It is a mistake to turn to Hollywood for the truth and I shake my head in disbelief when I hear legislators reference movie scenes to support their political positions. What we view on TV or the silver screen is so powerful and repetitive it has the capacity to become our reality. I have introduced legislation addressing an issue which runs contrary to the artistry of Hollywood and it has been a fascinating experience. Here is the true story.

Hiram was a tinkerer. He had created several inventions over the years, but so far none of cashable significance. Hiram spent most evenings the winter of 1902 welding a series of baffles inside a metal can before threading this apparatus to the muzzle of his rifle. To the astonishment of his buddies, this invention suppressed the muzzle flash, recoil and report every time he squeezed off a round. Hiram Maxim’s muzzle suppressing can was marketed as the “Maxim Silencer” and it began flying off the shelf.

Hollywood ignored Hiram’s invention for 25 years. It wasn’t they were instinctively opposed to his creation it’s just that in those days motion pictures had no sound. However, by 1927 Hollywood introduced “The Jazz Singer”; the first motion picture with sound and America’s entertainment industry changed forever. During the prohibition era Hollywood began romanticizing gangster violence in dozens of films and America watched and heard the Maxim Silencer for the first time. Soon they were conditioned to think the “silencer” could suppress the sonic boom of a rifle report to barely a whisper—in reality something which cannot be done.

National and state legislative bodies reacted to the gangster violence of the roaring ‘20s by doing what they do best—pass useless laws giving the appearance they are taking a bite out of crime. Guess where they targeted their prohibitive efforts? Yep, along with automatic weapons, the Maxim Silencer was outlawed. Montana did just like every other state; it wasn’t the gangsters which were the problem, it was the metal can attached to their firearms which drove them to crime. Let’s talk silencers before I get to my point.

Consider these facts: When fired, .22 long rifle cartridges emit a sound of 160 decibels (dbs). When suppressed with a “silencer” technologically far superior to Hiram’s invention, it is possible to quiet the report down to 115 to 125 decibels. This suppression of 30-40dbs is similar to that achieved by wearing standard shooting ear muffs. (Permanent hearing damage begins at sounds above 85dbs.) The only way to suppress the muzzle blast to the “pffffft” whisper promoted in movies is to under-load the cartridge so the bullet travels at sub-lethal and subsonic speeds which don’t break the sound barrier. Hollywood and gun control advocates prefer this fact be kept a secret.

Congress has been slow to correct the foolish “silencer” prohibitions of the ‘20s and to legally possess one today requires extensive background checks and a $200 tax. Coupled with the $300-$700 retail price of a suppressor, gun enthusiasts invest nearly $1,000 and six months of time before they can plink away. However, here is where it gets complicated for residents of the Treasure State.

In the ‘90s, legislators repealed all Montana’s senseless suppressor regulations but they overlooked one. Montana Code 87-3-123 recognizes citizens can legally obtain a suppressor but they cannot be used in “field or forest.” Do you see the problem? When I was a kid, my mother was a strict disciplinarian and there was one rule which you dare never violate. Whether suppressed or not, there would be no touching off 300 magnum rounds in the house. (Fang was especially tough about the little things.)

To correct this nonsense, MCA 87-3-123 must be repealed and that is exactly what I am doing with HB 174. This legislation passed the House 73-26 and was presented before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. As long as everyone relies on fact rather than the “pffft” sounds from Hollywood, this legislative fix should hit the governor’s desk in April.