This is an email request I sent to Senator Gabbard last week. I haven't received any reply as of today (Sunday, January 13). Perhaps others would like to suggest something similar to other senators or representatives.

Aloha Senator X,

I'm wondering if you, or a colleague you might know of, would be willing to introduce a bill to remove suppressors from the list of banned objects from Hawaii?

There is no evidence that suppressors are in any way at all connected to crime even by correlation, much less by causation.

There is a lot of evidence that law-abiding gun owners suffer hearing damage that could be avoided by use of suppressors. Some European countries actually REQUIRE the use of suppressors so as to minimize noise disturbance to people adjacent to hunting and shooting areas.

Because suppressors are still governed by the NFA 1934 they still require a background check, the granting of a license and a $200 tax stamp from the BATFE.

Here is the law in question:

§134-8  Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties.  (a)  The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited:  assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e); automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen inches; cannons; mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms; hand grenades, dynamite, blasting caps, bombs, or bombshells, or other explosives; or any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof coated with teflon or any other similar coating designed primarily to enhance its capability to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor; and any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof designed or intended to explode or segment upon impact with its target.
     (b)  Any person who installs, removes, or alters a firearm part with the intent to convert the firearm to an automatic firearm shall be deemed to have manufactured an automatic firearm in violation of subsection (a).
     (c)  The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds which are designed for or capable of use with a pistol is prohibited.  This subsection shall not apply to magazines originally designed to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition which have been modified to accept no more than ten rounds and which are not capable of being readily restored to a capacity of more than ten rounds.
     (d)  Any person violating subsection (a) or (b) shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be imprisoned for a term of five years without probation.  Any person violating subsection (c) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor except when a detachable magazine prohibited under this section is possessed while inserted into a pistol in which case the person shall be guilty of a class C felony. [L 1988, c 275, pt of §2; am L 1989, c 261, §6 and c 263, §4; am L 1992, c 286, §§3, 4]


mahalo,
x

I heard a suppressed 22LR pistol being fired in person.  Not here of course.  It was still loud.  Not to the level you needed ear protection, but you would still be able to easily hear it 100 yards away.  Like a roofer's nail gun.  I think our stupid politicians think it would only go poof, like in the movies where the person in the next room wouldn’t hear anything.

To get something like this to pass through the legislature requires a lot of advanced planning, should plan a year ahead.  Need to plan and coordinate it well, talk to and educate each legislator, plan for testimony, get alliances with the hunters and related parties, audiologists, etc.  Also need a small team of people to work on these things.

So start working on it now for 2020.  Shouldn't be that way, but that's the reality in Hawaii.

To get something like this to pass through the legislature requires a lot of advanced planning, should plan a year ahead.  Need to plan and coordinate it well, talk to and educate each legislator, plan for testimony, get alliances with the hunters and related parties, audiologists, etc.  Also need a small team of people to work on these things.

So start working on it now for 2020.  Shouldn't be that way, but that's the reality in Hawaii.

zippz, I could be completely wrong, but my suspicion based upon current and recent past events in the legislature, and judicial and executive branches of Hawaii government is that NOTHING (except higher level specific judicial rulings targeting Hawaii laws) will have any effect at all on the ability to exercise our natural rights related to self-defense here in Hawaii. No amount of "education", "coordination", "testimony", etc. will have any effect on ideologues. Don't get me wrong, I'm still for it and do it, but I don't have any belief that it will be successful (it's been YEARS since SCOTUS issued a UNANIMOUS per curiam decision that banning stun guns is unconstitutional, and they're still banned in Hawaii). I salute your work and support it, but I still want to make sure each of these "public servants" is made aware that they are violating their oath of office to support the constitutions. I know they don't care, but still...   

zippz, I could be completely wrong, but my suspicion based upon current and recent past events in the legislature, and judicial and executive branches of Hawaii government is that NOTHING (except higher level specific judicial rulings targeting Hawaii laws) will have any effect at all on the ability to exercise our natural rights related to self-defense here in Hawaii. No amount of "education", "coordination", "testimony", etc. will have any effect on ideologues. Don't get me wrong, I'm still for it and do it, but I don't have any belief that it will be successful (it's been YEARS since SCOTUS issued a UNANIMOUS per curiam decision that banning stun guns is unconstitutional, and they're still banned in Hawaii). I salute your work and support it, but I still want to make sure each of these "public servants" is made aware that they are violating their oath of office to support the constitutions. I know they don't care, but still...   

I agree, having gone down that route already in Oregon.  I was on the mailing list of a politician who said we should all be tracked by the NSA because we opposed his anti-gun bill.  You cant educate a politician out of that mindset. 

Funny conversation with someone recent about why we keep electing incumbents over and over.  They said it was because of the great improvements they have made on homelessness and electricity rates.  I mentioned that we have the worst homeless issue and highest electricity costs in the US and it happened on their watch.  The response was "its not higher than American Samoa"   (I looked it up after the conversation and in reality it is higher here)

You cant win that sort of conversation.  When your cognitive bias is to the point of using false statements as your justification you cant tell them anything that would actually change their mind. 

I agree, having gone down that route already in Oregon.  I was on the mailing list of a politician who said we should all be tracked by the NSA because we opposed his anti-gun bill.  You cant educate a politician out of that mindset. 

Funny conversation with someone recent about why we keep electing incumbents over and over.  They said it was because of the great improvements they have made on homelessness and electricity rates.  I mentioned that we have the worst homeless issue and highest electricity costs in the US and it happened on their watch.  The response was "its not higher than American Samoa"   (I looked it up after the conversation and in reality it is higher here)

You cant win that sort of conversation.  When your cognitive bias is to the point of using false statements as your justification you cant tell them anything that would actually change their mind.

That's great. I laughed out loud at the "American Somoa" evidence of how great the politicians in Hawaii are doing (and even then it was false). Now THAT'S desperation! 

Gotta work with what we have and make it happen.  It's going to take a significant effort from everyone.  The other alternative is to vote everyone out of office, but that's much harder to do and that'll take 10+ years to do to change the mindset of people in Hawaii and to develop good candidates.

Everyone complains about things and how the politicians don't listen and I used to think that way.  One thing I've learned through experience is don't complain about something unless you did your best to fix it.  There's just a few people at any one time in Hawaii that work really hard at it and put in the hours for gun rights activism and that's admirable.  However a few doesn't cut it.  We need hundreds of people actively helping out throughout the year and putting in hours every month making phone calls, talking to reps, organizing events, talking to community groups, etc,  2 hours a month from everyone on 2ahawaii would make miracles happen.

People say it's a waste of time or it's a lost cause or it won't work.  Give it a chance.

Just a pedantic thing: the term is "silencers." It's the word used in HRS. It's the word used by BATFE. It's the word that needs to be stricken.

Don't make the mistake of pushing two agendas at the same time. You can crusade to change the word separately. For the purposes of courts and legislation, stick to the language they adopted. Silencers.

Just a pedantic thing: the term is "silencers." It's the word used in HRS. It's the word used by BATFE. It's the word that needs to be stricken.

Don't make the mistake of pushing two agendas at the same time. You can crusade to change the word separately. For the purposes of courts and legislation, stick to the language they adopted. Silencers.

That IS the language stricken as shown in the original post proposing the change in the law, exactly as written in the law:

mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms;

You can't propose striking language that doesn't exist.

That IS the language stricken as shown in the original post proposing the change in the law, exactly as written in the law:

mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms;

You can't propose striking language that doesn't exist.

Fucking seriously?

...
I'm wondering if you, or a colleague you might know of, would be willing to introduce a bill to remove suppressors from the list of banned objects from Hawaii?

There is no evidence that suppressors are in any way at all connected to crime even by correlation, much less by causation.

There is a lot of evidence that law-abiding gun owners suffer hearing damage that could be avoided by use of suppressors. Some European countries actually REQUIRE the use of suppressors so as to minimize noise disturbance to people adjacent to hunting and shooting areas.

Because suppressors are still governed by the NFA 1934 they still require a background check, the granting of a license and a $200 tax stamp from the BATFE.
...

I heard a suppressed 22LR pistol being fired in person.  Not here of course.  It was still loud.  Not to the level you needed ear protection, but you would still be able to easily hear it 100 yards away.  Like a roofer's nail gun.  I think our stupid politicians think it would only go poof, like in the movies where the person in the next room wouldn’t hear anything.

Learned that supersonic rounds still can have a decent crack even suppressed. That and the pitch makes a difference, line with .22 lr.

Was at a range in WA and some guys were shooting some wildcat type calibers suppressed (yes, what a waste), but learned real quick which ones can still be pretty loud, to the point where ear pro probably should be used.

Just a pedantic thing: the term is "silencers."

"A pedantic thing"? More like "a frivolously pedantic thing".

Fucking seriously?

Fucking yeah.

My use of the term "suppressor" is only in the body of my comments to the legislators. That is the currently most widely used term in the firearms community to refer to the devices in question. The other part of the original post is the suggested amendment to the actual legislation, where the terms used there for suppressors are struck out. Are you suggesting that any legislator who read that letter and would be interested in amending the law as presented therein would be unable to comprehend that "suppressor" in the preceding comment section refers to "mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms" as written in the current law and struck out as presented as the amendment?    Plus, my comments preceding the recommended legislation where those terms are stricken, is merely a suggestion of what could be written to a legislator. One could simply include the current law with the stricken language as the suggestion. One could write whatever prologue one wanted, including using what I wrote and simply substituting "mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms" for every instance where I used "suppressor".

Or, you could just show us what you have proposed to legislators.

"A pedantic thing"? More like "a frivolously pedantic thing".

Fucking yeah.

My use of the term "suppressor" is only in the body of my comments to the legislators. That is the currently most widely used term in the firearms community to refer to the devices in question. The other part of the original post is the suggested amendment to the actual legislation, where the terms used there for suppressors are struck out. Are you suggesting that any legislator who read that letter and would be interested in amending the law as presented therein would be unable to comprehend that "suppressor" in the preceding comment section refers to "mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms" as written in the current law and struck out as presented as the amendment?    Plus, my comments preceding the recommended legislation where those terms are stricken, is merely a suggestion of what could be written to a legislator. One could simply include the current law with the stricken language as the suggestion. One could write whatever prologue one wanted, including using what I wrote and simply substituting "mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms" for every instance where I used "suppressor".

Or, you could just show us what you have proposed to legislators.

You know what, I owe you an apology. I broke my own rule and engaged in a post you created. You do you.

I'd like to get HPD SSD to do a live and recorded suppressed rifle demonstration for the reps to show how loud a suppressed gun is.  Then compare it to unsuppressed without hearing protection to show how the sound can damage hearing for hunters.

I have heard that suppressed subsonic 22lr's can be very quiet in the right gun.  Anyone know?

I'd like to get HPD SSD to do a live and recorded suppressed rifle demonstration for the reps to show how loud a suppressed gun is.  Then compare it to unsuppressed without hearing protection to show how the sound can damage hearing for hunters.

I have heard that suppressed subsonic 22lr's can be very quiet in the right gun. Anyone know?

Close to the movie "pew pew"... more like "ffft ffft".

Video comparison .22LR in suppressed rifle and pistol using supersonic and subsonic ammo. They do not do decibel measurements, but the difference is clear.



Here's Hickock 45 demonstrating the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=DtenI4zMwWM

Here's the list of the YouTube videos on the topic... I haven't watched them to know if anyone actually uses a decibel meter to measure the sound levels.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=silenced+.22+with+subsonic+ammunition+

Here are some answers on Quora, many irrelevant to the specific question, but one even claiming that a manager in a sporting goods store fired a suppressed .22LR handgun using subsonic in the store, behind the counter, and no customers even turned their head...

https://www.quora.com/How-loud-is-a-silenced-22-pistol-firing-subsonic-rounds

One thing for sure, such results play into the hands of the antis and this is "evidence" that guns can be fired at low enough sound level to effectively disguise the activity to a significant degree, not that there is any real data suggesting that any criminals have actually used suppressed .22LR firearms shooting subsonic ammo, that I can find. But, you know, it could happen. This still ignores the fact that if that is what criminals wanted to do, they would do it via acquiring the necessary tools illegally, like they already acquire their necessary tools illegally. I'm pretty sure no criminals here, or anywhere else, don't use suppressors because of the threat of additional penalties for having an illegal suppressor when they already may have an illegal firearm and are committing an illegal act like robbery, assault, or murder.

EDIT: The primary issue at this point is that none of the state's 76 legislators that I wrote asking them to sponsor the suppressor repeal legislation have responded, so there is no bill at this point. I called both my senator and representative and they refused to introduce such a bill even "by request".

Suppressors fired on video recordings are a LOT quieter than in person.  Good example is watch NHRA drag races on TV or UTube.  If you ever been to one in person, you will know what I mean.

Suppressors fired on video recordings are a LOT quieter than in person.  Good example is watch NHRA drag races on TV or UTube.  If you ever been to one in person, you will know what I mean.

Here's an article with numbers and graphs. The sound produced by the round exiting the suppressor is at approximately the same level as the sound created by the bolt acting.

https://www.silencershop.com/blog/post/22-suppressor-test-results/

All of them were loud, over 110dB suppressed,  in those tests.  Basically, for a suppressed firearm to be "quiet", you need to use subsonic ammo.  Normal conversation is about 60dB and your lawnmower is around 90.  The suppressed 22LR pistol I heard was firing Federal HV ammo.