Home  /  Suppressor letter templates

Suppressor letter templates

If you are contacting your state minister for parliament regarding suppressors and are unsure what to write, use these letter templates! It’s really easy. Find your state, copy and paste the letter into a word processor, fill in the relevant details (IE your minister’s details and your details), save as a PDF, and then email it to your minister! Really simple.

New South Wales

Dear [MINISTER]
Subject: Request for review and change in categorisation of firearm sound moderating devices (suppressors)

My name is, [INSERT NAME HERE], and I am writing to you today to address a concern regarding a firearm tool, and specifically health issues that may be mitigated by the allowance of sound moderating devices. 

Firearm sound moderating devices, also known as suppressors or silencers, A silencer is classified as a prohibited weapon under the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. When a silencer is attached to a firearm, the firearm is classified as a prohibited firearm. Clause 126 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 provides an exemption from the requirement to obtain a prohibited firearm permit in circumstances where the person is the holder of a firearms licence and is authorised by a prohibited weapon permit to possess and use a silencer.

I’m writing to you as a member of the law-abiding firearm owner community and as an avid shooter am writing to you to request the consideration that this be reviewed and changed. I believe that the shooting community would benefit by the use of these devices and would not be a cause for public concern. 

In this letter you will find; the effects of noise and why current hearing protection is not adequate, how these devices, which shall be referred to as just “suppressors”, work and the difference they make to shooting, the health benefits they will bring, and the contribution to conservation efforts. I request that you read this in good faith, with the understanding that I wish to balance the needs from my community and public safety.

It is common knowledge that the discharge of a firearm produces a loud noise, approximately 140 decibel (dB) up to 170+ dB(1), which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage(2). For context, a typical petrol lawn mower will idle at approximately 80-85 dB and emergency services sirens are approximately 120 dB. 

Wearable products, called Hearing Protective Devices (HPD’s), exist to help mitigate these noises and everyone is encouraged to wear them while using firearms. HPD’s come in the form of over the ear protection, known as “ear muffs”, and inner ear protection, known as “ear plugs”. Individually, these HPD’s can reduce the sound by up to 24 dBs, and while wearing both is advised, used in conjunction these will only reduce the sound by up to 29 dBs(3). 

This means that in perfect conditions and using both forms of hearing protection, a shooter may be damaging their hearing with each shot. Efficacy of HPD’s can be compromised by the use of glasses, being bumped, or incorrectly worn.

A well-designed suppressor may reduce the level of noise produced by firearms, however contrary to what most media portrays, the resultant noise is still quite audible – just is able to reduce the noise to a level that won’t immediately cause hearing damage. 

The typical suppressor will reduce the sound produced by approximately 17-24 dBs(4-6). Meaning that the sound produced by a firearm with a sound moderating device attached is still considerable, hence the allowance is not a concern for public safety, it is a vastly more effective tool to manage the effects of hearing damage when used in combination with HPD’s.

The quality-of-life impacts from hearing damage are very real, with the Australia Department of Health outlining hearing loss as a cause for illnesses such as depression and tinnitus. We strongly believe that the government should be looking beyond media hype to the future and should allow its citizens the same tools that are readily available in other parts of the world, to better protect their hearing and overall health.

Conservation efforts will benefit greatly from the use of firearm suppressors. Ground shooting is a common form of feral animal control, with those authorised to use suppressors being able to induce a greater reduction in targeted animals than those who are not, in similar environments and conditions(7).

National conservation plans, such as the National Feral Deer Action Plan, also recommend the use of firearm suppressors as a best practice management tool(8). The suppressor helps by reducing the loud “crack” produced by the firearm, which will generally frighten surrounding target species into fleeing, whereas with that noise mitigated, the remaining animals are able to be taken out, resulting in higher rates of success. Allowing primary producers, professional shooters, and recreational hunters to have access to these devices will enhance the contributions to biosecurity and integrated pest management.

To conclude, I am asking that you take this information in and pass it onto the relevant minister, so that work can start on removing these sound moderating devices from being a “Prohibited” weapon and reclassified in a manner that would see the NSW Weapons Prohibition Act allow suitably licensed holders being able to purchase these tools with category AB and/or H firearms licences.

Thank you for your time,

Yours Faithfully,

[INSERT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE]

References

  1. Meinke DK, Finan DS, Flamme GA, Murphy WJ, Stewart M, Lankford JE, et al. Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing. 2017;38(4):267-81.
  2. Saedi B, Ghasemi M, Motiee M, Mojtahed M, Safavi A. Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent. 2013;9(2):133-9.
  3. Abel SM, Armstrong NM. The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics. 1992;36(1):19-30.
  4. Lobarinas E, Scott R, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Differential effects of suppressors on hazardous sound pressure levels generated by AR-15 rifles: Considerations for recreational shooters, law enforcement, and the military. International Journal of Audiology. 2016;55(sup1):S59-S71.
  5. Murphy WJ, Flamme GA, Campbell AR, Zechmann EL, Tasko SM, Lankford JE, et al. The reduction of gunshot noise and auditory risk through the use of firearm suppressors and low-velocity ammunition. International Journal of Audiology. 2018;57(sup1):S28-S41.
  6. Stewart M. What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader. 2018;23(3):18-20.
  7. Comte S, Thomas E, Bengsen AJ, Bennett A, Davis NE, Brown D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of volunteer and contract ground-based shooting of sambar deer in Australia. Wildlife Research. 2022:-.
  8. Group NW. National Feral Deer Action Plan. 2023.

Queensland

Dear [MINISTER]

Subject: Request for review and change in categorisation of firearm sound moderating devices (suppressors)

My name is, [INSERT NAME HERE], and I am writing to you today to address a concern regarding a firearm tool, and specifically health issues that may be mitigated by the allowance of sound moderating devices. 

Firearm sound moderating devices, also known as suppressors or silencers, are restricted to the weapons category “R” class as per the Queensland Weapons Categories Regulation 1997, Section 8(h). 

I’m writing to you as a member of the law-abiding firearm owner community and as an avid shooter am writing to you to request the consideration that this be reviewed and changed. I believe that the shooting community would benefit by the use of these devices and would not be a cause for public concern. 

In this letter you will find; the effects of noise and why current hearing protection is not adequate, how these devices, which shall be referred to as just “suppressors”, work and the difference they make to shooting, the health benefits they will bring, and the contribution to conservation efforts. I request that you read this in good faith, with the understanding that I wish to balance the needs from my community and public safety.

It is common knowledge that the discharge of a firearm produces a loud noise, approximately 140 decibel (dB) up to 170+ dB(1), which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage(2). For context, a typical petrol lawn mower will idle at approximately 80-85 dB and emergency services sirens are approximately 120 dB. Wearable products, called Hearing Protective Devices (HPD’s), exist to help mitigate these noises and everyone is encouraged to wear them while using firearms. HPD’s come in the form of over the ear protection, known as “ear muffs”, and inner ear protection, known as “ear plugs”. Individually, these HPD’s can reduce the sound by up to 24 dBs, and while wearing both is advised, used in conjunction these will only reduce the sound by up to 29 dBs(3). This means that in perfect conditions and using both forms of hearing protection, a shooter may be damaging their hearing with each shot. Efficacy of HPD’s can be compromised by the use of glasses, being bumped, or incorrectly worn.

A well-designed suppressor may reduce the level of noise produced by firearms, however contrary to what most media portrays, the resultant noise is still quite audible – just is able to reduce the noise to a level that won’t immediately cause hearing damage. The typical suppressor will reduce the sound produced by approximately 17-24 dBs(4-6). Meaning that the sound produced by a firearm with a sound moderating device attached is still considerable, hence the allowance is not a concern for public safety, it is a vastly more effective tool to manage the effects of hearing damage when used in combination with HPD’s.

The quality-of-life impacts from hearing damage are very real, with the Australia Department of Health outlining hearing loss as a cause for illnesses such as depression and tinnitus. We strongly believe that the government should be looking beyond media hype to the future and should allow its citizens the same tools that are readily available in other parts of the world, to better protect their hearing and overall health.

Conservation efforts will benefit greatly from the use of firearm suppressors. Ground shooting is a common form of feral animal control, with those authorised to use suppressors being able to induce a greater reduction in targeted animals than those who are not, in similar environments and conditions(7). National conservation plans, such as the National Feral Deer Action Plan, also recommend the use of firearm suppressors as a best practice management tool(8). The suppressor helps by reducing the loud “crack” produced by the firearm, which will generally frighten surrounding target species into fleeing, whereas with that noise mitigated, the remaining animals are able to be taken out, resulting in higher rates of success. Allowing primary producers, professional shooters, and recreational hunters to have access to these devices will enhance the contributions to biosecurity and integrated pest management.

To conclude, I am asking that you take this information in and pass it onto the relevant minister, so that work can start on removing these devices from being a category “R” weapon and reclassified in a manner that would see Queensland Weapons Act licence holders being able to purchase these tools with category AB and/or H firearms licences. 

Thank you for your time, 

Yours Faithfully,

[INSERT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE]

References

  1. Meinke DK, Finan DS, Flamme GA, Murphy WJ, Stewart M, Lankford JE, et al. Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing. 2017;38(4):267-81.
  2. Saedi B, Ghasemi M, Motiee M, Mojtahed M, Safavi A. Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent. 2013;9(2):133-9.
  3. Abel SM, Armstrong NM. The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics. 1992;36(1):19-30.
  4. Lobarinas E, Scott R, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Differential effects of suppressors on hazardous sound pressure levels generated by AR-15 rifles: Considerations for recreational shooters, law enforcement, and the military. International Journal of Audiology. 2016;55(sup1):S59-S71.
  5. Murphy WJ, Flamme GA, Campbell AR, Zechmann EL, Tasko SM, Lankford JE, et al. The reduction of gunshot noise and auditory risk through the use of firearm suppressors and low-velocity ammunition. International Journal of Audiology. 2018;57(sup1):S28-S41.
  6. Stewart M. What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader. 2018;23(3):18-20.
  7. Comte S, Thomas E, Bengsen AJ, Bennett A, Davis NE, Brown D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of volunteer and contract ground-based shooting of sambar deer in Australia. Wildlife Research. 2022:-.
  8. Group NW. National Feral Deer Action Plan. 2023.

Victoria

Dear [MINISTER]

Subject: Request for review and change in categorisation of firearm sound moderating devices (suppressors)

My name is, [INSERT NAME HERE], and I am writing to you today to address a concern regarding a firearm tool, and specifically health issues that may be mitigated by the allowance of sound moderating devices. 

Firearm sound moderating devices, also known as suppressors or silencers, are not restricted as per the legislation. The Victorian Firearms Act of 1996, clause 57 states that:

“(1) A non-prohibited person must not possess, carry or use a—
  (a) silencer; or
  (b) prescribed item— unless that person does so under and in accordance with a permit issued under   this section.
  (2) The Chief Commissioner may grant a permit to a person who is of or over the age of 18 years to possess, carry or use—
(a) a silencer;
(b) a prescribed item.”

However, based on the only information provided by the Licencing and Regulation Division (www.police.vic.gov.au/eligibility-requirements) it appears to be internal policy that to be eligible for a silencer, you should only need it for occupational use or similar. Each application for a silencer permit will be considered on its merits and a determination will be made by the delegate of the Chief Commissioner.

I’m writing to you as a member of the law-abiding firearm owner community and as an avid shooter am writing to you to request the consideration that this be reviewed and changed. I believe that the shooting community would benefit by the use of these devices and would not be a cause for public concern. 

It is common knowledge that the discharge of a firearm produces a loud noise, approximately 140 decibel (dB) up to 170+ dB(1), which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage(2). For context, a typical petrol lawn mower will idle at approximately 80-85 dB and emergency services sirens are approximately 120 dB. Wearable products, called Hearing Protective Devices (HPD’s), exist to help mitigate these noises and everyone is encouraged to wear them while using firearms. HPD’s come in the form of over the ear protection, known as “ear muffs”, and inner ear protection, known as “ear plugs”. Individually, these HPD’s can reduce the sound by up to 24 dBs, and while wearing both is advised, used in conjunction these will only reduce the sound by up to 29 dBs(3). This means that in perfect conditions and using both forms of hearing protection, a shooter may be damaging their hearing with each shot. Efficacy of HPD’s can be compromised by the use of glasses, being bumped, or incorrectly worn.

A well-designed suppressor may reduce the level of noise produced by firearms, however contrary to what most media portrays, the resultant noise is still quite audible – just is able to reduce the noise to a level that won’t immediately cause hearing damage. The typical suppressor will reduce the sound produced by approximately 17-24 dBs(4-6). Meaning that the sound produced by a firearm with a sound moderating device attached is still considerable, hence the allowance is not a concern for public safety, it is a vastly more effective tool to manage the effects of hearing damage when used in combination with HPD’s.

The quality-of-life impacts from hearing damage are very real, with the Australia Department of Health outlining hearing loss as a cause for illnesses such as depression and tinnitus. We strongly believe that the government should be looking beyond media hype to the future and should allow its citizens the same tools that are readily available in other parts of the world, to better protect their hearing and overall health.

Conservation efforts will benefit greatly from the use of firearm suppressors. Ground shooting is a common form of feral animal control, with those authorised to use suppressors being able to induce a greater reduction in targeted animals than those who are not, in similar environments and conditions(7). National conservation plans, such as the National Feral Deer Action Plan, also recommend the use of firearm suppressors as a best practice management tool(8). The suppressor helps by reducing the loud “crack” produced by the firearm, which will generally frighten surrounding target species into fleeing, whereas with that noise mitigated, the remaining animals are able to be taken out, resulting in higher rates of success. Allowing primary producers, professional shooters, and recreational hunters to have access to these devices will enhance the contributions to biosecurity and integrated pest management.

To conclude, I am asking that you take this information in and pass it onto the relevant minister, so that work can start on creating a bill that would see sound moderating devices be available without discrimination in a manner that would see Victorian licence holders being able to purchase these tools with category AB and/or H firearms licences. 

Thank you for your time,
Yours Faithfully,

[INSERT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE]

References

  1. Meinke DK, Finan DS, Flamme GA, Murphy WJ, Stewart M, Lankford JE, et al. Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing. 2017;38(4):267-81.
  2. Saedi B, Ghasemi M, Motiee M, Mojtahed M, Safavi A. Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent. 2013;9(2):133-9.
  3. Abel SM, Armstrong NM. The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics. 1992;36(1):19-30.
  4. Lobarinas E, Scott R, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Differential effects of suppressors on hazardous sound pressure levels generated by AR-15 rifles: Considerations for recreational shooters, law enforcement, and the military. International Journal of Audiology. 2016;55(sup1):S59-S71.
  5. Murphy WJ, Flamme GA, Campbell AR, Zechmann EL, Tasko SM, Lankford JE, et al. The reduction of gunshot noise and auditory risk through the use of firearm suppressors and low-velocity ammunition. International Journal of Audiology. 2018;57(sup1):S28-S41.
  6. Stewart M. What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader. 2018;23(3):18-20.
  7. Comte S, Thomas E, Bengsen AJ, Bennett A, Davis NE, Brown D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of volunteer and contract ground-based shooting of sambar deer in Australia. Wildlife Research. 2022:-.
  8. Group NW. National Feral Deer Action Plan. 2023.

Tasmania

Dear [MINISTER]

Subject: Request for review and change in categorisation of firearm sound moderating devices (suppressors)

My name is, [INSERT NAME HERE], and I am writing to you today to address a concern regarding a firearm tool, and specifically health issues that may be mitigated by the allowance of sound moderating devices. I am writing to you today to address a concern of our members and community surrounding a firearm tool, and specifically health issues that may be mitigated by the allowance of sound moderating devices. 

Firearm sound moderating devices, also known as suppressors or silencers, are restricted as per Tasmanian firearms ACT 1996 section 118 subsection (1). 

I’m writing to you as a member of the law-abiding firearm owner community and as an avid shooter am writing to you to request the consideration that this be reviewed and changed. I believe that the shooting community would benefit by the use of these devices and would not be a cause for public concern. In this letter you will find; the effects of noise and why current hearing protection is not adequate, how these devices, which shall be referred to as just “suppressors”, work and the difference they make to shooting, the health benefits they will bring, and the contribution to conservation efforts. I request that you read this in good faith, with the understanding that I wish to balance the needs from our community and public safety.

It is common knowledge that the discharge of a firearm produces a loud noise, approximately 140 decibel (dB) up to 170+ dB(1), which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage(2). For context, a typical petrol lawn mower will idle at approximately 80-85 dB and emergency services sirens are approximately 120 dB. Wearable products, called Hearing Protective Devices (HPD’s), exist to help mitigate these noises and everyone is encouraged to wear them while using firearms. HPD’s come in the form of over the ear protection, known as “ear muffs”, and inner ear protection, known as “ear plugs”. Individually, these HPD’s can reduce the sound by up to 24 dBs, and while wearing both is advised, used in conjunction these will only reduce the sound by up to 29 dBs(3). This means that in perfect conditions and using both forms of hearing protection, a shooter may be damaging their hearing with each shot. Efficacy of HPD’s can be compromised by the use of glasses, being bumped, or incorrectly worn.

A well-designed suppressor may reduce the level of noise produced by firearms, however contrary to what most media portrays, the resultant noise is still quite audible – just is able to reduce the noise to a level that won’t immediately cause hearing damage. The typical suppressor will reduce the sound produced by approximately 17-24 dBs(4-6). Meaning that the sound produced by a firearm with a sound moderating device attached is still considerable, hence the allowance is not a concern for public safety, it is a vastly more effective tool to manage the effects of hearing damage when used in combination with HPD’s.

The quality-of-life impacts from hearing damage are very real, with the Australia Department of Health outlining hearing loss as a cause for illnesses such as depression and tinnitus. We strongly believe that the government should be looking beyond media hype to the future and should allow its citizens the same tools that are readily available in other parts of the world, to better protect their hearing and overall health.

Conservation efforts will benefit greatly from the use of firearm suppressors. Ground shooting is a common form of feral animal control, with those authorised to use suppressors being able to induce a greater reduction in targeted animals than those who are not, in similar environments and conditions(7). National conservation plans, such as the National Feral Deer Action Plan, also recommend the use of firearm suppressors as a best practice management tool(8). The suppressor helps by reducing the loud “crack” produced by the firearm, which will generally frighten surrounding target species into fleeing, whereas with that noise mitigated, the remaining animals are able to be taken out, resulting in higher rates of success. Allowing primary producers, professional shooters, and recreational hunters to have access to these devices will enhance the contributions to biosecurity and integrated pest management.

To conclude, I am asking that you take this information in and pass it onto the relevant minister, so that work can start on removing these devices from being restricted and reclassified in a manner that would see Tasmanian firearm licence holders being able to purchase these tools with category AB and/or H firearms licences.

Thank you for your time,
Yours Faithfully,

[INSERT NAME AND ADDRESS HERE]

References

  1. Meinke DK, Finan DS, Flamme GA, Murphy WJ, Stewart M, Lankford JE, et al. Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing. 2017;38(4):267-81.
  2. Saedi B, Ghasemi M, Motiee M, Mojtahed M, Safavi A. Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent. 2013;9(2):133-9.
  3. Abel SM, Armstrong NM. The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics. 1992;36(1):19-30.
  4. Lobarinas E, Scott R, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Differential effects of suppressors on hazardous sound pressure levels generated by AR-15 rifles: Considerations for recreational shooters, law enforcement, and the military. International Journal of Audiology. 2016;55(sup1):S59-S71.
  5. Murphy WJ, Flamme GA, Campbell AR, Zechmann EL, Tasko SM, Lankford JE, et al. The reduction of gunshot noise and auditory risk through the use of firearm suppressors and low-velocity ammunition. International Journal of Audiology. 2018;57(sup1):S28-S41.
  6. Stewart M. What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader. 2018;23(3):18-20.
  7. Comte S, Thomas E, Bengsen AJ, Bennett A, Davis NE, Brown D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of volunteer and contract ground-based shooting of sambar deer in Australia. Wildlife Research. 2022:-.
  8. 8. Group NW. National Feral Deer Action Plan. 2023.

South Australia

Dear [MINISTER]

Subject: Request for review and change in categorisation of firearm sound moderating devices (suppressors)

My name is, [INSERT NAME HERE], and I am writing to you today to address a concern regarding a firearm tool, and specifically health issues that may be mitigated by the allowance of sound moderating devices.  

Firearm sound moderating devices, also known as suppressors or silencers, are prohibited in South Australia as per the South Australian Firearms Act 2015, Part 7, Section 39. 

I’m writing to you as a member of the law-abiding firearm owner community and as an avid shooter am writing to you to request the consideration that this be reviewed and changed. I believe that the shooting community would benefit by the use of these devices and would not be a cause for public concern. In this letter you will find; the effects of noise and why current hearing protection is not adequate, how these devices, which shall be referred to as just “suppressors”, work and the difference they make to shooting, the health benefits they will bring, and the contribution to conservation efforts. I request that you read this in good faith, with the understanding that I wish to balance the needs from our community and public safety.

It is common knowledge that the discharge of a firearm produces a loud noise, approximately 140 decibel (dB) up to 170+ dB(1), which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage(2). For context, a typical petrol lawn mower will idle at approximately 80-85 dB and emergency services sirens are approximately 120 dB. Wearable products, called Hearing Protective Devices (HPD’s), exist to help mitigate these noises and everyone is encouraged to wear them while using firearms. HPD’s come in the form of over the ear protection, known as “ear muffs”, and inner ear protection, known as “ear plugs”. Individually, these HPD’s can reduce the sound by up to 24 dBs, and while wearing both is advised, used in conjunction these will only reduce the sound by up to 29 dBs(3). This means that in perfect conditions and using both forms of hearing protection, a shooter may be damaging their hearing with each shot. Efficacy of HPD’s can be compromised by the use of glasses, being bumped, or incorrectly worn.

A well-designed suppressor may reduce the level of noise produced by firearms, however contrary to what most media portrays, the resultant noise is still quite audible – just is able to reduce the noise to a level that won’t immediately cause hearing damage. The typical suppressor will reduce the sound produced by approximately 17-24 dBs(4-6). Meaning that the sound produced by a firearm with a sound moderating device attached is still considerable, hence the allowance is not a concern for public safety, it is a vastly more effective tool to manage the effects of hearing damage when used in combination with HPD’s.

The quality-of-life impacts from hearing damage are very real, with the Australia Department of Health outlining hearing loss as a cause for illnesses such as depression and tinnitus. We strongly believe that the government should be looking beyond media hype to the future and should allow its citizens the same tools that are readily available in other parts of the world, to better protect their hearing and overall health.

Conservation efforts will benefit greatly from the use of firearm suppressors. Ground shooting is a common form of feral animal control, with those authorised to use suppressors being able to induce a greater reduction in targeted animals than those who are not, in similar environments and conditions(7). National conservation plans, such as the National Feral Deer Action Plan, also recommend the use of firearm suppressors as a best practice management tool(8). The suppressor helps by reducing the loud “crack” produced by the firearm, which will generally frighten surrounding target species into fleeing, whereas with that noise mitigated, the remaining animals are able to be taken out, resulting in higher rates of success. Allowing primary producers, professional shooters, and recreational hunters to have access to these devices will enhance the contributions to biosecurity and integrated pest management.

To conclude, I am asking that you take this information in and pass it onto the relevant minister, so that work can start on creating a bill that would see sound moderating devices be removed from being classified as a prohibited item and reclassified as a tool that can be purchased with a category AB and/or H firearms licence.

Thank you for your time,

Yours Faithfully,

[INSERT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE]

References

  1. Meinke DK, Finan DS, Flamme GA, Murphy WJ, Stewart M, Lankford JE, et al. Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing. 2017;38(4):267-81.
  2. Saedi B, Ghasemi M, Motiee M, Mojtahed M, Safavi A. Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent. 2013;9(2):133-9.
  3. Abel SM, Armstrong NM. The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics. 1992;36(1):19-30.
  4. Lobarinas E, Scott R, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Differential effects of suppressors on hazardous sound pressure levels generated by AR-15 rifles: Considerations for recreational shooters, law enforcement, and the military. International Journal of Audiology. 2016;55(sup1):S59-S71.
  5. Murphy WJ, Flamme GA, Campbell AR, Zechmann EL, Tasko SM, Lankford JE, et al. The reduction of gunshot noise and auditory risk through the use of firearm suppressors and low-velocity ammunition. International Journal of Audiology. 2018;57(sup1):S28-S41.
  6. Stewart M. What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader. 2018;23(3):18-20.
  7. Comte S, Thomas E, Bengsen AJ, Bennett A, Davis NE, Brown D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of volunteer and contract ground-based shooting of sambar deer in Australia. Wildlife Research. 2022:-.
  8. Group NW. National Feral Deer Action Plan. 2023.

Western Australia

Dear [MINISTER]

Subject: Request for review and change in categorisation of firearm sound moderating devices (suppressors)

My name is, [INSERT NAME HERE], and I am writing to you today to address a concern regarding a firearm tool, and specifically health issues that may be mitigated by the allowance of sound moderating devices. 

I’m writing to you as a member of the law-abiding firearm owner community and as an avid shooter am writing to you to request the consideration that this be reviewed and changed. I believe that the shooting community would benefit by the use of these devices and would not be a cause for public concern. 

Firearm sound moderating devices, also known as suppressors or silencers, are restricted items in Western Australia. The organisation, on behalf and as representatives of the shooting community, are writing to you to request the consideration that this be reviewed and changed. We believe that the shooting community would benefit by the use of these devices and would not be a cause for public concern. In this letter you will find; the effects of noise and why current hearing protection is not adequate, how these devices, which shall be referred to as just “suppressors”, work and the difference they make to shooting, the health benefits they will bring, the contribution to conservation efforts, and the contribution to the economy that legalisation would bring using survey data. We request that you read this in good faith, with the understanding that we wish to balance the needs from our community and public safety.

It is common knowledge that the discharge of a firearm produces a loud noise, approximately 140 decibel (dB) up to 170+ dB(1), which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage(2). For context, a typical petrol lawn mower will idle at approximately 80-85 dB and emergency services sirens are approximately 120 dB. Wearable products, called Hearing Protective Devices (HPD’s), exist to help mitigate these noises and everyone is encouraged to wear them while using firearms. HPD’s come in the form of over the ear protection, known as “ear muffs”, and inner ear protection, known as “ear plugs”. Individually, these HPD’s can reduce the sound by up to 24 dBs, and while wearing both is advised, used in conjunction these will only reduce the sound by up to 29 dBs(3). This means that in perfect conditions and using both forms of hearing protection, a shooter may be damaging their hearing with each shot. Efficacy of HPD’s can be compromised by the use of glasses, being bumped, or incorrectly worn.

A well-designed suppressor may reduce the level of noise produced by firearms, however contrary to what most media portrays, the resultant noise is still quite audible – just is able to reduce the noise to a level that won’t immediately cause hearing damage. The typical suppressor will reduce the sound produced by approximately 17-24 dBs(4-6). Meaning that the sound produced by a firearm with a sound moderating device attached is still considerable, hence the allowance is not a concern for public safety, it is a vastly more effective tool to manage the effects of hearing damage when used in combination with HPD’s.

The quality-of-life impacts from hearing damage are very real, with the Australia Department of Health outlining hearing loss as a cause for illnesses such as depression and tinnitus. We strongly believe that the government should be looking beyond media hype to the future and should allow its citizens the same tools that are readily available in other parts of the world, to better protect their hearing and overall health.

Conservation efforts will benefit greatly from the use of firearm suppressors. Ground shooting is a common form of feral animal control, with those authorised to use suppressors being able to induce a greater reduction in targeted animals than those who are not, in similar environments and conditions(7). National conservation plans, such as the National Feral Deer Action Plan, also recommend the use of firearm suppressors as a best practice management tool(8). The suppressor helps by reducing the loud “crack” produced by the firearm, which will generally frighten surrounding target species into fleeing, whereas with that noise mitigated, the remaining animals are able to be taken out, resulting in higher rates of success. Allowing primary producers, professional shooters, and recreational hunters to have access to these devices will enhance the contributions to biosecurity and integrated pest management.

To conclude, we are asking for the opportunity to work with you in creating a bill that would see sound moderating devices be removed from being a restricted item and reclassified in a manner that would see Western Australian firearm owners being able to purchase these tools with category AB and/or H firearms licences.

Thank you for your time,
Yours Faithfully,

[INSERT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE]

References

  1. Meinke DK, Finan DS, Flamme GA, Murphy WJ, Stewart M, Lankford JE, et al. Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing. 2017;38(4):267-81.
  2. Saedi B, Ghasemi M, Motiee M, Mojtahed M, Safavi A. Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent. 2013;9(2):133-9.
  3. Abel SM, Armstrong NM. The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics. 1992;36(1):19-30.
  4. Lobarinas E, Scott R, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Differential effects of suppressors on hazardous sound pressure levels generated by AR-15 rifles: Considerations for recreational shooters, law enforcement, and the military. International Journal of Audiology. 2016;55(sup1):S59-S71.
  5. Murphy WJ, Flamme GA, Campbell AR, Zechmann EL, Tasko SM, Lankford JE, et al. The reduction of gunshot noise and auditory risk through the use of firearm suppressors and low-velocity ammunition. International Journal of Audiology. 2018;57(sup1):S28-S41.
  6. Stewart M. What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader. 2018;23(3):18-20.
  7. Comte S, Thomas E, Bengsen AJ, Bennett A, Davis NE, Brown D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of volunteer and contract ground-based shooting of sambar deer in Australia. Wildlife Research. 2022:-.
  8. Group NW. National Feral Deer Action Plan. 2023.

Northern Territory

Dear [MINISTER]

Subject: Request for review and change in categorisation of firearm sound moderating devices (suppressors)

My name is, [INSERT NAME HERE], and I am writing to you today to address a concern regarding a firearm tool, and specifically health issues that may be mitigated by the allowance of sound moderating devices. 

Firearm sound moderating devices, also known as suppressors or silencers, are restricted items in the Northern Territory. I’m writing to you as a member of the law-abiding firearm owner community and as an avid shooter am writing to you to request the consideration that this be reviewed and changed. I believe that the shooting community would benefit by the use of these devices and would not be a cause for public concern.

In this letter you will find; the effects of noise and why current hearing protection is not adequate, how these devices, which shall be referred to as just “suppressors”, work and the difference they make to shooting, the health benefits they will bring, and the contribution to conservation efforts. I request that you read this in good faith, with the understanding that I wish to balance the needs from my community and public safety. 

It is common knowledge that the discharge of a firearm produces a loud noise, approximately 140 decibel (dB) up to 170+ dB(1), which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage(2). For context, a typical petrol lawn mower will idle at approximately 80-85 dB and emergency services sirens are approximately 120 dB. Wearable products, called Hearing Protective Devices (HPD’s), exist to help mitigate these noises and everyone is encouraged to wear them while using firearms. HPD’s come in the form of over the ear protection, known as “ear muffs”, and inner ear protection, known as “ear plugs”. Individually, these HPD’s can reduce the sound by up to 24 dBs, and while wearing both is advised, used in conjunction these will only reduce the sound by up to 29 dBs(3). This means that in perfect conditions and using both forms of hearing protection, a shooter may be damaging their hearing with each shot. Efficacy of HPD’s can be compromised by the use of glasses, being bumped, or incorrectly worn.

A well-designed suppressor may reduce the level of noise produced by firearms, however contrary to what most media portrays, the resultant noise is still quite audible – just is able to reduce the noise to a level that won’t immediately cause hearing damage. The typical suppressor will reduce the sound produced by approximately 17-24 dBs(4-6). Meaning that the sound produced by a firearm with a sound moderating device attached is still considerable, hence the allowance is not a concern for public safety, it is a vastly more effective tool to manage the effects of hearing damage when used in combination with HPD’s.

The quality-of-life impacts from hearing damage are very real, with the Australia Department of Health outlining hearing loss as a cause for illnesses such as depression and tinnitus. We strongly believe that the government should be looking beyond media hype to the future and should allow its citizens the same tools that are readily available in other parts of the world, to better protect their hearing and overall health.

Conservation efforts will benefit greatly from the use of firearm suppressors. Ground shooting is a common form of feral animal control, with those authorised to use suppressors being able to induce a greater reduction in targeted animals than those who are not, in similar environments and conditions(7). National conservation plans, such as the National Feral Deer Action Plan, also recommend the use of firearm suppressors as a best practice management tool(8). The suppressor helps by reducing the loud “crack” produced by the firearm, which will generally frighten surrounding target species into fleeing, whereas with that noise mitigated, the remaining animals are able to be taken out, resulting in higher rates of success. Allowing primary producers, professional shooters, and recreational hunters to have access to these devices will enhance the contributions to biosecurity and integrated pest management.

To conclude, I am asking that you take this information in and pass it onto the relevant minister, so that work can start on removing these sound moderating devices from being a restricted item and reclassified in a manner that would see Northern Territory firearm owners being able to purchase these tools with category AB and/or H firearms licences.

Thank you for your time,

Yours Faithfully,

[INSERT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS HERE]

 

References

  1. Meinke DK, Finan DS, Flamme GA, Murphy WJ, Stewart M, Lankford JE, et al. Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing. 2017;38(4):267-81.
  2. Saedi B, Ghasemi M, Motiee M, Mojtahed M, Safavi A. Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent. 2013;9(2):133-9.
  3. Abel SM, Armstrong NM. The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics. 1992;36(1):19-30.
  4. Lobarinas E, Scott R, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Differential effects of suppressors on hazardous sound pressure levels generated by AR-15 rifles: Considerations for recreational shooters, law enforcement, and the military. International Journal of Audiology. 2016;55(sup1):S59-S71.
  5. Murphy WJ, Flamme GA, Campbell AR, Zechmann EL, Tasko SM, Lankford JE, et al. The reduction of gunshot noise and auditory risk through the use of firearm suppressors and low-velocity ammunition. International Journal of Audiology. 2018;57(sup1):S28-S41.
  6. Stewart M. What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader. 2018;23(3):18-20.
  7. Comte S, Thomas E, Bengsen AJ, Bennett A, Davis NE, Brown D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of volunteer and contract ground-based shooting of sambar deer in Australia. Wildlife Research. 2022:-.
  8. Group NW. National Feral Deer Action Plan. 2023.

 

%d bloggers like this: