I’ve been hearing from people asking me to legalize gun silencers. It’s not something I want to do.
Over the past week, I’ve gotten approximately 1200 emails (mostly from outside my district) along the following lines:
As a law-abiding Second Amendment supporter in Massachusetts, I urge you to please support both H.763 and H.789.
H.763 and H.789 are similar bills which would legalize firearm suppressor possession in the Bay State. Both H.763 and H.789 would repeal the current prohibition for the use and possession of firearm suppressors and replace the removed section with a provision that would allow the possession of these devices by law-abiding citizens.
Once again, as your constituent, I urge you to please support H.763 and H.789. Thank you.
After hearing on the issue, I have responded as follows:
Thanks for writing about the suppressor legislation.
I have received over 1000 emails on the subject and yesterday, I listened carefully to lengthy testimony on this issue from both proponents and opponents.
I am pretty convinced at this stage that I should not support this legislation.
Urban law enforcement personnel are firmly opposed — making gunshots quieter makes them harder to detect. We heard testimony that shot detectors can detect suppressed shots, but I did not find that testimony credible. The suppressors have to reduce the range and sensitivity of detectors, even if they do not prevent detection of nearby shots. Even if the shot detectors do not degrade, the detector that most people use, the ear, certainly will be less able to detect shots from a distance.
I know that lawful gun users are mostly not the ones committing crime. But, we have a huge struggle on our hands to contain urban violence and we do not want to bring more suppressors into circulation in our state.
I understand the benefits for shooters in terms of hearing loss. Shooters should wear hearing protection and they have many good options for that.
I sympathize with hunters, who naturally do want to hear everything around them. But, at least in our state, that concern does not outweigh the higher concern about urban violence.
To me, it is common sense that making guns quieter will make it easier to get away with murder. Granted that legal gun owners are not the ones most likely to commit crime, but why would we want to put more of the devices into circulation in Massachusetts? There is always a risk of diversion.
Response to comments, October 13, 10:30PM
Thanks to all who have weighed in here. And kudos to Mr. Carson for his very thoughtful comments in a separate post.
I just want to respond to one comment that often gets repeated: Suppressors are not silencers. Guns are still very loud with suppressors attached. Got it. But there certainly could be cases where being somewhat less loud would allow a shooting to continue for longer before it was detected (from a distance or through walls).
I also understand that suppressors do have real health benefits — so we are balancing speculative public safety benefits against clear shooter health benefits. But at least for now, I’m coming down on the side of broader public risk reduction.
I also understand that suppressors are hard to get, but that doesn’t mean that someone in a licensed person’s household won’t get them indirectly as in Sandy Hook. Likely? Maybe not, but it only takes one to do a lot of damage.
I’m closing this thread to comment, but if you can always reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org.