DOJ: Suppressors Are Not Protected by the 2nd Amendment

10,895 Views | 124 Replies | Last: 8 mo ago by Rapier108
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:26p, 3/18/25




I hope I am reading this wrong, but it sounds to me like the position of the Trump DOJ is going to be that anything but the "gun" is not protected by the second amendment and can be banned or heavily regulated by the government.

So magazines, any accessory, optics, grip, lights, etc. could theoretically be banned by the feds or states since they are not technically a firearm.

Other than his insane spending during his first term and unnecessarily being just a general *******, this has always been my biggest issue with Trump. He is a New York liberal when it comes to guns, and his AG has proven herself time and again to be very unfriendly toward gun owners.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
16
1 edit
CDUB98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:28p, 3/18/25
AG
Trump letting his former Democrat ways seep in again.

A ****ing muffler does nothing except provide added hearing safety.

This is bull*****
Reply Quote
65
2 edits
Slicer97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CDUB98 • 2:29p, 3/18/25
AG
Take the muffler off your vehicle. See if the government has an issue with that.

Hell, there are a few not-so-firearm-friendly countries out there who will not allow you to own a gun that's NOT suppressed.
Reply Quote
57
1 edit
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 2:32p, 3/18/25
Quote:
So magazines, any accessory, optics, grip, lights, etc. could theoretically be banned by the feds or states since they are not technically a firearm.
Devil's advocate.Your average infantryman has those "accessories", but not a suppressor.
Reply Quote
4
Eliminatus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 2:33p, 3/18/25
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
Quote:
So magazines, any accessory, optics, grip, lights, etc. could theoretically be banned by the feds or states since they are not technically a firearm.
Devil's advocate.Your average infantryman has those "accessories", but not a suppressor.


All Marine infantry do now.
Reply Quote
36
Eliminatus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CDUB98 • 2:37p, 3/18/25
AG
CDUB98 said:
Trump letting his former Democrat ways seep in again.

A ****ing muffler does nothing except provide added hearing safety.

This is bull*****


I can see the point if being pedantic on the issue. The "muffler" is in fact, not a firearm. I get it.

However, I know the real issue at hand and I KNOW it will be abused to restrict and ban. Hopefully GoA and the others (looking at you NRA) can make enough noise about this. Because we all know when it comes to 2A and 2A adjacent, you give an inch……
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
80sGeorge
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Q. Blank • 2:40p, 3/18/25
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:
Quote:
So magazines, any accessory, optics, grip, lights, etc. could theoretically be banned by the feds or states since they are not technically a firearm.
Devil's advocate.Your average infantryman has those "accessories", but not a suppressor.


Please see the new XM-7 rifle. Suppressors are just common sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM7_rifle
Reply Quote
7
Martin Q. Blank
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eliminatus • 2:40p, 3/18/25
Eliminatus said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
Quote:
So magazines, any accessory, optics, grip, lights, etc. could theoretically be banned by the feds or states since they are not technically a firearm.
Devil's advocate.Your average infantryman has those "accessories", but not a suppressor.
All Marine infantry do now.
Did not know that!
Reply Quote
1
Central Committee
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:54p, 3/18/25
AG
If a suppressor is not a firearm or explosive then the ATF should not be able to regulate it.
You can't fix stupid.
Reply Quote
147
Chetos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:54p, 3/18/25
AG
Then under what authority do the feds have to regulate a suppressor
Reply Quote
82
Pizza
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:55p, 3/18/25
I've never understood why they care about cans...they're great for reducing noise at the range but they don't need to be regulated imo.
Reply Quote
6
Daddy-O5
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:59p, 3/18/25
AG
He stated during his last term that he wasn't a fan of suppressors. I voted for the guy anyways, but unfortunately this should come as a surprise to no one.
Reply Quote
3
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Pizza • 2:59p, 3/18/25
Pizza said:
I've never understood why they care about cans...they're great for reducing noise at the range but they don't need to be regulated imo.
Because too many people think they make the gun fire without any noise at all, because that is what is shown in the movies. It makes them super-duper scary because a gunman can roam around and kill hundreds since no one can hear the shots.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
8
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Daddy-O5 • 3:00p, 3/18/25
Daddy-O5 said:
He stated during his last term that he wasn't a fan of suppressors. I voted for the guy anyways, but unfortunately this should come as a surprise to no one.
Would not be surprised at all if we get more anti-gun regulations and laws in the next 4 years than we did under Obama or Biden.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
8
Daddy-O5
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eliminatus • 3:01p, 3/18/25
AG
Eliminatus said:
CDUB98 said:
Trump letting his former Democrat ways seep in again.

A ****ing muffler does nothing except provide added hearing safety.

This is bull*****


I can see the point if being pedantic on the issue. The "muffler" is in fact, not a firearm. I get it.

However, I know the real issue at hand and I KNOW it will be abused to restrict and ban. Hopefully GoA and the others (looking at you NRA) can make enough noise about this. Because we all know when it comes to 2A and 2A adjacent, you give an inch……
FPC and GOA are the only ones who ever get stuff done. NRA is just as likely to fall in line with Trump like they did with bump stocks.
Reply Quote
13
Slicer97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Chetos • 3:01p, 3/18/25
AG
Chetos said:
Then under what authority do the feds have to regulate a suppressor
None.
Reply Quote
7
Hoyt Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 3:02p, 3/18/25
AG
Rapier108 said:
Daddy-O5 said:
He stated during his last term that he wasn't a fan of suppressors. I voted for the guy anyways, but unfortunately this should come as a surprise to no one.
Would not be surprised at all if we get more anti-gun regulations and laws in the next 4 years than we did under Obama or Biden.
Im counting on it.
Reply Quote
2
Daddy-O5
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 3:02p, 3/18/25
AG
Rapier108 said:
Daddy-O5 said:
He stated during his last term that he wasn't a fan of suppressors. I voted for the guy anyways, but unfortunately this should come as a surprise to no one.
Would not be surprised at all if we get more anti-gun regulations and laws in the next 4 years than we did under Obama or Biden.
My vote went to trump, my money goes to FPC and GOA. Here's to hoping it works out.
Reply Quote
3
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Slicer97 • 3:03p, 3/18/25
AG
Slicer97 said:
Chetos said:
Then under what authority do the feds have to regulate a suppressor
None.
Really?

How about the NFA?
Reply Quote
2
Funky Winkerbean
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:04p, 3/18/25
AG
Too many lawyers watching too many gun movies. They think they are silencers, not suppressors.
Reply Quote
3
Pinochet
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Chetos • 3:05p, 3/18/25
Chetos said:
Then under what authority do the feds have to regulate a suppressor

You can't seriously be misunderstanding this. It is specifically called out in the NFA. The point they're making is that since it is not a firearm (or "arms") as protected by the 2nd amendment, it has no other protection from regulation and doesn't have to pass the Bruen test to be regulated out of existence for mere citizens.
Reply Quote
3
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Funky Winkerbean • 3:06p, 3/18/25
AG
Funky Winkerbean said:
Too many lawyers watching too many gun movies. They think they are silencers, not suppressors.
What's sad is that the only one in those tweets calling them silencers is the Gun Owners Foundation. Even the DOJ got it right this time (at least terminology wise).
Reply Quote
4
Ag in Tiger Country
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:08p, 3/18/25
AG
I wonder how much 3M would have saved in the class action lawsuit that was brought against them for the ineffective ear plugs they provided to the military if a SUPPRESSOR (it's not a damn silencer) was utilized alongside their defective ear plugs? I bet the number of victims experiencing hearing loss wouldn't have been as numerous with suppressors being utilized!

Further, since a suppressor doesn't increase the performance of a weapon (such as rate of fire, increased range, etc), but actually decreases its overall performance, why in the hell is this such an issue???

Suppressors don't make a weapon more lethal, & their use reduces the risks of hearing loss, SO WHY THE BUTTHURT?!?!
Reply Quote
11
Pinochet
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Funky Winkerbean • 3:10p, 3/18/25
Funky Winkerbean said:
Too many lawyers watching too many gun movies. They think they are silencers, not suppressors.

Well the law should definitely be changed but for now you have the term silencer in the law and defined to include what we consider a suppressor.
Reply Quote
3
deddog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Pizza • 3:11p, 3/18/25
AG
Pizza said:
I've never understood why they care about cans...they're great for reducing noise at the range but they don't need to be regulated imo.
Because there are stupid people (aka Democrats) that believe only gangsters have "silencers"
Reply Quote
4
AgBQ-00
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Central Committee • 3:13p, 3/18/25
AG
Central Committee said:
If a suppressor is not a firearm or explosive then the ATF should not be able to regulate it.
DING DING DING!!! Absolutely correct
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.

We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
Reply Quote
8
lb3
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:14p, 3/18/25
AG
Could this be some ill conceived way to remove suppressors from the NFA list?
Reply Quote
4
Pizza
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:16p, 3/18/25
What if I add a loudencer...would that be regulated too? Sometimes I like more boom.
Reply Quote
4
AgBQ-00
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Pizza • 3:17p, 3/18/25
AG
Pizza said:
What if I add a loudencer...would that be regulated too? Sometimes I like more boom.
Muzzle break for the win.
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.

We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
Reply Quote
6
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:17p, 3/18/25
AG
Anybody know who this Acting US Attorney is?
Reply Quote
1
Pinochet
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgBQ-00 • 3:19p, 3/18/25
AgBQ-00 said:
Central Committee said:
If a suppressor is not a firearm or explosive then the ATF should not be able to regulate it.
DING DING DING!!! Absolutely correct

That's backwards. The 2nd amendment says they can't regulate firearms. It doesn't protect other stuff. By your logic, no one could regulate cars because we don't have a keep and bear cars amendment.
Reply Quote
3
Pizza
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgBQ-00 • 3:22p, 3/18/25
I was thinking more along the lines of a threaded trumpet bell at the end of my 700 BDL with a mic sending sound to an amp...

Muzzle break works too.

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
FireAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:23p, 3/18/25
AG
Maybe I'm misreading things, but this seems to be a way of making suppressors "unregulated" rather than "more restricted"…
Reply Quote
6
Pinochet
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Pizza • 3:24p, 3/18/25
Pizza said:
I was thinking more along the lines of a threaded trumpet bell at the end of my 700 BDL with a mic sending sound to an amp...

Muzzle break works too.


What about a muzzle brake? Don't want something broken on the end of my gun.
Reply Quote
1
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FireAg • 3:24p, 3/18/25
FireAg said:
Maybe I'm misreading things, but this seems to be a way of making suppressors "unregulated" rather than "more restricted"…
It could go either way. This same argument was used to try and regulate magazines because magazines are not guns.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Last Page
Page 1 of 4 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.