to the Ohio House. It was formally received on March 31 and referred to the House Public Safety Committee on May 13. The committee held hearings on June 2 and June 9, and advocates for firearms owners and suppressor reform submitted proponent testimony.

But hearings are not enactment. SB 214 remains pending rather than enacted.

Ohio gun owners remain exposed.

The problem is not that an NFA-registered suppressor is presently unlawful in Ohio. It is not. The problem is that Ohio’s own statute continues to define suppressors as dangerous ordnance and relies principally on federal registration to exempt ordinary civilian ownership from a fifth-degree felony prohibition.

That framework creates an avoidable trap. Federal reform, federal litigation, or a change in the scope of federal registration requirements could leave Ohio law behind. A person might believe that federal law permits possession yet still needs to confront Ohio’s independent dangerous-ordnance statute.

SB 214 would eliminate that state-law defect. It would not determine federal NFA policy, and it would not alter any federal requirements that remain in force. It would simply stop Ohio from treating a firearm muffler or suppressor as dangerous ordnance under state law.

Until the House acts and the legislation becomes law, Ohio suppressor owners remain subject to a statutory structure that turns federal registration status into the central protection against a state felony charge. That is a problem Ohio lawmakers can and should fix. The House should not leave Ohio gun owners one federal policy change away from a state-law felony trap. SB 214 is not radical, complicated, or speculative it is a clean, overdue correction to a statute that treats hearing-protection equipment as dangerous ordnance and makes ordinary citizens’ liberty contingent on a federal registry. The Senate has acted. The record has been made. Now the House must finish the job: pass SB 214, remove suppressors from Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance list, and ensure that no law-abiding Ohioan is left carrying the legal consequences of legislative inaction.

The Ohio House should be called back from early recess with one clear priority: finish the work the Senate has already begun and pass SB 214. Once that straightforward job is done, members can take the next several months off knowing they did not leave Ohio gun owners exposed to an avoidable felony trap.

Ohio’s gun owners should not be forced to live under a law that labels a hearing-protection device “dangerous ordnance” and leaves their rights vulnerable to the next change in federal policy. This is not a partisan stunt or a complicated rewrite. It is a narrowly tailored correction to an outdated statute, and the bill remains before the House after the Senate approved it 31–1.

The testimony has been heard. The need is plain. House leadership should call members back, move SB 214 out of committee, bring it to a vote, and deliver the certainty and protection Ohio gun owners deserve.

Editor’s Note: This problem has become urgent because of the federal court’s ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. The court blocked enforcement of key NFA registration and advance-approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” against covered plaintiffs, members, and customers. That victory exposed a second layer of regulation: state laws written on the assumption that these arms would always be registered under the NFA.

Ohio is not alone. Florida, for example, generally prohibits possession of an operable short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun under Fla. Stat. § 790.221, making a violation a second-degree felony. Florida exempts firearms “lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law,” while Ohio expressly relies on registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The language differs, but the structural danger is similar: as Silencer Shop Foundation dismantles federal NFA requirements for covered gun owners, outdated state prohibitions may create uncertainty or separate felony exposure. States must clean up these NFA-dependent laws so that a federal gun-rights victory does not become a state-law trap.

About Sean Maloney

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.