Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debate centers on bill to preserve legal ownership of firearm suppressors
Summary
A committee heard SB 499, a bill to preserve the legal status of suppressors in Georgia; sponsors argued it protects lawful owners and hunters from federal changes, while several members questioned public‑safety risks and the choice to remove the word "silencer" from state code.
A legislative committee on March 31 debated SB 499, a bill sponsored in committee to preserve the legal ownership of firearm suppressors that sponsor representatives said are already lawful under federal and state law.
The sponsor told the committee the bill aims to “help make sure that the 270,000 suppressors that are legal in Georgia under federal law and state law remain that way,” and asked members to keep the bill moving to a floor vote. In response to repeated safety questions, the sponsor said the device reduces noise but does not make firearms silent and that many hunters and shooters use suppressors to prevent hearing loss.
Committee questioners pressed the sponsor on potential risks. One member asked, “If this results in additional children being shot at a school, since it lowers the volume of a gun, what would you tell a mother who may have lost her child as a result of this legislation?” The sponsor replied, “I can promise you that this bill will not result in any child being shot in school,” and said technologies used to locate gunfire (which he called “spot shotters”) still function with suppressors attached. He added that if technology ever made suppressors effectively silent, he would work with colleagues to protect public safety.
Another lawmaker observed that the bill strikes the word “silencer” from Georgia code and asked whether future technological developments could change how authorities locate shooters. The sponsor acknowledged concerns but emphasized that historically suppressors lower sound levels rather than eliminate them and that the substitute drew support from law enforcement groups.
The committee discussion focused on balancing owners’ rights and public‑safety concerns; there was no roll‑call vote recorded in the transcript on SB 499 during this hearing. The sponsor asked for committee and floor consideration to maintain legal protections for current owners and to avoid unintended loss of lawful use if federal law changes.
