Please support S.B. 1092
Members of the Public Safety Committee, I am writing you today as a constituent to ask for your support of Senate Bill 1092, Sen. Joel Anderson’s (R-38) legislation which seeks to legalize the possession and use of suppressors while hunting in California. If enacted, law-abiding Californians will be able to purchase suppressors for use on long guns, but it will remain illegal to use a suppressor on a handgun. Prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing them. It is a common-sense step that aligns with the 42 states where private suppressor ownership is currently legal, and the 40 states where hunting with a suppressor is allowed. Suppressors are legal to own in 42 states, 40 of which allow their use while hunting. They have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. In order to purchase a suppressor, prospective buyers must live in a state where suppressors are legal, send in an application including fingerprints and passport photos to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax, notify their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO), and wait for an indeterminate amount of time for the ATF to process the application. As of April, 2018, wait times range from 5 to 14 months. Suppressors are one of the most misunderstood tools in existence. The majority of Americans believe that suppressors fully silence the noise of a gunshot. This notion is unequivocally false. The primary root of this misconception comes from film, where fictional characters like James Bond are able to use a suppressor to shoot without noise. Hollywood’s depiction of suppressors does not have any basis in reality, creating an understandably false expectation of what suppressors actually do. Interestingly enough, many countries in Europe, including the UK, the very country that gives us James Bond, encourage their hunters to utilize suppressors in order to reduce noise pollution and help protect hearing. 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 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. On average, suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by 20 – 35 decibels (dB), roughly the same sound reduction as earplugs or earmuffs. Even the most effective suppressors on the market, on the smallest and quietest calibers, like .22 LR, reduce the peak sound level of a gunshot to around 110 – 120 decibels - as loud as a jackhammer (110 dB) or an ambulance siren (120 dB). 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. In a 2011 study of California shooting ranges, 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.” California 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.” 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 NIHL and associated tinnitus from firearm noise exposure.” Suppressor ownership and use while hunting has received bipartisan support in multiple states. In 2013, Montana Governor Steve Bullock held the common misconception that suppressors could silence a firearm, which led him to veto suppressor hunting legislation in his state. However, once he became properly educated on the issue, he reversed course and urged the Montana legislature to legalize their use in the field. In a letter to the Speaker of the House from March, 2015, he wrote: “The public perception of suppressors as the same thing as silencers, where the assassin quietly dispatches his victim, no longer holds true. Suppressors mitigate the sound of a shot, but do not silence it. The use of suppressors for hunting, when hunters cannot wear ear protection because they need to be aware of their surroundings, can help protect against hearing loss. This is especially true for our younger hunters, even those who are not actually hunting but are accompanying their parent in the field. I understand the concerns regarding the risks of increased poaching and do not take this lightly, but other states have not found this to be the case.” Gov. Bullock’s change of opinion wasn’t ideological, it was educational. 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. Public Safety One of the primary reasons for such widespread bipartisan support is because the use of suppressors by criminals is virtually nonexistent. According to a white paper titled “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations”, by Ronald Turk, Associate Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), “silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety”. Most criminals are not interested in suppressors because they do not actually silence a gunshot. 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. Suppressors also add length and weight to their host firearm, which make them inherently harder to conceal. Furthermore, criminals know that using a suppressor in the commission of a crime will carry stiff State and Federal penalties that will remain even with the passage of this legislation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,
Thank you for taking action!
Sign with Facebook
Or sign with email
First & Last Name
Email
please leave blank
Address
City
Zip