SJR 20-URGE PASSAGE OF HEARING PROTECTION ACT  3:36:54 PM CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20 Urging the United States Congress to pass the Hearing Protection Act. 3:37:26 PM TYLER NEWCOMBE, Staff, Senator Josh Revak, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced SJR 20 on behalf of the sponsor, speaking to the sponsor statement, Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) and tinnitus are significant health problems among adults across the United States. Despite the widespread availability of traditional hearing protection devices like earplugs and earmuffs, these preventable hearing conditions are often the result of firearm noise exposure. When they do occur, they can cause a significant negative impact in the quality of life to those affected by them. Studies from the CDC and NIOSH have shown that the use of noise suppressors on firearms can help protect against hearing loss. That is why the National Hearing Conservation Association recommends their use as a tool to mitigate the risk of hearing damage. For safety and sporting purposes, the majority of hunters do not want to sacrifice their auditory situational awareness by wearing traditional hearing protection devices in the field. Suppressors are the only tool that reduces the noise at the source, making the concussion of a gunshot less dangerous for the hunter and everyone around them. This is especially true for hunting dogs, whose ears are far more sensitive than their human counterparts and all the more important for younger hunters and guides who are accompanying a hunter in the field. While the words silencer and suppressor are often used interchangeably, it is important to note that nothing can completely silence gunshots. The quietest "silenced" gunshot is still as loud as a jackhammer striking concrete. However, a firearm suppressor can reduce the sound signature by an average of 20 to 35 dB, roughly the same as earplugs or earmuffs. The Hearing Protection Act was first introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2015 and in the Senate in 2017. If enacted, it would remove suppressors from the purview of the National Firearms Act and reclassify them as Title 1 firearms. Doing so would eliminate the superfluous barriers to entry that in no way enhance public safety, while still requiring purchasers to submit a Form 4473 and pass an FBI background check when purchasing through a dealer. Its passage would also result in the largest increase of Pittman-Robertson funding in decades, adding tens of millions of dollars to the aggregate budgets of our nation's state wildlife agencies for the management of wildlife resources. SJR 20 urges congress to enact the Hearing Protection Act and enable the 100+ million law-abiding gunowners across our country to take an extra preventative measure for their health without endangering the safety of the general public 3:39:19 PM SENATOR HOLLAND asked if those purchasing a suppressor must submit Form 4473 because they're buying a suppresser or a firearm. MR. NEWCOMBE deferred the question to Knox Williams. SENATOR HOLLAND said he was curious whether purchasing a suppressor elicited a level of paperwork. CHAIR SHOWER offered his experience that purchasing a suppressor was a more detailed process than buying a firearm. 3:40:33 PM KNOX WILLIAMS, President & Executive Director, American Suppressor Association, Atlanta, Georgia, testified by invitation in support of SJR 20. He paraphrased his prepared testimony, which read as follows: It is important to note that no device can silence the sound of a gunshot. They are simply too loud. However, suppressors can reduce the noise to safer levels. That's why the CDC, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the National Hearing Conservation Association all recommend the use of suppressors as a tool to mitigate preventable hearing damage. Suppressors are legal to own in 42 states and are legal to hunt with in 40, Alaska being one of them. That said, under the current regulatory structure of the National Firearms Act, they are one of the most heavily regulated items available to consumers. To legally purchase one, buyers must send in an application to ATF that includes fingerprint cards, passport style photos, pay a $200 transfer tax, notify their chief law enforcement officer, and wait an average of six to 18 months for ATF and FBI conduct a background check and process the application. The Hearing Protection Act would fix this, replacing the complicated and costly antiquated process with the same process used to buy a rifle or shotgun. Customers and dealers would fill out a Form 4473 and still have to pass the same FBI background check. The use of suppressors by criminals is a near statistical anomaly because a) they don't actually silence anything and b) suppressed guns are harder to conceal and there are some severe and strict federal penalties. According to Ronald Turk in his official capacity as the former number two at ATF, "Silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety." Passage of the Hearing Protection Act would also result in the largest increase in Pittman Roberts funding in decades, adding tens of millions of dollars to the pool of money that is divided by our nation's state and wildlife agency. For these reasons we urge you to pass Senator Revak's resolution. 3:42:37 PM MR. WILLIAMS asked whether his testimony answered the question about Form 4473. SENATOR HOLLAND asked if this makes it easier for individuals to purchase noise suppressor devices to protect their hearing. MR. WILLIAMS answered yes, it would be easier for law-abiding citizens to purchase these devices. He added that the $200 transfer tax would not be required and an individual would be able to visit a dealer, fill out Form 4473, and pass a background check the same day. That currently takes 6-18 months. He noted an electronic transfer system launched last December and if it works as promised it will reduce wait times to about 90 days. CHAIR SHOWER asked him to describe the penalties if someone is stopped by law enforcement and does not have the required paperwork. MR. WILLIAMS stated that the use of a suppressor in the commission of a crime carries a 5 year and $250,000 penalty CHAIR SHOWER added that the possession of a suppressor is tied to a person and that person must have the paperwork in their possession when using the suppressor. 3:45:01 PM CHAIR SHOWER asked whether the [Hearing Protection] Act changes the way somebody could sell a suppresser or if it stays the same as selling a firearm. MR. WILLIAMS answered that should the Hearing Protection Act pass, the way fees are transferred would change. In addition, suppressors would be removed from the federal registry that maintains the database on anybody who has purchased a National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) item and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) would be required to destroy those personal records. Suppressors would be reclassified as firearms so the same rules for transfer would apply as for a firearm. CHAIR SHOWER recapped the current and said he also wanted to dispel the myth about real suppressors. They are not small; the sound is only reduced, not silenced; and they are expensive. 3:47:57 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI asked why suppressors were originally placed in the National Firearms Act. MR. WILLIAMS replied the history is not clear, although there are several conjectures. What is clear is that the silencer provision in the National Firearms Act was never part of the congressional debate. 3:50:27 PM SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what the $200 transfer tax goes to. MR. WILLIAMS replied ATF sees none of that money; it goes into the general fund of the US Treasury. CHAIR SHOWER highlighted that $200 was a lot of money when the transfer tax was initiated and few people could afford it. He asked Mr. Williams to comment. MR. WILLIAMS explained that President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his attorney general Homer Cummings wanted to ban guns, but they knew they didn't have the statutory authority to do so. The solution was to levy a tax that was cost prohibitive. The cost of a suppressor was $5-7 and the added $200 tax effectively killed the suppressor industry for the next 50-60 years. CHAIR SHOWER asked if there was any additional invited testimony. 3:53:23 PM EMMA TORKELSON, Staff, Senator Josh Revak, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said Jennifer Yuhaf was probably on line if there were any questions. CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Yuhaf if she had anything to add. 3:53:51 PM JENNIFER YUHAF, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified by invitation in support of SJR 20. She stated that she is a firearms safety instructor who teaches basic pistol, rife, and home firearms safety. She stated that SJR 20 is about safety and revenue. As a safety instructor she questions why it should be more difficult to obtain a safety device for a firearm than to obtain a firearm. Clearly, it should not. Part of safety is protecting one's hearing and part is being proficient with firearms. She opined that allowing easier access to a safety device for hearing will encourage other safety practices. The second piece is that being able to purchase these safety devices for firearms will generate revenue for the state budget. 3:55:51 PM CHAIR SHOWER held SJR 20 in committee.