Senator Menendez [Scumbag-NJ] has filed a bill titled “Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act” (no bill number yet) to ban silencers* (except for law enforcement and military, of course). Because with a silencers, victims can’t “HEAR” perps coming. There’s a matching companion bill in the House.

It’s fairly standard “ban” language, without grandfathering. Owners would have 60 days from the bill’s enactment to get rid of their property. Grants would be made to fund “buy backs.”

To show why this idiotic ban is “needed” Menendez cites five cases, over twelve years, in which “silencers have [allegedly] been used in gun violence related incidents over the last decade.” Let’s take a look at his examples, and see why I added “allegedly.”

1. 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.

He used an illegal, homemade suppressor on a banned “California assault weapon.” his MAC-style firearm (law enforcement have identified it as both a MAC and a Cobray) has long been banned in the state, as have silencers. No doubt another redundant ban would have persuaded him to find another way to kill his victims. Oh, yes; and he had a second non-silenced gun.

2. 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.

People in the building did hear the shots. And he used two handguns; only one of which was silenced.

3. 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.

He did not use a silencer in an act of “gun violence.” He possessed one that he bought unlawfully (from a cop)

4. 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.

Again, California; silencers were already banned, It didn’t deter him. And so long as Menendez id bringing up Christopher Dorner’s little rampage, how ’bout mentioning the civilians the police mistakenly shot up?

5. 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.

The description of this one was vague enough that it took me a few minutes to find the case. The authorities only speculated that he used a silencer, but were never able to establish that as a fact.

Twelve years. Five cases. Two cases where silencers were already banned, two cases where silencers apparently were used. That leaves… counting on fingers… one case where a ban theoretically might have helped, assuming the murderous perp was worried about the extra silencer charge. If laws against murder didn’t stop, why would laws against silencers do it?

I love this pair of quotes from Violence Policy Center and Newtown Action Alliance toadies in support of the bill.

“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.”

“Silencers are dangerous weapons that make it easier for criminals to kill innocent Americans and more difficult for our police officers to protect our children and families. It’s time for Congress to pass this lifesaving legislation.”

So silencers are only attractive to mass shooter and terrorists, to kill innocent Americans…

Then why the hell does this bill exempt law enforcement and military from the ban? Are they mass shooters and terrorists bent on murdering innocents. And do you want them to do that?

* Yes, I think “suppressor” is a more accurate term, but federal law calls them “silencers,” so I’m kind stuck with it when discussing law.