Pinochet said:
schmellba99 said:
Pinochet said:
schmellba99 said:
Pinochet said:
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.
Given that suppressors are very much in common useage today, this would be a huge hill to climb by anybody against them.
In that same vein, since the ATF defines only the serialized portion of the gun as the actual firearm, any part not integral with the serialized portion of the firearm would fall under the same umbrella. That means that triggers could be regulated out of existence. Barrels. Sights. Stocks. Pins. Springs. Bolts. Clips. Magazines. Floorplates. Trigger guards. Anything not specifically defined as a firearm by the ATF and regulation.
Not only would that not pass any real legal scrutiny, no politician would have the spine to put their scrotum on the chopping block and pursue such action. Because outside of a very small handful of districts, such legislation would be the death of a political career.
And honestly, the more common suppressors get, the more the general public begins to understand that the hollywood portrayal of them is nothing but movie magic and special effects..
Seriously - go read the actual case this guy is agreeing with. The 5th circuit disagrees with you.
If that were the case, we would have serialized everything. Or folks like Shumer or some massachussetts legislator would have slipped anti-gun legislation into one of the multiple omnibus bills. But we don't. Because no court is going to stretch so far as to say that the government can ban triggers or stocks or any other part of a firearm.
The ONLY part of a firearm that is the actual firearm is the serialized receiver, or lower in the case of an AR style weapon. No other part is a firearm. If the feds could put everything under their thumb and regulate it and require a stamp for it - they absolutely, positively, without a doubt would.
Tell me you didn't read read the actual law without telling me. Once again, I'm on the same side, but sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling I can't hear you isn't helpful. The 5th circuit (or more accurately a single appellate judge), which is one of the most gun friendly, issued a ruling disagreeing with your position. You can continue to say they're wrong and hope that somehow they change their minds, or you can realize that agreeing with the decision is detrimental to the fight for gun rights and it will make it harder to get things that aren't required to for the gun to function but were still including the statutory definition of things that are regulated.
They already decided to regulate suppressors/silencers/whatever you want to call them. The thing that would have made that unconstitutional post Bruen is that they are also included in the definition of "arms." Here the government and the court have said they aren't arms. That's bad. That means the regulation of your ability to possess them (through legislation) stands. This is not about repealing the NFA through a legislative process. It is about making sure the government can't make an end run around Bruen and Heller by saying magazines and suppressors or braces or stocks or VFGs aren't arms and can therefore be made illegal by executive fiat or by an overzealous legislature.
Anyone agreeing with the government's position here doesn't understand the background or they want to take your guns even if all they have to take from you is a single part.
I read the 5th circuit case. So pound sand.
That judge used another case as the basis for the ruling (forgive me if i don't remember the exact case the judge referenced, which I know for people like you is a huge issue and one you will try to jump on in an attempt to prove me wrong), with something along the lines of "suppressors are not used for offense or defense and thus do not fall under 2A" (paraphrasing). Which is absolutely wrong and as a result they do actually meet the Bruen test.
That judge either knows nothing about firearms in general, cannot read or was being intentionally obtuse because both are absolutely true and as such they do actually meet the criteria established in the case law that the judge used to make an arbitrary and stupid decision. Which is why I say that judge is 100% wrong and that suppressors, as defined by the law, ATF, common useage, common law and any other definition you can muster, do fall under the 2A protections. Again - and I said this very clearly - IN MY OPINION. I know exactly what the law currently states. I disagree vehemently with the interpretation of the law and the fact that the ATF gets to arbitrarily decide rules as they go (which they 100% do without having to have standardized written, industry reviewed and accepted protocol on how they come up with their "determinations").
I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that I am not for anything government related with respect to firearms. I despise the NFA, I despise the ATF, I believe any and all restrictions on firearms are an affront to my rights, what the 2A says in very plain and simple language and that I am amongs the furthest to the right with respect to 2A on this board. I own suppressors. I build suppressors, I have build an SBR (actually built - not put together on an AR platform, but rather an MP5 platform that requires machining, welding, etc.) I'm fairly well versed in everything from material selection to design to the stupid overbearing laws we have concerning the use of an accessory that is mandated on any and all other machines that produce noise but are somehow evil and need to be controlled with an iron fist on firearms.
And this is the issue that I, and most people outside of the legal system, have with the judiciary. The judiciary is lazy and defers to previous rulings instead of applying logic and rational thinking. Yes, the feds already regulate suppressors, SBR's, SBS's and AOW's through the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and the host of other unconstitutional laws and regulations on the books. The 1934 NFA was, and still is, an absolute overreach by the federal government that should have been shot down hard by SCOTUS because of the egregious way in which it tramples on individual rights and the actual Constitution. But it wasn't because the court at the time was very liberal and it was at this time that the progressive movement had taken over DC - this is the same time period we saw unprecedented and massive expansion of the federal machine. Suppressors were included in the NFA because FDR saw an opportunity to expand federal overreach under the guise of going after gangster violence. Which, coincidentally, was created by the feds as a direct result of another unconstitutional law the feds passed in prohibition.
The moral of the story? It's all unconstitutional government overreach created in a time where the public had far too much trust in the feds, when information could not be communicated to the masses in the same manner we can today, when the federal government was expanded beyond the bounds of the constitution and we have a judiciary today full of lazy judges that cannot think for themselves and instead rely on precedent set in previous cases from 100 years ago that should not be used.
