SB 2 amends South Dakota Codified Laws to carve firearm silencers out of the statutory category of “controlled weapon.” The bill revises the definitions section of Title 22 and leaves the existing possession-offense statute for controlled weapons otherwise intact.
Why this matters: owners and dealers who previously risked a state Class 6 felony for possessing a silencer will no longer face that particular state charge, but federal regulation of suppressors (the National Firearms Act) and other state statutes remain in force. The change will alter prosecutorial options and enforcement priorities while creating practical questions about transfers, manufacturing, and offenses that hinge on whether a defendant was “armed.”
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 2 modifies the definitions chapter of the criminal code to exclude firearm silencers from the list of items treated as controlled weapons and leaves the controlled-weapon possession statute otherwise unchanged. It does not create a state licensing, registration, or transfer regime for silencers.
Who It Affects
Private firearm owners, retailers and manufacturers of suppressors, state and local law enforcement, and prosecutors will see the most direct effect; federal regulators and background-check processes remain relevant for commercial transfers. Shooting ranges and hunters who use silencers in the field will face reduced state criminal exposure but must still comply with federal law.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the boundary between state criminal liability and federally governed regulation: conduct that could trigger a state felony charge under prior law will now generally be handled under federal statutes or other state offenses. For enforcement agencies and compliance officers, the practical task becomes tracking alignments and gaps between state and federal obligations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The enactment changes the statutory map rather than creating a new permit or affirmative state regulatory scheme. The statutory definitions chapter already contains a textual definition of “firearm silencer” (an instrument or attachment intended to lessen or muffle the noise of firing).
SB 2 leaves that definitional language in place but alters which categories of items count as a “controlled weapon.” By expressly excluding silencers from that category, the legislature narrows the universe of devices that can trigger the specific state offense tied to possessed controlled weapons.
The possession statute for controlled weapons remains a Class 6 felony and retains its enumerated exemptions for on-duty law enforcement and armed forces members, federally licensed or registered owners, brief possession after taking a weapon from an offender, and possession under circumstances negating unlawful use. Because the bill does not amend those exemption clauses, situations covered by the exemptions continue to protect holders in the same way; the practical change is that silencers no longer fall within the baseline definition that made possession a controlled-weapon offense.SB 2 deliberately stops short of imposing state-level registration, transfer controls, background-check requirements, or manufacture restrictions for silencers.
That means lawful commercial activity under federal law — which requires NFA registration, taxes, and background checks for transfers of silencers — remains the controlling regime. At the same time, the absence of a state prohibition shifts many potential enforcement actions away from state criminal venues and toward federal enforcement or other state statutes (for example, laws that penalize use of a device during the commission of another felony, or separate statutes defining “dangerous weapon”).Practically, prosecutors will lose a statutory route for charging possession of a silencer under state controlled-weapon law; however, they still can pursue cases under federal law or under other state offenses if a silencer is used in the commission of a crime.
Compliance officers and dealers should continue to observe federal NFA obligations and should track local law-enforcement practices and guidance, since enforcement priorities and evidence standards may shift after this change.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends S.D. Codified Laws §22-1-2 to alter the statutory definition of “controlled weapon” so that it expressly excludes a “firearm silencer.”, S.D. Codified Laws §22-14-6—the statute that makes possession of a controlled weapon a Class 6 felony—remains in force; silencers are removed from its reach by the definition change.
Existing exemptions in §22-14-6 (on-duty law enforcement and armed forces, federally licensed/registered owners, brief possession after taking from an offender, and possession under circumstances negating unlawful purpose) are not changed by SB 2.
The code already contains a standalone definition of “firearm silencer” (an instrument or attachment intended to muffle firing); SB 2 does not alter that definitional text or add state-level registration or transfer controls.
SB 2 creates no mechanism to reconcile state and federal regimes — federal NFA requirements for transfers and registration of suppressors remain applicable and enforceable independently of this state-level change.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Tweaks the weapons-definition chapter to exclude silencers
This provision inserts an explicit exclusion for firearm silencers into the statutory list of items that constitute a “controlled weapon.” The change is surgical: it does not rewrite the separate definitional paragraph that describes what a “firearm silencer” is; instead it changes which defined items trigger downstream offenses. For compliance teams, the effect is that the code’s baseline labeling of certain devices as controlled — and the automatic criminal consequences tied to that label — no longer applies to silencers.
Leaves the controlled-weapon possession offense intact but narrows its scope
The possession provision remains a Class 6 felony with the same four statutory exceptions. Because the definition of controlled weapon is amended in Section 1, silencers generally fall outside the elements prosecutors must prove for a §22‑14‑6 charge. The practical implication is procedural: charging decisions and plea negotiations that previously relied on the controlled-weapon count will change, while the statute’s penalty structure and exemptions continue to apply to other controlled items (for example, machine guns and short shotguns).
No new state regulatory regime or licensing created
The bill’s text contains standard enactment and certification language and does not add permit requirements, mandatory registration, transfer restrictions, taxation, or inspection authority at the state level for silencers. That omission is meaningful: the legislature’s chosen approach was to remove the state criminal hook without replacing it with a parallel state regulatory framework.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Private owners of suppressors — they face reduced risk of a state Class 6 felony charge for mere possession where federal requirements are otherwise satisfied, lowering state criminal exposure.
- Retailers and manufacturers who deal in silencers — businesses gain reduced state-law criminal risk for inventory and transfers, although federal NFA compliance still governs sales and transfers.
- Sport shooters and hunters who use silencers lawfully — they avoid the specific state-level possession prohibition that previously applied, which simplifies risk management for recreational use.
- Defendants and defense counsel — removing the state possession charge narrows the slate of state-level offenses prosecutors can use as leverage in charging and plea bargaining.
Who Bears the Cost
- State prosecutors and law enforcement agencies — they lose one charging option and may need to shift investigative resources toward federal partners or rely on other statutes, complicating enforcement strategies.
- Public-safety advocates and communities concerned about misuse — they may perceive increased access to suppressors and face heightened burden to demonstrate harms without the state possession penalty.
- Local prosecutors in jurisdictions that previously employed the controlled-weapon statute as a tool — those offices may see caseflow and sentencing patterns change and may face transitional evidentiary questions.
- Regulatory and compliance officers at gun dealers — while state criminal risk falls, dealers must continue to maintain federal NFA compliance, and the lack of state rules can create uncertainty in state-level recordkeeping expectations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma SB 2 exposes is the trade-off between reducing state criminal exposure for lawful owners and maintaining robust tools to deter and punish misuse: the legislature chose to eliminate a state felony for silencers but did not create a parallel state regulatory framework, which shifts the burden of oversight to federal authorities and prosecutorial discretion while raising unresolved questions about enforcement gaps and sentencing consequences.
SB 2 resolves one discrete legal problem—state-level criminalization of possessing a silencer—while leaving several adjacent policy and enforcement questions open. The most immediate implementation issue is interjurisdictional enforcement: because federal law continues to require NFA registration for silencers, state and local officers must coordinate with federal authorities when suspected unlawful transfers or possession by prohibited persons arise.
The bill does not address manufacture, homemade silencers (including 3D-printed devices), or intrastate transfers outside of federally licensed channels, leaving a potential enforcement gap where state criminal law no longer provides a direct remedy.
Another complication is statutory interaction. Many sentencing enhancements and specific offenses turn on whether a defendant was armed or used a “dangerous weapon.” SB 2 narrows only the “controlled weapon” label; it does not change other statutory uses of weapons-related language.
That creates room for litigation over whether a silencer can still support an armed-use enhancement, whether possession during the commission of a felony triggers other penalties, or whether silencers factor into definitions of “dangerous weapon” in separate statutes. Finally, by removing the state-level criminal prohibition without substituting an administrative regime, the bill places the burden on federal law and prosecutorial discretion to address risks — a policy choice with consequences for enforcement consistency and local public-safety planning.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.