[ClearCase_guy]

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.

[Political Junkie Too]

Since you're the first to answer this, let me ask the question I wanted to pose here.

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