FOU

  • Home
  • Current Campaigns
    • Suppressor September 2023
      • Suppressor letter templates
    • Inquiry into Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting Arrangements – Submission
    • National Firearm Register consultation submission
    • Bowhunting South Australia – Our Statement
  • Membership
  • How to get your firearm license
  • Merch Shop
  • Database
  • About Us
    • Policy and Stance
    • Meet the team
    • Donate
    • Current Campaigns
    • Articles & Blogs
  • The Australian Firearms Industry
    • Our Partners, Sponsors and Corporate Members
    • Current competitions
Home  /  Suppressors 2022

Suppressors 2022

Hearing is important. Not spooking or stressing out animals is important. Mitigating noise complaints helps keep ranges alive and active. Australian shooters need suppressors (also known as silencers, moderators, bang bang quieters).

Suppressor legislation is on a state level within each state or territory’s weapons/firearms acts and regulations. This page will have letter templates you can copy and paste into your word processor, fill out your own name, fill out your state elected representative, and email it to them. This is the only way we will get suppressors legalised.


Queensland:

Dear Sir/Madam [LAST NAME]

I, [YOUR NAME HERE], am writing to you to address a concern I have that involves firearms and specifically a health issue caused by the disallowance 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 am writing to you to request 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, which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection1. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage2. 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 dBs3. 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 dBs4-6. 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. I 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.

To conclude, I am requesting sound moderating devices be removed from being classified as a category “R” weapon and reclassified as a tool that can be purchased with a category AB and/or H firearms licence.

Kind Regards,

[YOUR NAME HERE]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE NUMBER]

References

  1. Meinke, D.K., et al., Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing, 2017. 38(4): p. 267-281.
  2. Saedi, B., et al., Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent, 2013. 9(2): p. 133-9.
  3. Abel, S.M. and N.M. Armstrong, The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics, 1992. 36(1): p. 19-30.
  4. Lobarinas, E., et al., 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): p. S59-S71.
  5. Murphy, W.J., 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): p. S28-S41.
  6. Stewart, M., What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader, 2018. 23(3): p. 18-20.

Victoria:

Dear Sir/Madam [LAST NAME]

I, [YOUR NAME HERE], am writing to you to address a concern I have that involves firearms and specifically a health issue caused by the disallowance of sound moderating devices. 

Firearm sound moderating devices, also known as suppressors or silencers, are prohibited in Victoria as per the Victorian Firearms Act 1996, Division 10, Section 57. I am writing to you to request 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, which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection1. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage2. 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 dBs3. 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 dBs4-6. 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. I 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.

To conclude, I am requesting 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.

Kind Regards,

[YOUR NAME HERE]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE NUMBER]

References

  1. Meinke, D.K., et al., Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing, 2017. 38(4): p. 267-281.
  2. Saedi, B., et al., Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent, 2013. 9(2): p. 133-9.
  3. Abel, S.M. and N.M. Armstrong, The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics, 1992. 36(1): p. 19-30.
  4. Lobarinas, E., et al., 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): p. S59-S71.
  5. Murphy, W.J., 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): p. S28-S41.
  6. Stewart, M., What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader, 2018. 23(3): p. 18-20.

South Australia:

Dear Sir/Madam [LAST NAME]

I, [YOUR NAME HERE], am writing to you to address a concern I have that involves firearms and specifically a health issue caused by the disallowance 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 am writing to you to request 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, which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection1. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage2. 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 dBs3. 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 dBs4-6. 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. I 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.

To conclude, I am requesting 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.

Kind Regards,

[YOUR NAME HERE]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE NUMBER]

References

  1. Meinke, D.K., et al., Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing, 2017. 38(4): p. 267-281.
  2. Saedi, B., et al., Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent, 2013. 9(2): p. 133-9.
  3. Abel, S.M. and N.M. Armstrong, The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics, 1992. 36(1): p. 19-30.
  4. Lobarinas, E., et al., 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): p. S59-S71.
  5. Murphy, W.J., 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): p. S28-S41.
  6. Stewart, M., What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader, 2018. 23(3): p. 18-20.

Tasmania:

Dear Sir/Madam [LAST NAME]

I, [INSERT NAME HERE], am writing to you to address a concern I have that involves firearms and specifically a health issue caused by the disallowance 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 am writing to you to request 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.

It is common knowledge that the discharge of a firearm produces a loud noise, approximately 140 decibel (dB) up to 170+ dB, which may cause distress or harm to the user or bystanders without hearing protection1. At times, the level of noise produced can produce a noise that is guaranteed to cause hearing damage2. 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 dBs3. 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 dBs4-6. 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. I 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.

To conclude, I am asking that sound moderating devices be removed from the firearms ACT 1996 section 118 subsection (1)  and reclassified as a tool that can be purchased with a category AB and/or H firearms licence

Kind Regards,

[YOUR NAME HERE]

[ADDRESS]

[PHONE NUMBER]

References

 

  1. Meinke, D.K., et al., Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Recreational Firearms. Seminars in hearing, 2017. 38(4): p. 267-281.
  2. Saedi, B., et al., Transient threshold shift after gunshot noise exposure. B-ent, 2013. 9(2): p. 133-9.
  3. Abel, S.M. and N.M. Armstrong, The combined sound attenuation of earplugs and earmuffs. Applied acoustics, 1992. 36(1): p. 19-30.
  4. Lobarinas, E., et al., 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): p. S59-S71.
  5. Murphy, W.J., 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): p. S28-S41.
  6. Stewart, M., What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss. ASHA leader, 2018. 23(3): p. 18-20.
Tweet

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...
  • Popular
  • Recent
  • Wankers: Victoria Police tell citizens not to fight back against African gangs 29 December, 2018 123
  • Australia has also had school shootings and they were after 1996 24 February, 2018 46
  • NZ Police shut down gun confiscation website in less than 24 hours due to trolling 22 March, 2019 43
  • Dean Webber case exemplifies everything that’s wrong with defending yourself in Australia 15 October, 2018 38
  • Why we push for self-advocacy 3 December, 2023 0
  • The Grinch that stole reloading for Christmas – A Mark McGowan tale. 21 December, 2021 0
  • Species highlight: The Red fox 11 November, 2021 1
  • Pest control methods spotlight: Biocontrol 7 November, 2021 0

Recent Comments

  • Val on The Sound Case for Firearms Suppressors
  • Anonymous on Species highlight: The Red fox
  • Anonymous on Gel Ball Blasters now illegal to possess in Queensland without ‘reasonable excuse’
  • Anonymous on Gel Ball Blasters now illegal to possess in Queensland without ‘reasonable excuse’
  • Philip Kevin Walter on FGC-9s: 3D Printed 9mm Carbines Found in Aus

Social Media

Firearm Owners United

Firearm Owners United was founded in response to the many hysterical voices crying out for further gun control in this country. We already go through so many hoops to get our firearms as it is. We do not need more hoops. We don’t need a mother/father figure deciding what’s the best for us. We are Law Abiding Firearm Owners, and we are sick of being treated like second-class citizens.

Social Media

Explore FOU

  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Current Campaigns
    • Bowhunting South Australia – Our Statement
    • Inquiry into Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting Arrangements – Submission
    • National Firearm Register consultation submission
    • Western Australia Firearms Act Reform – our submission to the consultation
  • Database
  • Donate
  • FOU Elite Atheletes
  • How to get your firearm license : state -by- state
  • Media Affiliates
  • Merch Shop
  • Our Partners, Sponsors and Corporate Members
  • Policy and Stance
  • Publications
  • Suppressor letter templates
  • Suppressor September 2023
  • Suppressors 2022
  • The Australian Firearms Industry
Follow @FOU_official

Follow Us

%d