Does the Congress Have the Constitutional Authority to Ban Silencers/Suppressors

me

[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:_________

[aimhigh]

I expect silencers will be banned. The ban will be upheld be the courts on the basis they are not a firearm, but an accessory.

[MHGinTN]

I mentioned that first in post #20.

[Ancesthntr]

“In Heller, arms and devices that have been banned a long time, ergo “not in common civilian use,” the ban is constitutional. This was done so that bans on military arms (in particular, the M-16 and others banned by 1986 Act) would stand.”

---

That’s an inherent contradiction, and should be unconstitutional, just like the ‘86 law should have made the ‘34 NFA requirement for a $200 tax stamp illegal.

[Ancesthntr]

“This read is particularly galling, because the Miller opinion says that the short barrel shotgun is within the ambit of the 2nd amendment, if “this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense,” with the Miller decision to reverse and send the case back to the lower court being justified by SCOTUS professing ignorance on this point.”

---

The specific language that was used was, “it is not within judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun is...” useful for militia purposes. Yeah, no notice - because there was no earlier testimony in the lower court...and then Miller (a lowlife scumbag) got himself killed (by another lowlife scumbag), so there was no representation of him at the Supreme Court level to bring this issue up (no one was paying the lawyer).

And, yet, the Supreme Court in 1939 had members that served and KNEW that sawed-off shotties were VERY useful for militia purposes, that they were (and still are) called “trench brooms.” It really, really ticks me off that something which is common knowledge has to still be “within judicial notice” in order to be considered in a decision. Are the Justices Martians, that they have to be led by the hand on matters of common sense or common knowledge because otherwise they don’t know anything?

[Ancesthntr]

“SCOTUS dsesrves ridicule and contempt. It totally lacks intellecual legitimacy, and has power merely by the effect of brute force.”

---

While they will occasionally come out with a well-reasoned decision that is in keeping with the meaning of the Constitution, in general I agree with you. Most especially on the gun issue.

[Ancesthntr]

“They also knew that our republic was always at risk from totalitarianism, and they were right. The republic is at risk and we are the only force standing between either anarchy, totalitarianism or peaceable governance.”

---

Correction,\: “...and we AND OUR ARMS are the only force standing between either anarchy, totalitarianism or peaceable governance.”

[Ancesthntr]

“Basically, free speech on a political topic is creating a danger to society. Another gift from Woodrow Wilson.”

---

The irony about banning political speech is that protecting unpopular (as thought of by those in power) political speech is EXACTLY the purpose of the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment.

I despise Wilson with every fiber of my being...Obama is the only one I despise more, but mainly because he is within my memory. But Wilson’s actions have destroyed the Republic set up by the Founders, more than anything the Halfrican Fraud and his ball-bearing Wookie beard could have ever done.