Posted on 06/04/2019 8:36:42 AM PDT by Cassius Flavia Agrippa
The 2nd Amendment prohibits such a ban:
Yes, it does:________ No, it does not:_______
The Enumerated Powers Doctrine also prohibits such a ban:
Yes, it does:_________ No, it does not:_________
SCOTUS will ultimately decide.
What is YOUR opinion?
As I understand all rights are allowed by a Supreme Court decision to be regulated provided the regulation does not subvert the right.
“fire” in a theater for example.
What is YOUR opinion?
And yet, someone may indeed yell FIRE someplace despite it maybe not being covered by the 1st. Of course it is covered by the 1st. Different consequences for different actions.
My opinion is that all powers not expressly, explicitly, and definitively delegated to the feds reside with the people or the States.
Is there really such a thing as a SILENCER?
Hollywood actually has some silencers on 9mm pistols that reduce the report to a pffft. I’m not buying it.
Clearly you don’t understand gun politics. Our opinion doesn’t matter to Congress.
Maxim’s original patent used the word.
Now, what is your opinion on the questions?
To go from restrictive permit to ban is sadly not a big step. Since they have already long-established the precedence of restricting them, I figure banning them is an easy next step. Trump seems to suddenly not like them. Cornyn has been a chief sponsor in Congress but only trots it out when it serves his fundraising needs. I don’t think there is much momentum to protect permits, much less simply legalize them. Thus, banning them is a possibility.
I DO understand the politics.
I am asking your opinion.
I realize that Congress may not care about your opinion.
If Congress today wishes to ban suppressors, they can simply amend the 1934 NFA to increase the tax to $100,000, and given that Roberts is on the Court, the Supremes would have no trouble upholding the tax increase.
What is YOUR opinion on the Constitutionality of such a ban?
What is YOUR opinion on the Constitutionality of such a ban?
Saw a movie once where they had a ‘silencer’ on a revolver..................
It’s a health issue. The pirate Roberts already proved a member of scotus can be blackmailed to regulate and or ban anything under the rubrik of a health issue.
My opinion is that there is no legitimate ban on these.
The Second Amendment says that we have the right to bear arms. As others have said, despite the First Amendment, “Fire!” in a theater is not usually allowed, and so one might guess that some restrictions could be placed on arms.
To support a ban, I think, is to make the claim that under the Second Amendment you may be able to bear arms — but you cannot bear “quiet” arms. That’s silly. It’s not in the text. It wasn’t the intention of the Founders. It is a baseless claim and therefore I see no reason why a suppressor can be prohibited.
They can ‘ban’ whatever the like, but that won’t stop them from being manufactured or used.
They ban illegal drugs, and look how well that works..............
Mosin Nagant revolvers were design in such a way that the cylinder pushed against the barrel to seal the gasses making a suppressor work with a revolver.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.