Hunting with Silencers Now Legal in Florida

10676239_10107551601267414_4180816061627850066_n (1)

For the last two years I have been hunting with suppressed rifles in the state of Texas, and in my experience silencers just make everything better. For starters, it removes the need for hearing protection so you can hear your surroundings much better and often hear animals before they approach. The real reason they rock, though, is plain common courtesy. Guns are loud, and especially in an area densely packed with hunting blinds, one or two big loud guns can scare the game away for everyone else. Plus, the barking of the guns ruins the early morning calm for non-hunters looking to just enjoy the beauty of the day. According to the American Suppressor Association, it looks like those in Florida can now enjoy this same awesome experience effective immediately . . .

From their website:

Today, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission voted unanimously to repeal the 57 year old prohibition on the use of firearm suppressors for taking deer, gray squirrels, rabbits, wild turkeys, quail, and crows. Following the passage of the new regulation, the Commission then voted unanimously to authorize an Executive Order to allow the measure to take effect immediately. Minutes later, Executive Order # EO 14-32 was signed, making hunting with suppressors for all animals in the state legal, effective immediately.

There’s still work to do — some states still make hunting with silencers illegal. Heck, some places make just owning them illegal. One step at a time.


  1. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

    Never had a need for hearing protection on my hunting trips regardless.

    1. avatar Scrubula says:

      Still, some people care about their long term hearing.
      Especially if you want to go hunting with kids.

      1. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

        Not trying to say I don’t care about mine.

        I care heavily for my hearing, and general well-being. One shot during a hunting trip doesn’t bother me though… Never has.

        1. avatar Independent George says:

          It probably should. Hearing damage is cumulative, and a single shot at 140 dB or more is enough to cause a slight amount of hearing loss.

        2. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

          Considering that I take fewer than ten shots per year sans hearing protection, and each one of them is in wide open country, I’ll lose much more of my hearing to construction than I will to hunting.

    2. avatar CharlieFoxtrot says:


      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Be quiet. I’m trying to read.

        1. avatar John L. says:

          Get off my screen, you danged kids!

          Mutter mumble my day mumble why we never mumble mutter peace while I’m reading mutter…

    3. avatar rlc2 says:

      What? what? my ears are shot from too much time around jet engines before we knew better. It sucks wearing hearing pro in the woods, but it sucks even more having tinnitus for days after.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Yeah, but military turbojets sound really cool….. 🙂

        In the 70’s at Altus AFB my friends and I snuck out about a 100 yards behind the engine test stands late at night…

      2. avatar John Fritz - HMFIC says:

        … my ears are shot from too much time around jet engines …

        Oh jeez, mine too. And I wasn’t even a Jet Mech.

        I was just recently boring my co-workers with stories about being with the SR71 out on the trim pad, both engines running full military and having to climb up on the back of that pig to pull panels for access to the systems I worked with.

        That noise would literally scramble your brains. It’s too late now but I would’ve taken the whole ‘hearing protection’ thing a little more serious had I known what was down the road thirty years later.

        I’ve been paying attention to this hunting/silencer issue because it’s a big deal to a lot of people.

    4. avatar David PA/NJ says:

      On second thought i guess ive never NEEDED it either, since ive never gotten a chance to shoot!

  2. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Today, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission voted unanimously to repeal the 57 year old prohibition on the use of firearm suppressors for taking deer, gray squirrels, rabbits, wild turkeys, quail, and crows.”

    What about vermin like Progressives, hogs and whatnot?

    1. avatar TravisP says:

      It was already legal for pests. You can hunt hogs with a flame thrower here, because we hate them.

  3. avatar rlc2 says:

    Florida and Texas in shorg list for retirement home address.
    Mmmm bacon.

  4. avatar TheAce says:

    Why is it that we gun guys are sticklers with magazine/clip nomenclature but not so much with the suppressor/silencer one? Not trying to make a federal case about it but the little details gnaw at me sometimes.

    1. avatar Nick Leghorn says:

      Calling a suppressor a silencer is like calling a tissue a kleenex, but calling a magazine a clip is like calling a dog an airplane.

      1. avatar TheAce says:

        How so? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I’ve always heard that the term silencer was a misnomer as it doesn’t actually silence the report.

        1. avatar Nick Leghorn says:

          Its the name the inventor of the device gave to it, and what is listed on the first patent. Silencer is the name he gave it, suppressor is the later “corrected” name.

        2. avatar John L. says:

          What Nick said; also, doesn’t the federal code refer to the device in question as a silencer?

  5. avatar MattC says:

    That buck looks like he’s smiling

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      He’s probably happy he won’t have to listen to the Mrs’s B.S. anymore…

  6. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    Too bad getting a silencer sans NFA trust is impossible in much of the state still.

  7. avatar TravisP says:

    As a Floridian I’m pumped, I’m even more pumped my lgs just got their SOT. I wasn’t considering a suppressor til now. Oh also what’s up with the blue gloves?

    1. avatar Bigred2989 says:

      Ever watch Firefly?

      1. avatar TravisP says:

        Is that little bleed from the eyes weapons covered by the NFA?

  8. avatar juliesa says:

    One of the many cool things at the Gun Fest was getting to hear these things in action. I didn’t shoot one, but I got close enough to hear the difference. it really is the way to go. We need to get rid of that stupid unsafe law.

  9. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    Question for Ask Leghorn: If everyone starts hunting with silencers, how will I, while sitting in a stand, count the gun shots and know the shots the OTHER guys are getting?

    1. avatar Ruun says:

      Who cares?

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        ——> Joke

        ^ (<-Top of Ruuns Head)

  10. avatar Bob says:

    Anna Eskermani will say that the quiet is causing hearing damage in all the animals out there.

  11. avatar Miffed says:

    When will I be able to buy a ‘can’ without all the miserable/privacy killing federal paperwork? this also drives up the cost of a can due to the effort required. Defacto restriction/ban? A can shouldn’t even be on the NFA list. Maybe someday…

  12. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Now I have to take a crash course on NFA devices, and its about time too.

  13. avatar eaglesnester says:

    20 years in the military I have 85% bilateral high frequency hearing loss. Wear hearing protection people. Suppressors go a long way towards saving your hearing. They have been using them in Europe for decades.

  14. avatar cmeat says:

    at post 42: barkeep, “hey, oly. you look happy today.”
    oly points at head, “got a new hearin’ aid.”
    barkeep, “hows it work? do you like it?”
    oly, “best one i’ve ever had.”
    barkeep, “well, that’s fine. what kind is it?”
    oly looks at wrist, “about four thirty.”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email