Suppressors are also useful as hearing protection.
I would argue...
A suppressor is NOT a firearm.
It should NOT be treated as a firearm. It should NOT be an NFA item. It should should be completely unregulated.
The ATF should have nothing to do with it at all.
They aren’t a bearable arm. They are merely an accessory and should be treated as such. As in, “Would you like a suppressor with your new firearm today? All I have to do is add it to the ticket.”
The ATF is chartered by law to enforce federal firearm laws. Silencers are not firearms.
I believe that Illinois is one of a handful of states than ban silencers. If my memory is correct, silencers are legal in 38 states.
Gotta use a better term: “Hearing protection device”.
Highlights;
♦ the Supreme Court:
◊ never read or heard the defendants’ views, because they were not represented in any form
◊ heard only one side of the matter, the government’s side
◊ did not accept most of the government’s arguments
◊ based its conclusion on a small part of the government’s argument
◊ declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)
The U.S. v Miller, revisited (JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)
Remember when it was found an empty two liter soda pop bottle worked well as a suppressor? Someone even came out with a connection to make it fit a .22 barrel better. Then the ATF shut them down.
To answer the question, ask the same question with a different part.
- Are sights protected by the 2nd amendment?
- Are barrel shrouds protected by the 2nd amendment?
- Are magazines protected by the 2nd amendment?
- Are stocks protected by the 2nd amendment?
the answer seems fairly obvious to me