OneClickPolitics

Please SUPPORT S. 1317 and S. 1340 to Reform Massachusetts Suppressor Laws

As a constituent, I write you today to express my support of two pieces of legislation: S. 1317 and S. 1340, two bills which seek to legalize the possession of suppressors in Massachusetts. Suppressors are currently legal to own in 42 states, 40 of which allow their use while hunting.
Suppressors are one of the most misunderstood tools in existence. The terms “silencer” and “suppressor” refer to the same thing – a muffler for a firearm. It is important to note that nothing can actually silence the noise of a gunshot. Physics will simply not allow it, as there are too many variables that suppressors do not affect. In reality, suppressors work in the same manner as mufflers on cars, which function by trapping hot expanding gasses and allowing them to slowly cool, thereby reducing the noise to safer levels. 
Without a suppressor, virtually every firearm in existence produces a peak sound level over 140 decibels (dB) when fired. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), any single exposure to noises over 140 dB can cause instantaneous and permanent hearing damage. 
On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20 – 35 dB, roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs. Even the most effective suppressors, on the smallest and quietest calibers (.22 LR) reduce the peak sound level of a gunshot to between 110 – 120 dB. To put that in perspective, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), that is as loud as a jackhammer (110 dB) or an ambulance siren (120 dB). For normal caliber handguns and rifles, suppressed sound levels routinely exceed 130 dB, just shy of OSHA’s “hearing safe” threshold of 140 dB.
From a hearing conservation perspective, according to Dr. William W. Clark, the current Director of the Washington University School of Medicine’s Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences, “the most serious threat to hearing comes from recreational hunting or target shooting”. 1 This is in large part due to the fact that many people choose not to use traditional hearing protection devices like earplugs and earmuffs because they want to be able to hear their surroundings. Multiple studies have found that between 70 to 80% of hunters never wear earplugs or earmuffs, and nearly half of all target shooters don't consistently wear traditional hearing protection.2,3 Thus, it should come as no surprise that for every five years of hunting, hunters become seven percent more likely to experience high frequency hearing loss.4 
In a 2011 study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated, “the only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms.” 5 Massachusetts is one such state. 
In a similar study from 2014 on noise exposure at shooting ranges, NIOSH recommended, “if feasible and legally permissible, attach noise suppressors to firearms to reduce peak sound pressure levels.” 6 
In March, 2017, the National Hearing Conservation Association’s Task Force on Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Firearm Noise stated that “using firearms equipped with suppressors” is one of “several strategies [that] can be employed to reduce the risk of acquiring Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and associated tinnitus from firearm noise exposure.” 7
Although legal in 42 states, suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. As the law currently stands, in order to buy a suppressor, prospective buyers must send in an application including fingerprints and passport photos to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax, and wait for an indeterminate amount of time for the ATF to process the application. As of November, 2017, wait times range from 6 to 14 months. It is an overly burdensome process that current ATF leadership has recognized as having little to no positive impact on public safety. 
The notion that suppressors are a threat to public safety or law enforcement is false. Even the quietest suppressed gunshots are still as loud as a jackhammer, and can be heard by anyone in the vicinity. Most criminals are not interested in suppressors because they do not actually silence a gunshot. In fact, according to Ralph Clark, the CEO of ShotSpotter, the law enforcement tool that helps police identify and localize gunshots in cities and urban areas, suppressed gunfire can still be detected by their technology.  
Some claim that suppressors are not used in crime because they are rare, or because of the existing regulations, but neither one is true. According to the ATF, there were 1,360,023 suppressors in circulation in the United States as of April, 2017. Suppressors add length and weight to their host firearm, which make them inherently harder to conceal. Furthermore, using a suppressor in the commission of a crime carries stiff enhanced Federal penalties. These Federal penalties will remain on the books even with the passage of this legislation. 
Unlike many firearms issues, pro-suppressor reform has received a tremendous amount of bipartisan support across the country. In the past three years, three Democratic Governors have signed standalone pro-suppressor bills into law - Gov. Steve Bullock (MT) in 2015, Gov. Peter Shumlin (VT) in 2015, and Gov. Maggie Hassan (NH) in 2016. Additionally, four Democrats are signed on as co-sponsors of H.R. 367. 
By supporting S. 1317 and/or S. 1340, you are doing your part to give sportsmen and women like me the option to use suppressors, ensuring that future generations will no longer have to choose between their passion and their hearing. You will also help make the shooting ranges and hunting lands in in our state better neighbors by reducing noise pollution and complaints.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Again, I ask for your support.
____________________
1 Clark WW. (1991) Noise exposure from leisure activities: a review. J Acoust Soc Am 90(1):175–181.
2Wagner A, Stewart M, Lehman ME. (2006) Risk patterns and shooting habits of recreational firearm users. In: Abstracts of the National Hearing Conservation Association Annual Conference 2006, Tampa, Florida. NHCA Spectrum 23(Suppl. 1):28.
3 Stewart M, Foley L, Lehman ME, Gerlach A. (2011) Risks Faced by Recreational Firearm Users. Audiology Today, March-April:38–52.
4 Nondahl DM, Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Klein R, Klein BE, Tweed TS. (2000) Recreational firearm use and hearing loss. Arch Fam Med 9(4):352–357.
5 Chen L, Brueck SE. (2011) Noise and Lead Exposures at an Outdoor Firing Range ─ California. Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 2011-0069-3140:5.
6 Brueck SE, Kardous CA, Oza A, Murphy WJ. (2014) Measurement of Exposure to Impulsive Noise at Indoor and Outdoor Firing Ranges during Tactical Training Exercises. Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 2013-0124-3208:14.
7 Murphy S, Meinke DK, Flamme GA, Murphy WJ, Finan DS, Lankford, JE, Tasko SM. (2017) NHCA Position Statement: Recreational Firearm Noise. NHCA Task Force on Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Firearm Noise: 1.

This message will be sent to the members of the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.

Sign with Facebook

Or sign with email

First & Last Name

please leave blank

Address

City

Zip