Doctor Timothy W. Wheeler and six fellow ear surgeons recently submitted a proposal to their national specialist society, the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS).

The seven ear doctors wanted their academy to support their new policy endorsing firearm suppressors for hearing protection. 

The docs had tried it before but failed. Some of their members called them “gun nuts.” However, the seven coauthors are a powerful group – ear, nose and throat surgeons with more than a century of combined practice experience. 

“Four of us are even further specialized in ear problems and are fellowship-trained neurotologists, who operate only on the ear and base of skull,” Wheeler pointed out in an email. “We are all shooters and avid Second Amendment supporters.”

The seven-member group believes that their proposal could be powerful new evidence in the fight to deregulate sound suppressors and make them far easier to purchase. 

Last week, the group was notified that their Academy, the AAO-HNS, formally adopted their position statement endorsing firearm suppressors as a public health tool for hearing preservation.

“They accepted it. It’s official policy,” Wheeler said last week. “The Academy will enforce it!” 

Wheeler said he has contacted the NRA, National Shooting Sports Foundation and other pro-gun groups, telling them about the news. 

The group’s position is short and simple: 

“Sound suppressors are mechanical devices attached to the barrel of a firearm designed to reduce harmful impulse noise of firearms at its source. CDC research has shown that the only potentially effective noise control method to reduce [shooters’] noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. Suppressors reduce muzzle blast noise by up to 30 decibels. Their benefit is additive when used with ear-level hearing protection devices such as circumaural muffs or ear plugs. The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery endorses the use of firearm suppressors as an effective method of reducing the risk of hearing loss, especially when used in conjunction with conventional hearing protective measures.”

The seven coauthors include: Mark G. Bell, MD; Matthew P. Branch, MD; Roberto A. Cueva, MD, FACS; Gerard J. Gianoli, MD, FACS; Bradford Ress, MD, FANS; Hayes H. Wanamaker, MD and Wheeler. All seven are board certified by the American Board of Otolaryngology. 

“It was a fantastic decision,” Wheeler said. “We intend to be available to assist NRA and other interested parties in the effort to make firearm suppressors just another widely available, consumer-friendly firearm accessory.”

This story is courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation or for more information on the project.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

30 COMMENTS

  1. Expect opponents to exploit Mr. Thompson’s murderer using a suppressed pistol to scare the public (not that any of New York’s laws were effective in stopping the killer).

    • Will the investigation demonstrate that witnesses did infact hear the gun shots? Did the news report anyone hear this shooting?

      I have shot suppressed handguns. In 9mm and 22LR. Both ARE NOT “Hollywood quiet.”

      Unless you are shooting the aguilla collibri 22LR rounds. Shooting that ammo is quieter than shooting a BB gun.
      I used that ammo to introduce a new person to shooting. And it put a real smile on their face. They were so surprised just how quiet it actually was.

      But you will not be able to assassinate anybody, with that ammunition.

      • Argument doesn’t usually get any further than “This type of weapon was used to kill someone; it’s clearly too dangerous to allow average citizens to have it.”

        • Will the democrats trust the science???

          Probably not, because they are intellectually dishonest. Perhaps a few of the republicans, assuming they are intellectually honest, will make floor speeches about the importance of deregulation for suppressors.

          We will see.

          I’d love to see the NFA repealed completely. I seriously don’t believe that will happen. Maybe just parts of it.

          • Just gotta be ruthless relentless and willing to prepare our descendants to be the same in attacking affronts to liberty.

        • The perp’s use of a suppressor in the recent NYC assassination tragedy is probably just further evidence he is cyanide fruitcake nuts.

    • Serpent_Vision,

      You are probably correct.

      What is really maddening is that only a handful of people have ever used a legally registered suppressor to shoot someone. And we are talking over the course of almost 100 years and 6 million registered suppressors. That means the odds of someone using a legally registered suppressor to shoot someone is about one in a million. That obviously does not rise to the nebulous standard of “dangerous”. Of course the Far Left doesn’t care about standards or anything else other than getting their way.

    • A person can commit murder with a rock. There’s even a precident set. I with these folks good luck in getting this passed.

      ..either that or ban rocks..

    • Ross,

      How much does a middle-of-the-road centerfire rifle rated suppressor cost (on average) in New Zealand?

      I ask because I am trying to figure out if suppressor companies are charging so much money for suppressors in the U.S. because they are not making them in bulk. Then again, I doubt that suppressor manufacturers are manufacturing them in bulk in New Zealand, either. (The population of New Zealand is much smaller than the United States and the recreational/hunting shooting culture in New Zealand is less as well.)

      • I was back there last year running an integrally suppressed 300 win mag, one of my uncles rifles in the national park getting after red deer. I think he spent quite a bit of money on this, Probably $2000 + but generally speaking suppresses are very cheap, when I first got my Firearms license when I turned 16 A suppressor for a .22 was $20 was good for about 1000 rounds then you would just throw it away and buy another one. They do have some of the more expensive American made suppresses available from the usual suspects but with the exchange rate a Surefire RC 3 would be almost $4000 (NZD)

      • I tried to post the prices through a direct link to Gun City but I don’t think that TTAG is going to allow me to do that. They run anywhere from $50-$700, Of course they do not have a tax stamp requirement.

  3. if fools want to appease Gun Control zealots by labeling the AR platform as modern sporting rifles, suppressors as a hearing protection device, braces to assist the handicapped, etc. then be my guest. Frankly appeasing an agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide is as gutless as it sounds.

  4. Now why would fedzilla want to remove the advanced background check AND $200 TAX STAMP required to buy suppressors? A recent estimate stated that U.S. citizens have more than 6 million suppressors. At $200 each, that is $1.2 billion in tax revenue. Ain’t no way fedzilla is going to stop accepting that largess.

    (Yes, citizens purchased those 6 million documented suppressors over the last 90+ years thus that $1.2 billion in tax revenue is likewise spread out over that same 90+ year time span. Nevertheless, money is money and fedzilla never has enough of it.)

  5. In my above commented, I mentioned that there are more than 6 million documented suppressors in civilian hands. Does that mean John Doe can make his own suppressor and avoid all possible avenues of criminal prosecution if he simply refers to his suppressor as an “undocumented” suppressor?

    • If the legal restrictions on possession and ownership under federal law are removed, yes, but subject to any state law restrictions. Changing federal law will not remove state bans.

      • Mark N.,

        I intended my “undocumented suppressor” comment above to be humor–mirroring the Far Left’s penchant to refer to illegal aliens as “undocumented migrants” and hoping that somehow imparts immunity to them.

        • uncommon: some of those here are sarc impaired. I got “undocumented” immediately.

          There are certain ways to avoid jurisdiction [juris: “judge”, diction: “because the State says so”, so your question could be answered affirmative.

          Also, I was told at one time that Fed policy was “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

          Edit: the sarc tags (with angle brackets) were removed by the software.

  6. I suspect that even if the federal ban on unregistered suppressors is repealed, those 8 states with bans on possession and ownership (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhoad Island) will not change their laws.

      • There is nothing “quickly” about litigation. It would be preferable to file a civil suit for a declaration of unconstitutionality, which will likely take years to resolve, than to try to obtain a ruling of unconstitutionality in a criminal trial while facing fines and potential incarceration. Even in light of Bruen and the fact that “undocumented” mufflers were not banned until the late 1930s.

        • Never said anything about litigation (this time). But yes for it being forced to recognize the legal right NY would fight every step of the way.

  8. A couple more thoughts on suppressors: 1. The argument that they make it harder to locate a criminal discharge is only partly true; indoors, in a city with surrounding buildings, or in close proximity, unsuppressed gunshots can be so loud that judging the exact location can actually be harder. I’ve seen deer (with very sensitive hearing) run towards a hunter that just fired, being so loud that it overloaded and confused their sense of hearing. 2. Limiting hearing loss has a monetary benefit. Less medical bills, hearing aids, etc. So in addition to eliminating the tax, they should be tax-deductible and qualifying for health insurance discounts.

  9. The hearing aid lobby is against it for sure! At 3-5k a pop, hahahahahahaha Freudian slip! Cheap shot! Hahahahahahaha oops.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here