AgBQ-00 said:

---

Pizza said:

---

What if I add a loudencer...would that be regulated too? Sometimes I like more boom.

---

Muzzle break for the win.

---

Ever fired a SCAR-17?

That thing is insanely loud with its stock muzzle brake.

80sGeorge 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.

---

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM7_rifle

---

I have a Sig MCX with a suppressor. My favorite gun right now.

Whats the big deal...a good leader is one that knows where to give and where to take.

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.

---

If it isn't a firearm, then it's no different than a coat of paint to make your firearm "pretty". And, thusly, isn't within their purview in the least.

Pizza said:

---

What if I add a loudencer...would that be regulated too? Sometimes I like more boom.

---

How about a whistler? Whistle go, WOO WOO!

Ag with kids said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Chetos said:

---

Then under what authority do the feds have to regulate a suppressor

---

None.

---

Really?

How about the NFA?

---

The National FIREARMS Act?

Why would that be used to regulate something that just got declare NOT a firearm.

---

Despite what is in the name, it does indeed extend its scope beyond just firearms.

BigRobSA 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.

---

If it isn't a firearm, then it's no different than a coat of paint to make your firearm "pretty". And, thusly, isn't within their purview in the least.

---

So the feds can't regulate paint? See if you can still find lead paint. Maybe go check on the court cases that in the last few months have successfully argued that parts and accessories of the gun are not protected by the 2A and therefore subject to whatever regulation they want.

I'm pro gun. I'm pro machine gun. Pro silencer/suppressor/loudener. Pro whatever the hell you want you should have. But people not understanding how this is bad and arguing for it is mind blowing. If you don't realize that the fact the NFA specifically calls out silencers (yes, that's the term used) makes it a question of whether they are protected by 2A from the government regulating them, then you may not be that smart. If someone successfully argues they aren't "arms" then they can be regulated by congress and you're ****ed until you get a friendly congress to overturn the law.

javajaws said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Chetos said:

---

Then under what authority do the feds have to regulate a suppressor

---

None.

---

Really?

How about the NFA?

---

The National FIREARMS Act?

Why would that be used to regulate something that just got declare NOT a firearm.

---

Despite what is in the name, it does indeed extend its scope beyond just firearms.

---

But people refuse to actually read and want to spout what they think it should be.

How come the Inflation Reduction Act didn't reduce inflation? Well, about that whole naming thing.

Sounds like I need a permanent "muffler" for my gun

If any other groups were involved and not GOA I would be looking at how the government is going to screw us. With GOA involved it I give a solid 25% chance of not getting screwed.

javajaws said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Chetos said:

---

Then under what authority do the feds have to regulate a suppressor

---

None.

---

Really?

How about the NFA?

---

The National FIREARMS Act?

Why would that be used to regulate something that just got declare NOT a firearm.

---

Despite what is in the name, it does indeed extend its scope beyond just firearms.

---

It's also an unconstitutional infringement.

As an citizen of the United States of America, I should be able to own any and all firearms I can afford and accessorize them to my liking without having to bribe a federal government agency $200 per implement to do so.

I know this may horrify some, but what if we were to use the Trump method and turn some of these regulatory agencies against the anti-gunners. The CDC and OSHA both have commentary regarding safe noise levels.

From the CDC for safe gun range use:

• Use personal protective equipment (PPE): Wear double hearing protection (earplugs and ear muffs) and eye protection when shooting.

From OSHA:

• The OSHA occupational noise standard states that exposures to impulsive noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level (SPL).

All that would be needed is for someone to insert "suppressor" in that one line of the CDC guideline, and while I couldn't find anything specific in OSHA regarding gun noise, there is the general recommendation above and some other related guidelines for PPE mostly regarding ear protection. Seems it would be pretty simple to get something included about use of suppressors to get SPL below 140, which a good suppressor can do.

It would be very hard for these agencies to deny the effectiveness of suppressors as a hearing protection device, and once you get the left's beloved bureaucracies to "endorse" something it almost becomes gospel.

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.

---

That is rapidly changing. Most standard issue .mil infantry weapons have suppressors now.

The XM7 standard infantry rifle comes with a suppressor as standard issue attachments.

The simple matter here is the ATF is illegitimate in its foundations. The A and the T are a purely fedgov money making scheme. They want money on manufacture AND sales. The F should have never been part of any fedgov department at all. The sematic wordplay around what is and isn't "arms" is a government powerplay that they are using as an income tool as well.

Slicer97 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Chetos said:

---

Then under what authority do the feds have to regulate a suppressor

---

None.

---

Really?

How about the NFA?

---

The National FIREARMS Act?

Why would that be used to regulate something that just got declare NOT a firearm.

---

Despite what is in the name, it does indeed extend its scope beyond just firearms.

---

It's also an unconstitutional infringement.

As an citizen of the United States of America, I should be able to own any and all firearms I can afford and accessorize them to my liking without having to bribe a federal government agency $200 per implement to do so.

---

Good lord. No one here disagrees about what we should be able to do, but you're missing the point that we already gave up freedom to do whatever we wanted and had gained a ****ton of ground with Bruen. This is an end-around on Bruen that makes it constitutional to make you pay $200 for that stamp again.

Daddy-O5 said:

---

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.

---

Par for the course for the NRA. They helped usher in the 1934 NFA and every major law since then.

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.

---

You start all your discussions with insults? Read the 10th amendment and get back to me when you want to have a respectful dialogue.

Slicer97 said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

javajaws said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Chetos said:

---

Then under what authority do the feds have to regulate a suppressor

---

None.

---

Really?

How about the NFA?

---

The National FIREARMS Act?

Why would that be used to regulate something that just got declare NOT a firearm.

---

Despite what is in the name, it does indeed extend its scope beyond just firearms.

---

It's also an unconstitutional infringement.

As an citizen of the United States of America, I should be able to own any and all firearms I can afford and accessorize them to my liking without having to bribe a federal government agency $200 per implement to do so.

---

Its not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is. Opinions to the contrary are simply that...opinions.

Don't get me wrong - I want the NFA to go the way of the dodo just like every other gun owner. But tossing around politic rhetoric in lieu of legal facts isn't really helpful (but may help reduce stress!).

The wild hogs in Texas are rejoicing!

javajaws said:

---

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).

---

Ehh, too many hair splitters get wound up over suppressor or silencer. Both are commonly used and understood terms and neither does anything to affect the actual performance of a can. Getting your panties in a twist over something as trivial as that doesn't produce any positive results.

I mean, we have stores called Silencer Shop, websites called Silencer Tests, etc. Both are a common industry term.

Pinochet said:

---

Good lord. No one here disagrees about what we should be able to do, but you're missing the point that we already gave up freedom to do whatever we wanted and had gained a ****ton of ground with Bruen. This is an end-around on Bruen that makes it constitutional to make you pay $200 for that stamp again.

---

I get where you're coming from and, from the here-and-now realistic standpoint, agree. But the NFA needs to go away along with the ATF.

Really not a fan of government attempting to regulate things they don't understand.

texag84 said:

---

The wild hogs in Texas are rejoicing!

---

Why? All it means is their deaths will be a little louder.

FireAg said:

---

Maybe I'm misreading things, but this seems to be a way of making suppressors "unregulated" rather than "more restricted"…

---

FWIW, i read it the same way. Its not governed by 2A, so it should not be regulated.

Chetos 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.

---

You start all your discussions with insults? Read the 10th amendment and get back to me when you want to have a respectful dialogue.

---

lol so you think the 10th is the argument here? I don't see air quality in the constitution but that one gets regulated. Commerce clause is way too powerful but there haven't really been any successful challenges to federal laws based on the 10th and that the Commerce Clause doesn't apply.

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..

deddog said:

---

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"

---

Unfortunately there are plenty of fudd republicans as well.

And plenty of dems out there that like suppressors.

Please list these court cases you are talking about.

deddog said:

---

FireAg said:

---

Maybe I'm misreading things, but this seems to be a way of making suppressors "unregulated" rather than "more restricted"…

---

FWIW, i read it the same way. Its not governed by 2A, so it should not be regulated.

---

He is literally agreeing with a 5th circuit opinion that a guy was guilty of having an unregistered silencer and that there is no need to hear the case en banc because Bruen doesn't apply here (because a silencer isn't protected by the 2A).

Start with the one at hand - US v Peterson.

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.

Pinochet said:

---

Chetos 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.

---

You start all your discussions with insults? Read the 10th amendment and get back to me when you want to have a respectful dialogue.

---

lol so you think the 10th is the argument here? I don't see air quality in the constitution but that one gets regulated. Commerce clause is way too powerful but there haven't really been any successful challenges to federal laws based on the 10th and that the Commerce Clause doesn't apply.

---

That's because a very liberal court ruled that the commerce clause is so broad and encompassing that literally nothing can live outside of it. Even not doing intrastate commerce, according to SCOTUS, falls under the commerce clause.