In a major development for gun rights advocates, South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden has signed legislation removing firearm suppressors from the state’s definition of “controlled weapons.” The move represents a significant shift in how suppressors are treated under state law — and it could have ripple effects nationwide.

For decades, suppressors have often been grouped with heavily restricted firearms under both state and federal regulations. Critics of those policies argue that suppressors are frequently misunderstood and mischaracterized as tools for criminal activity, largely due to Hollywood portrayals rather than real-world data.

Under South Dakota’s new law, suppressors are no longer categorized as inherently dangerous weapons simply for existing. While criminal misuse remains illegal, lawful ownership is no longer treated as a felony by default under state statute. Supporters say this change better reflects the practical function of suppressors, which are designed to reduce firearm noise to safer levels, helping protect hearing and improve shooting safety.

The debate over suppressor regulation also intersects with broader Second Amendment discussions. In recent years, courts have increasingly examined firearm regulations under constitutional standards that focus on text, history, and tradition. With hundreds of thousands of legally registered suppressors owned nationwide, some legal scholars argue that their common lawful use strengthens constitutional challenges to restrictive policies.

South Dakota’s decision adds momentum to a growing trend of states reassessing firearm laws, from constitutional carry expansions to challenges against magazine and accessory bans. As more states reconsider longstanding regulations, attention may increasingly turn to federal policies, including provisions within the National Firearms Act.

Whether this marks the beginning of broader suppressor reform remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: South Dakota’s move has reignited the national conversation about how firearm accessories are regulated — and whether those regulations align with modern realities and constitutional principles.