The current National Firearms Act (NFA) categorizes firearm suppressors as a heavily regulated item. This control prohibits many law-abiding citizens from owning a beneficial and often necessary device for their firearms. Suppressors primarily function to reduce gun noise, mitigating hearing damage risk among users and reducing noise pollution in surrounding areas. Contrary to popular belief influenced by movies, suppressors do not completely silence firearms but decrease their decibel levels to safer ranges. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), prolonged exposure to noise levels above 85 dBA can cause hearing loss - a typical firearm averages at approximately 140 dBA. Restricting citizens' ability to protect their hearing health through the use of suppressors is an issue that needs to be addressed. We urge the government to reconsider the stringent regulation around suppressors mandated by the NFA, permitting more citizens to protect their hearing and contribute towards a quieter environment.

Reasons for deregulation:

#1.  - **Health and Safety**: Removing suppressors from the NFA would make it easier for individuals to use them for personal safety, hunting, and sport shooting without facing excessive delays or financial burdens.

2. **Minimal Impact on Public Safety**

   - **Rarely Used in Crimes**: Despite the common misconception that suppressors are used primarily for criminal activity, studies show that suppressors are rarely involved in crimes. A 2017 report from the Congressional Research Service indicated that suppressors are used in a very small percentage of crimes.

The frequency of suppressor use in criminal activities is likely in the range of 0.05% or less, based on the available statistics.

3. **Constitutional Rights**

   - **Second Amendment Concerns**: Many argue that the NFA's regulation of suppressors infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Since suppressors don’t alter the fundamental function of a firearm (i.e., they don’t make it more deadly), proponents argue that they should not be heavily regulated or restricted.

   - **Precedent in Other Firearm Accessories**:  Accessories like scopes, grips, or slings are not subject to the same type of regulation as suppressors, despite having the potential to enhance the functionality of firearms. There is a belief that suppressors should be treated similarly.

   - **Comparable to Other Firearm Accessories**: Suppressors are viewed by many as no different from other common firearm accessories, such as flash suppressors or bipods, which are not subject to strict controls under the NFA. Suppressors should be treated the same way as other parts that enhance the performance or comfort of a firearm without fundamentally altering its functionality.

Sign this petition and lend your voice to the cause.