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.
Agreed.
It’s not a firearm, but it’s also not completely unrelated to firearms. It’s a firearm accessory.
Now, if you pursue this argument, you might successfully argue that it shouldn’t be covered by the NFA, but then you would also be arguing at the same time that it’s not covered by the 2nd amendment, and then they could be banned by a simple majority of Congress. So maybe be careful what you wish for.
From the article...
“Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/07/illinois-are-suppressors-protected-by-the-second-amendment/#ixzz89KudG8me
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Defendants Kwame Raoul, Brendan F. Kelly, Craig Miller, and Bryan Robbins respectfully move the Court to enter judgment in their favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Plaintiffs raise a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois law prohibiting the possession of silencers, which are attached to firearms to reduce the noise of gunfire. But the Second Amendment protects only “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” (emphasis added). Silencers are not weapons. They are not used for self-defense. And they are not necessary to the effective use of a firearm. So they are not “Arms” within the meaning of the constitutional text, and thus plaintiffs cannot prevail on their Second Amendment claim.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/07/illinois-are-suppressors-protected-by-the-second-amendment/#ixzz89KuwHdW6
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Two problems exist with the above claim. The first is that silencers are explicitly treated as arms in both Illinois and federal law. While silencers are not “arms” by themselves, they clearly add to the effectiveness of firearms and aid in the use of firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. The second is accessories, which make arms more effective, such as aiding in training, are protected under the Second Amendment. The State of Illinois claim could be used to ban magazines (currently under contention) or other firearms accessories such as telescopic sights, red dot sights, flash suppressors, or even such things as rifled barrels or recoil pads.
The Supreme Court, in Caetano, made clear all items which constitute bearable arms fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. Outright bans on bearable arms are not allowed if the arms are in common use for lawful purposes.
This is why the State of Illinois is contending silencers are not arms. If they are not arms, why are they regulated and banned, especially under Illinois and United States weapons statutes? Illinois code 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) bans the possession of any device or attachment designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of a firearm. If they are not useful to make firearms more effective, why ban or restrict them?”