They've been called "silencers" on the ATF paperwork for going on 90 years. And that Hiram Maxim fella patented them as "silencers" and marketed them as "silencers."
But you obviously know better than the man who invented the blessed things.
Posted on 04/12/2024 6:06:49 AM PDT by marktwain
On February 15, 2024, a plea agreement was reached in the silencer case in the Western District of Louisiana. In the case, Brennan James Comeaux had been charged with possession of five homemade silencers, two silver-colored and three black-colored. A warrant had been issued to search Comeax’s home to find the silencers, based on probable cause. A motion to dismiss had been filed in the case, contending the portions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and later statutes violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution based on the guidance of the Bruen decision published by the Supreme Court on June 22, 2022.
The federal prosecution argued silencers were not “arms” but accessories, thus not covered under the Second Amendment, that requirements for serialization and registration were par to federal power as allowed by the commerce clause, and there is a history of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons while contending silencers are “dangerously unusual.” From the government brief in the previous article:
In short, under Heller, even assuming that silencers are “arms,” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, they remain unusually dangerous and thus fall permissibly within this nation’s historical tradition of regulation.
Astute readers will see Silencers cannot both be “arms” and also be “dangerously unusual.” It is not unusual to see lawyerly arguments covering all bases this way. Essentially, the prosecution is saying: Our first argument is correct, but if the court does not accept the first argument, then our backup argument is this. It is not quite contradictory. As in the Metcalf Gun Free School Zone case, the plea agreement preserves the right to appeal the judge’s denial of the motion to dismiss on the grounds the federal law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. From the plea agreement:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Because we know the color makes all the difference.
This is the dumbest argument against suppressors I ever heard.
They are not silencers and they don’t silence a firearm. What they do is cut back on the decibels that our ears are subjected to while hunting, skeet or trap recreational shooting and other firearm competitions . It is ridicules that we need to pay a $200.00 tax to keep from losing our hearing
I still wear earplugs when shooting with suppressors.
The phrase "dangerous and unusual" means "both dangerous and also unusual." The phrase "dangerously unusual" makes it sound like "because it's so unusual, it's extra dangerous," which is ludicrous.
This is what happens when the people who make rules watch too many James Bond movies - and justifiably fear the fate of the villains.
The purpose of firearms is to be unusually dangerous.
The Constitution’s commerce clause is the only device which grants law enforcement to federal authorities. These silence were homemade, and have never been in interstate commerce. As such they do not fall under the ATF’s jurisdiction.
And the ‘commerce clause’ written by the founders never meant what the commies last century claimed it meant. That decision is something else the SCOTUS should ‘revisit’.
My silencers are all pink and covered with rainbows and unicorns to comply with the latest DEI policies from the ATF.
They've been called "silencers" on the ATF paperwork for going on 90 years. And that Hiram Maxim fella patented them as "silencers" and marketed them as "silencers."
But you obviously know better than the man who invented the blessed things.
If they are accessories and not arms, then the ATF has no jurisdiction or regulatory authority over them... Even holding aside the 2A part that should negate the “F” in the BATFE...
It may not seem correct, but it is the way it is.
I am not ok with arbitrary and capricious “rules” absent legitimate Constitutional authority...
The length of time a WRONG has been promulgated in no way invalidates the WRONGNESS of it...
You are correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.