Protecting Liberty and Hearing

Why Mississippi Should Follow Oklahoma’s Lead on Suppressors

As a Mississippian watching what Oklahoma is doing with SB463, I cannot help but ask: why do we not have this kind of commonsense reform here at home?

For many Mississippians, the phrase “firearm suppressor” still brings to mind Hollywood myths about silent assassins and spy thrillers. In reality, suppressors are nothing like that. They are safety devices—more like ear protection for your firearm than anything out of a movie. That is why Oklahoma’s Sportsman Hearing Protection Act is such a smart move, and why Mississippi should follow suit.

SB463 does something simple and practical: it clearly defines how firearm suppressors can be lawfully manufactured in Oklahoma under state law. It provides a straightforward legal framework so that law-abiding citizens and local businesses understand the rules, can comply with them, and can operate without fear of vague or arbitrary interference. It even carries an emergency designation, recognizing that protecting constitutional rights and supporting lawful enterprise should not be delayed.

In plain terms, suppressors do not make guns “silent.” They reduce the sharp, damaging blast of a firearm to a safer level—less likely to cause permanent hearing loss and less disruptive to neighbors, livestock, and rural communities. Here in Mississippi, hunters, farmers, and landowners know exactly what that blast can do. Many have skipped ear protection in order to hear approaching game or communicate in the field, only to deal later with ringing ears and irreversible hearing damage.

Why should the law treat basic safety equipment as something sinister?

By clarifying lawful suppressor manufacturing, Oklahoma is advancing two principles Mississippi ought to embrace.

First, it affirms that responsible adults have the right to choose safe, lawful equipment for their firearms. The Second Amendment is not just about owning a firearm in theory—it is about being able to use it responsibly for hunting, sport shooting, self-defense, and protecting property. When government layers on confusing, overlapping restrictions around a simple safety device, it burdens that practical right. Oklahoma’s bill recognizes suppressors for what they are: legitimate tools for responsible gun owners, not an excuse for more red tape.

Second, it supports local industry and economic freedom. Mississippi is home to skilled machinists, manufacturers, and small businesses that could compete in this space. But unclear or overly restrictive laws discourage investment and innovation. By setting clear guardrails, Oklahoma is giving its entrepreneurs confidence to build, hire, and grow within the state. That is how limited government and free enterprise are supposed to work: establish reasonable boundaries and then get out of the way.

Critics often assume that anything related to firearms automatically increases danger. The facts do not bear that out. Suppressors do not make firearms more lethal; they simply reduce noise and protect hearing. In many countries with far stricter gun laws than ours, suppressors are treated as ordinary safety equipment and even as a courtesy to neighbors.

At its core, Oklahoma’s approach is about trusting law-abiding citizens more than bureaucracies. It protects constitutional rights, encourages small-business growth, and keeps government focused where it belongs—on punishing crime rather than regulating responsible conduct.

Mississippi lawmakers should take note. We value our hunting heritage, our rural way of life, and our constitutional freedoms. A clear, pro-safety, pro-business framework for suppressors would reflect those values. Protecting both liberty and hearing should not be controversial—it is simply common sense for Mississippi.