For recreational and professional shooters, the risk of hearing loss is significant and alarmingly prevalent. With the appropriate use of noise-reduction equipment, such as earplugs and headphones, combined with suppressors, the noise level is reduced to 80-100 decibels 鈥 a much safer level, though far from silent. Moreover, suppressors are widely available in several other countries with significantly stricter firearm regulations. Yet, in the United States, suppressors continue to be one of the most regulated items in the firearm industry, regulated in a similar manner to machine guns.
The NFA is a federal law enacted in 1934 that regulates certain weapons and accessories, including machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and suppressors. The NFA was born from a context of fear surrounding presidential assassinations and Prohibition-era gang violence. The NFA aimed to regulate certain weapons and accessories through taxation by establishing a $200 tax, which effectively placed a 4,000% burden on suppressors at that time. Nearly a century later, this $200 tax remains unchanged, even though suppressors now cost multiples of this dollar amount.
Even today, if a gun owner is interested in protecting themselves and others against hearing loss by using a suppressor, which can cost a few hundred dollars or more, they are subjected to a lengthy registration process and must pay an extra $200 per suppressor as an additional 鈥渢ax鈥 as required by the NFA. Not only does this deter law-abiding citizens from obtaining suppressors for hearing protection, but it is also likely to disproportionately disincentivize low-income individuals, minorities, and immigrants who are already at a higher risk of hearing loss. They are more likely to forgo this additional expense and regulatory hurdle imposed by the law, further exacerbating existing inequities in healthcare.
Stephan P. Halbrook鈥檚 examination of the legal history surrounding the inclusion of suppressors in the NFA reveals minimal discussion about the dangers of suppressors or their potential public health benefits at the time the NFA was enacted. Legislative inertia and public ambivalence, exacerbated by inaccurate James Bond-esque popular media depictions, may have led to the perseverance of these restrictions on suppressors. However, suppressors pose minuscule safety risks while providing significant public health benefits by lowering noise levels and protecting against hearing loss. The Hearing Protection Act, which the House has already passed, provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to eliminate these undue restrictions on suppressors.
More importantly, there is little evidence that these restrictions on suppressors deter crime in any meaningful way. It is known that a vanishingly small portion of crime is committed using suppressors. It is plausible that easing the restrictions may increase criminals鈥 use of suppressors. However, their gunshots would still be audible, and they would gain no significant advantages by using suppressors. In fact, it is likely to render their guns less mobile and less concealable due to the added weight and length.
A rational approach to firearm regulation should prioritize evidence-based policies that reduce the harm caused by firearms, including eliminating harmful regulations. By removing harmful restrictions on suppressors, we can better align our laws with modern public health understanding. The enactment of the Hearing Protection Act would eliminate outdated restrictions, promote responsible gun ownership, and advance public health.
Dr. Amirala S. Pasha is an assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic and the editor of the Laws of Medicine: Core Legal Aspects for the Healthcare Professional. Sam Farzanfar is a law student and a research assistant at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. The views expressed are the authors鈥 personal views and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the Mayo Clinic or any other entity.