Bill Would Ban Sale And Possession Of Gun Silencers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), a founding member of the Senate Gun Violence Prevention Caucus, and Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.-12) reintroduced the Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act – bicameral federal gun safety legislation to ban the importation, sale, manufacturing, transfer and possession of gun silencers or suppressors.

“Gun silencers are devices designed for a very specific purpose – to suppress the sound of gunfire from unsuspecting victims and reduce the chances they can run, hide, take cover, and call the police during an active shooter situation,” said Sen. Menendez. “It is well past time that we pass the HEAR Act, legislation that would prevent armed assailants from using deadly devices that only make incidents of gun violence all the more dangerous.”

“Silencers are not tools of self-defense, they are tools of murder. They have no legal application, which is why law enforcement officials around the country have called for their elimination,” said Rep. Watson Coleman. “The HEAR Act will save lives and is part of the common sense approach to firearms legislation that has widespread support among voters on both sides of the aisle.”

Sen. Menendez first introduced the HEAR Act in 2019 following the deadly Virginia Beach mass shooting, in which a gunman attached a suppressor to a

.45-caliber handgun before opening fire in a local government office building where he killed 12 people and injured four more.

In addition to prohibiting gun silencers, the HEAR Act would:

• Authorize a buyback program for silencers using Byrne JAG grants;

• Provide individuals with a 90-day grace period after the date of enactment for individuals to comply with the ban;

• Provide limited exceptions for certain current and former law enforcement personnel, for certain Atomic Energy personnel and purpose, and for certain authorized testing or experimentation.

Violence Policy Center, Newtown Action Alliance, March For Our Lives, and Everytown support the bill.

“The Violence Policy Center applauds the introduction of the HEAR Act to ban silencers. Silencers are military-bred accessories that make it easier for criminals to take innocent lives and threaten law enforcement,” said Kristen Rand, States Government Affairs Director. “Manufacturers brag that silencers can make guns ‘whisper quiet’ while increasing shooters’ accuracy and ability to fire rounds more quickly. These characteristics only make silencers more attractive to mass shooters and terrorists. The Violence Policy Center documented the dangers of silencers in our 2019 study, Silencers: A Threat to Public Safety.”

“Common-sense regulations on firearm silencers and mufflers is a simple, straightforward step in encouraging responsible gun ownership,” said Elena Perez, Senior Policy Associate at March For Our Lives. “These devices drastically reduce the noise of shots fired, making it challenging to identify where the gunfire is coming from, a potentially fatal mistake in mass shootings. With gun violence increasing in severity across the country, why make already deadly weapons even deadlier?”

A gun silencer, which is also known as a suppressor, is attached to the barrel of a firearm in order to “limit the sound, muzzle flash and kickback” of a gun. Silencers pose a great danger to law enforcement officers and the public since they make it more difficult to detect the location of an active shooter. They diminish the effectiveness of gunshot detection technology deployed in many municipalities that rely on audio sensors to record the sound, time and location of loud noises. Gun silencers have been used in gun violence related incidents over the last decade:

• In Monterey Park, California, on January 21, 2023, an armed assailant with a semi-automatic weapon modified with a homemade suppressor killed 11 people and injured nine others.

• In Virginia Beach, Virginia, on May 31, 2019, a gunman armed with a .45-caliber handgun fitted with a suppressor killed 12 people in a government building. One individual who survived the shooting reported hearing what sounded like a nail gun.

• In Jacksonville, Florida, in December 2017, police arrested a man for planning to “shoot up” an Islamic Center. He was charged with possessing a silencer not registered to him that he purchased from an undercover detective.

• In southern California, in February 2013, a former Los Angeles police officer killed four people, and wounded three others over the course of nine days. As police investigated, they wondered why nearby residents were not reporting the shots. It turned out that, in an effort to conceal his murders, the shooter was using a silencer, which distorts the sound of gunfire and masks the muzzle flash of a gun.

• In Toledo, Ohio, in January 2011, a man fatally shot his coworker as he sat eating his breakfast in his office. No one at the office heard the gunshot and the victim’s co-workers originally assumed he had died of a heart attack. Police later surmised that the killer had used a silencer. Gun silencers are among the fastest-growing segments of the gun industry. While several states, including New Jersey, outlaw gun silencers, these devices are currently permitted under federal law, but must be registered. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, there are currently over 900,000 silencers registered under the National Firearms Act. A nationwide ban on silencers would ensure the devices are not trafficked into states where bans are in place.

Congressman Questions Safety Of Wind Turbines

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A top Biden Administration official stonewalled Rep. Chris Smith (R-4th) at a congressional hearing on offshore wind when pressed with studies that call into question the safety and survivability of more than 3,400 offshore wind turbines slated for the Jersey Shore.

“Can these offshore wind turbineseach the size of the Chrysler building in New York City - sustain a category 2 or 3 hurricane?” asked Smith, who raised concerns about the massive offshore wind turbines in letters to the Biden Administration in January and has yet to receive a response.

“I am happy to have our folks get back to you,” said Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Liz Klein.

Smith, who represents several military installations in his congressional district, also raised the concern that military and civilian vessels may be “significantly put at risk by radar malfunction caused by ocean wind turbines,” citing a 2020

BOEM analysis that concluded “future offshore wind energy installations on the Atlantic coast may impact land-based radar systems…”

“Is that true? Is there a possibility that some 3,400 wind turbines proposed to be deployed off our coast could make navigation less safe?” asked Smith, who also cited a 2022 study that “wind turbine generator mitigation techniques have not been substantially investigated, implemented, matured, or deployed.”

“Again no answer from Director Klein on the specific question,” Smith said. “Have the mitigation techniques been investigated, implemented, matured, or deployed?”

“We have worked very closely with our partners at the Department of Defense all throughout the process as we identify sites for offshore wind,” said Klein, who offered no specifics.

The BOEM Director’s comments came just one week after Bloomberg reported that the Pentagon has deemed several areas off the East Coast as “highly problematic” for the development of offshore wind, due to proximity to military operations.

Government Response To Radar

The U.S. Department of Energy has already studied the impact of wind turbines on radar in 2014 and again in 2023. They have released plans for how to reduce the problem, including: Designing the wind farm layout to minimize the impacted area of radar coverage or to allow for maximum radar coverage within the project, such as by increasing the spacing between turbines within the project Terrain masking, or placing turbines on the opposite side of elevated terrain in relation to the radar so they will be blocked from view

Relocating proposed turbines or reducing their height so that they fall outside the radar line of sight

Eliminating proposed turbines located in areas that result in high radar interference impacts.

Siting alone may not eliminate impacts or reduce them to an acceptable level. In these cases, other mitigation techniques, including the deployment of new radar-related software upgrades and/or hardware, can also reduce potential wind energy impacts on radar operations. Examples include:

Adding infill radars in or around the wind project to maintain existing radar coverage

Modifying the existing radar system software’s constant false alarm rates, clutter maps, or other filtering and/or preliminary tracking routines

Upgrading the hardware or software of the affected radar to implement advanced filtering techniques that can remove interference from turbines.

In most cases, siting and other mitigations have resolved conflicts and allowed wind projects to co-exist effectively with radar missions.

For more information, visit windexchange.energy.gov/projects/radar-interference-review-process