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:_________
doughtyone believes a ban is COMPLETELY constitutional. “Public safety grounds”
I just want to see how many morons agree with him.
Thus far, VERY few people are willing to simply say “NO! A ban is unconstitutional.” Very strange.
Well, the hollyweird folks go get advisers to educate them, then they twist truth to suit their dead soul perspectives.
Are silencers "arms" or just accessories?
To be clear, I think anything is an "arm" that is needed to make the armament functional. That means that ammunition and clips are a part of the armament; without them the armament is non-functional.
I can't say the same thing about a silencer, though. The armament can still function without it, so I'm leaning towards saying that silencer bans are permitted as regulating the use of the armament without infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
-PJ
They also can’t count.
Most ‘gun battles’ have guns that don’t run out of bullets..................
The thing in the video is a long more thin tube screwed onto the end of a 9mm rifle.
What’s funny is that in Europe they are perfectly legal over-the-counter and their use is encouraged to keep the noise down.
JUST great I am waiting for my new suppressor for my 22lr. rifle. I have gotten very tired of putting in ear plugs every time my dogs tree. Now how am I going to have a boating accident without the suppressor.
Going back to the First Amendment and issue of yelling “Fire!” in a theater — the essential right is untouched but the context, time, place, person, may justify a restriction.
Should someone in prison have a gun? A convicted felon? A mental patient with a history of violence? I can see reasonable restrictions on firearms based on context, time, place, person. But the essential right should be untouched.
I can have a gun. I would like a quiet gun. That may be my implement of choice. I see no grounds for banning quiet guns.
The Second Amendment prohibits ALL the gun legislation that exists. It is absolute with no exceptions.A suppressor ban would just be adding one more unConstitutioinal infringement to the great pile of infringements that exist already at every level of government.
I had to do pain in the rear paperwork and kneel before BATFE to get the stamp tax approved. Having to transfer from a PAC to a personal trust-gotta do it all over again. a YEAR wait....still waiting on final approval.
Wanted one for my Kriss SDP
It should be UNCONSTITUTIONAL as &%#*!!!
It has the Authority to Ban Silencers/Suppressors.
Does the Congress Have the Constitutional Authority to Ban Silencers/Suppressors? NO
The 2nd Amendment does NOT prohibit such a ban, but Congress can prohibit the interstate sale and transfer across state borders.
The Enumerated Powers prohibits Congress from passing such a ban.
From wiki: The case of United States v. Lopez in 1997 held unconstitutional the Gun Free School Zone Act because it exceeded the power of Congress to “regulate commerce...among the several states”. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.” For the first time in sixty years the Court found that in creating a federal statute, Congress had exceeded the power granted to it by the Commerce Clause.
Our rights will be decided on by tyrants in black robes. I'm overjoyed /sarc
It would also have to be sealed at the rear of the cylinder, where the hammer or firing pin strikes the cartridge to ignite it, in order to get effective silencing—there are two gaps, the cylinder gap you refer to and the one I mention, that are significant for sound, smoke, gas, heat, fire, gunshot residue, etc. escaping from the revolver cylinder during firing.
When circuit courts disagree, SCOTUS settles the dispute. What happens when SCOTUS disagrees with itself? As far as I know, Miller has not been overturned, simply ignored. Did anyone cite Miller during the Heller arguments?
Nice to see you, BTW
No. Next question please.
A suppressor ban is unconstitutional, without question. The 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA are also unconstitutional. Even congress knew this in 1934 when they passed the NFA as a tax as they knew then the 2nd amendment applied to machine guns. In fact the 2nd specifically protects machine guns as they are the weapons the will be used against the people.
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.
You absolutely CAN yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. However, along with your right to do so comes the responsibility you bear if there is, in fact, no fire, and people got hurt or killed because your utterance caused a panicked rush for the exits.
That’s what really ticks me off - that people (mainly on the Left) aren’t mature enough to understand that with rights come responsibilities. They are a package...and I only wish that the Founders had said something explicit about that in the Constitution. However, I can’t really blame them - this is simple, this is common sense, so why would you need to state it. Stating it would be like putting “the sky is blue” in the Constitution.
Now, on to the subject of this thread:
I do NOT believe that Congress has the power to ban suppressors (not “silencers” - that word is very much a misnomer in this context, as these devices only lessen the perceived sound, they don’t eliminate it). Why? Because it is an accessory to some arms, and the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly protected from infringement by the feds in the 2nd Amendment. An argument could be made that certain arms can be regulated (i.e. one’s right to keep and bear them can be infringed) because of some reason deemed essential to a particular state, but I would strenuously disagree. You see, in Article 1, Section 8 (dealing with the powers of Congress) there is a clause that says that Congress can issue “Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” Well, what in the Sam Hell are THOSE, you may ask? Simple answer: Congressional authorization to take hostile action against an enemy’s forces or merchant ships. These Letters necessarily imply that the private citizens (or groups of citizens, such as in a company) have the arms to have a chance to successfully engage enemy forces. So, during the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress issued many such Letters, and rich folks who owned ships armed with cannon (MANY cannon) were authorized to battle British warships and to seize or sink British merchant ships (and the argument that the writers of the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment were unaware of this is preposterous, especially as some of those signing the Constitution received Letters themselves). So for anyone opposed to this interpretation of Letters of Marque and Reprisal, how was a private citizen to take on a British naval vessel without having equivalent weaponry with which to fight it? Hundreds of Letters were issued by the actual Congress during the War of 1812, and many were issued at later dates (including the unsubstantiated claim that one was issued in WW2 so that someone going up in a hot air balloon to search for incoming Japanese aircraft could bring a rifle to shoot at those planes in self-defense). All of which points to Americans having the right to own ANY arms (not including those arms that cannot be used to discriminate between particular people - such as WMDs). Anything other than WMDs are allowed and, according to the 2nd Amendment, one’s right to keep and bear them CANNOT be infringed upon. Bill Gates could, if he wished to spend the money, purchase and operate his very own carrier battle group. Of course, as mentioned earlier, if you misuse those arms (whether a slingshot or a carrier battle group, and everything in between), then you are responsible for the consequences. But any attempt by Congress to infringe upon one’s right to keep and bear such arms because “they might be used in an irresponsible way” or because “they are inherently dangerous” is nothing more than a case of prior restraint - which the Supreme Court has ruled in other contexts many times is forbidden.
Another question is whether the 2nd is binding upon the states. I would also make the argument that by joining the Union, the 13 original states were and are also bound by any amendments to the Constitution, even if they didn’t vote for them (although, in the case of the BoR, they voted unanimously to approve them). All states admitted after the BoR was ratified have no choice but to abide by them (and all other amendments) because by seeking to join they automatically bought the entire package. Of course, even if one doesn’t agree with this argument, then the 14th Amendment exists, and its purpose was to make utterly certain that any rights possessed by citizens in one state would be just as protected in any other state. This latter principle has been affirmed in many Supreme Court cases.
WRT the enumerated powers doctrine, this basically says that Congress (or the government in general) only has those powers that are specifically provided for in the Constitution (as amended). Not only would banning suppressors be unconstitutional on this basis, but the Founders spoke rather definitively on this issue when they proposed the BoR, which was then ratified by the States...specifically, the 10th Amendment, which reads:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This very CLEARLY states that unless a power was delegated to the United States (i.e. Congress, since only it can pass a bill that may become law, but also the regulatory agencies who are acting under Congressional authority to enforce laws), then it is reserved to the states (and see above about states infringing upon the 2nd Amendment) or to the people. IOW, since nothing in the Constitution says that Congress can infringe upon one’s right to keep and bear arms, then it simply can’t - because that right belongs to the people (IOW, I can forbid anyone to own a gun in my own home...even though I wouldn’t, in reality).
One more nit to pick: the term “well-regulated” in the 2nd Amendment. This term had an altogether different meaning long before and long after the 2nd Amendment was written than it does now. Now, of course, it means that the government on any level has oversight over what a person can do; it can decide whether you can or cannot do it and, if so, under what conditions, and charge you a fee for giving you the requisite permission (i.e. a permit of some type). IOW, whatever it is that is being regulated (in modern parlance) is NOT a right, as a right CANNOT be infringed upon, by definition - it is a right or it is not. However, 2+ centuries ago the term “well-regulated” referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely the OPPOSITE - to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
MY opinion and $7.50 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.
The Second Amendment says “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It is clear to me that "arms" cannot be banned by the government because of the Second Amendment. Especially so with the caveat "shall not be infringed" added to the end of the Amendment.
The question then becomes, "what are 'Arms?'" Are knives "Arms?" I would say yes. Are pistols, rifles, shotguns, and slingshots "Arms?" Undoubtedly yes, they are arms and are protected from being banned.
Are magazines "Arms?" U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California said that they are, and cannot be banned or limited in capacity, using the Heller decision of the inability to ban commonly owned arms for self defense. We shall see how much the 9th Circus mangles that well thought out decision.
So we then come to silencers, or if you prefer, suppressors. Are suppressors "Arms?" Well, one test that Judge Benitez used in his magazine ban ruling was, will the firearm function without it? In the case of a magazine, the firearm will not function as designed without a magazine, so the magazine is part of the firearm. Will a firearm operate without a suppressor? Yes, I believe it would. Therefore, is a suppressor considered "Arms" for purposes of Second Amendment protection? I think so, but it would not be a stretch to argue that they are not arms, any more than a telescopic sight or a sling can be considered "Arms." Like scopes and slings, a suppressor increases the utility of a firearm, but does not really affect the core function of the firearm in the same way that the lack of a magazine would.
So, to answer to your question, my opinion on the Constitutionality of such a ban on suppressors is that is is Unconstitutional, but by the slimmest of margins.
I still haven’t seen or read anything about how the murderer got the silencer.
To your question: every American who can legally buy a gun should be able to buy any accessories for guns, and be able to carry them anywhere and anytime.
Also, any governmental entities infringing on the right should get mandatory fines and prison time.
But, I’m weird.
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.