After Las Vegas massacre, the sound of silencers

Gun laws in America are already so weak, it must be tough to find ways to make them even looser. But you've got to give gun lobbyists credit. They've come up with some new ideas and found allies in Congress to promote them, even as the nation mourns the 58 people mowed down at a music festival in Las Vegas.

At the top of the wish list: a push to make it easier to buy gun silencers and harder to restrict armor-piercing bullets.

These ideas would, at best, place the convenience of gun owners over the safety of the public. At worst, they would put innocent people and police officers in graver danger.

REP. JEFF DUNCAN:Suppressors aid hunters’ hearing

The changes are tucked into a measure called the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. The innocuous title tries to hide its most controversial content. As Darrel Stephens, a former police chief and now executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, notes: “If they were going to be straightforward and upfront, it would not be buried in hundreds of pages of fishing stuff.” 

The proposal getting the most attention is a move to make it easier to buy silencers, or as its sponsor, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., disingenuously calls it, the "Hearing Protection Act." Duncan's effort happens to coincide with a push by gun makers to sell more accessories, as firearms sales have dipped.  

Silencers have been available to hunters and others under the National Firearms Act since 1934. But Duncan and the NRA think it's too cumbersome to buy one. Buyers must pass a criminal background check, turn over their fingerprints to the government, and pay a $200 fee. Silencers are registered, and transfers are tracked. The measure would eliminate a system that has, except in rare cases, kept silencers out of the hands of criminals for more than 80 years.

Instead, they'd be treated like other firearms, with buyers subject to instant background checks. The problem? The background check system has gaping holes that have allowed criminals, domestic abusers and the mentally ill to buy guns from unlicensed dealers without a background check.

A coalition of top law enforcement groups says the change could put silencers in the hands of criminals, make it easier to ambush police, and make it harder to hear gunshots. The louder the gunfire, the easier it is to for authorities to locate active shooters.

Silencers don’t actually mute gunshots in the way they're portrayed in movies, but they certainly lower the decibel levels.  

Supporters of the measure argue that hunters need them to protect their hearing. But when opponents argue that silencers will make it harder to hear gunshots, those same supporters insist it isn't so. Sorry, but they can't have it both ways.

And how cumbersome could the current system be? Silencers are heavily marketed by the gun industry, and, as of last year, more than 900,000 were registered.

The same sportsmen's measure would also make it more difficult to restrict armor-piercing ammunition, often called “cop-killing bullets.” Their sale was restricted in 1986 by a law championed and signed by President Reagan, who said "certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited."

Reagan had that right, but times have changed. The Obama administration tried to use that law to restrict “highly popular” ammunition used in the popular AR-15 rifle, according to the NRA, which didn’t like it. Congress is now looking at doing the gun lobby’s bidding, even if it means putting law enforcement officers at risk.

Two days after the Las Vegas massacre, a group of House Democrats called on House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to ensure that the SHARE measure won’t be taken up by the House. But the best Ryan could muster was, “I don’t know when it’s going to be scheduled.”

Ryan and other Republicans who've opposed every previous effort to pass commonsense gun measures said this week they'd consider banning "bump stocks," the accessory the Las Vegas shooter used to make his semiautomatic weapon even more lethal. The NRA talked favorably about "additional regulations" but not a new law. These are hardly the rousing calls for change that ought to come after Sunday night's massacre.

Curbing gun violence should be at the top of Congress' agenda. Instead, at the gun lobby's behest, it is looking at weakening existing restrictions. Pathetic. 

If you can't see this reader poll, please refresh your page.