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:_________
Interesting tidbit: The reason why short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles are in the NFA as $200 taxable items is because congress originally intended to also include all handguns in the NFA, and tax them at $200 each as well.
However, the handgun portion was removed from the NFA bill, but the SBS and SBR provisions remained.
I consider people who hallucinate things like "gay mariage is right there in the constitution" to be literally insane.
Bump stocks?
KYPD
That said, this makes me think that banning suppressors is the "partial birth abortion" of the 2nd amendment debate.
Is a suppressor ban a constitutional action because it does not infringe on the use of the armament, or is it unconstitutional because we fear the slippery slope of what might follow if we accepted it?
-PJ
Tell me how a suppressor, which is not an intregral part of a firearm; and is already regulated by state and Federal law would be protected under the second amendment.
It would be like saying bi-pods or slings are firearms.
I am all for suppressors and I wish MA did not outlaw them...but as a matter of law, they are not firearms. If think they are...remove them and try to fire the weapon. It still goes “bang.”
IF silencers are not protected under the 2nd amendment, they are ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY PROTECTED under the doctrine of enumerated powers.
Enumerated powers, as a matter of fact, predate the 2nd amendment.
Congress can pass and the president can sign anything and the courts can uphold, but that doesn’t make any legislation constitutional or unconstitutional.
Will suppressors be banned? Probably not. Will the House pass a bill and the senate kill it? Probably.
Will the president declare an EO banning suppressors? Probably not. Will he maybe want to? Who knows.
If the Founders/Framers knew what technology would bless/curse us with over time, would they have refrained from implicitly binding natural rights, self determination and a nation together? Probably, they knew that truth, justice and reason are not changeable based on time or feeling, like the rule of law.
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.
Keeping firearm noise down has a legitimate function, as you stated. Law abiding gun users must be allowed access to that legitimate function.
If the lawmakers are freaking out about ‘silencers’ being used by bad guys, they’ll need to outlaw anything and everything that can be used or converted for that purpose, including mundane items like paper towel rolls.
I hated to read that, because I don't doubt you. It taints my admiration of Scalia.
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
As you stated, SBS and automatic rifles are not "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens" because they are essentially banned. So we are stuck with this circular logic.
...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.
Ignorance due to the fact that no one was present to argue for Miller in this case. Of course it would have been easy to show that SBS were indeed in use by the military. And the Court was honest enough not to assume facts not presented to the Court, even though it may well have been common knowledge.
Thanks for that post.
SCOTUS does not have the constitutional authority to decide what is constitutional. They grabbed that power in the early 1800’s and Congress let them get away with it.
The original patent was for a “silencer”. But the tacticool crowd loved the word suppressor. They also call some soldiers and sailors “operators”. I always laugh at that term and let the offender know my mom was an operator.
I listen to a podcast called We Like Shooting, and the guys there sold a morale patch called, “Opereater.”
Basically it’s a fat dude with a slung rifle in a chest rig chomping down a hot dog.
I’m sure you can find it online somewhere.
On the Nagant revolver, the barrel/cylinder gap is removed by the cylinder camming forward to seal it up. The rounds also assist in it with a unique design seating the bullet completely within the case.
Unusual design.
The taint belongs to the institution. Scalia did the best he could with what he had. The law (and all the institutions of the FedGov that it apologizes for, enables and supports) is so full of dishonesty piled up on dishonesty, there is no tidy way to dial it back.
The dismantling of the RKBA has been systematic by the hierarchy of courts. Good court / bad court version of good cop / bad cop. Sometimes the SCOTUS is the dishonest one, sometimes it allows the lower courts to do the dirty work. It's all about power and control being wrested from the people and placed in the hands of a system that need not answer to the people. Globalism depends on this.
“You absolutely CAN yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.”
An interesting aside, the Fire in a theater case was Schenck vs USA. He was handing out handbills protesting the WWI draft. He was arrested by Wilson the dictator for violating the espionage act, and it was upheld by the Supremes who said by opposing the draft, Schenck was creating a clear and present danger... and that you may not yell fire in a crowded theater.
Basically, free speech on a political topic is creating a danger to society. Another gift from Woodrow Wilson.
It isn’t just the case, the cylinder cams forward to eliminate the BC gap.
"...shall not be infringed, except by the Supreme Court jagoffs." Yep, it's right there. Apparently you don't know the meaning of 'regulated'.
Ha ha ha ha ha ..... I wasn’t aware about the “patent - silencer” thing. But, I own one and they don’t silence an AR, I can assure you. Without trying to get all “gun nerdy” on you and anyone else, with the right ammo they can be quiet, but movie quiet is a bit of a stretch and if you really slow it down to “silence” it, your gun turns into a single shot.
Operator.....you are so EFFIN’ right about that.
I guess, maybe it is, but you’d have to put something over the cylinder somehow and on the muzzle, as the gas escapes from both places. There’s a reason why revolver shooters hold their guns differently than someone that shoots a semi-auto. Unless their thumbs are so scarred and calloused from the burning gas coming out of the side of the cylinder, that they’re numb to it.
It does appear that Heller was purposely crafted to advance the case at hand without invalidating NFA. But the legal reasoning is embarrassing. I suppose the case would have failed if they hadn’t.
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.