These days it is more fashionable to make a "solvent trap" out of a big rig diesel's inline fuel filter and a thread adapter.
Posted on 06/10/2019 7:46:24 AM PDT by Carriage Hill
The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request to take up a challenge to a federal law requiring the registration of some firearms including silencers. Challengers in the case believe the Second Amendment protects such firearm accessories. An appeals court had held that a silencer is not a "bearable" arm protected by the Constitution. The case comes as a silencer was used during the recent Virginia Beach massacre and President Donald Trump suggested he'd look into restrictions on gun silencers. The Trump administration had also urged the court not to take up the issue. The order was issued without comment or recorded dissent.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Drip, drip, drip....
Individual Freedom being washed away one drop at a time in the only Nation in History founded on the tenet of Individual Freedom...
.. read first, then comment.
The answer is to get the hell outta Connecticut!
This means that the SCOTUS couldn’t muster at least 4 out of 9 votes to hear the case. We aren’t anywhere near out of the woods yet with these useless robes.
A little weird how, just a few weeks before this decision, a silencer was used in a mass shooting.
It almost seemed, kinda, ‘orchestrated’.
“In CT, in order to get a silencer, you need approval from the Chief of Police first. Then, you’re interviewed by the ATF. Then you pay the tax stamp. After that, approval in hand off to the gun store you go.”
You are lucky..in CaCanois they are outright prohibited.
This is what we call LOSING, and trump needs to STFU.
The law is known as the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Is that a hint?
I still got my old 1980s FIREPOWER magazines which tell how to make a silencer out of a two liter soda bottle. The attachment requires a $200 tax.
Not a bearable arm? Not sure I follow the logic there. By that logic, could they ban scopes or laser sights? But my question is this, does the military use suppressors? How about SWAT? That would add an,intetesting twist.
Federal Law disagrees with you.
"Silencers, mufflers, sound and flash suppressors for the articles in (a) through (d) of this category and their specifically designed, modified or adapted components and parts. " are explicitly listed as Category I—Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns in Federal Law. "Title 22 → Chapter I → Subchapter M → Part 121" is the legal codification of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
Great guitar riff in that song...
These days it is more fashionable to make a "solvent trap" out of a big rig diesel's inline fuel filter and a thread adapter.
"Challengers in the case believe the Second Amendment protects such firearm accessories."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
With all due respect to pro-gun patriots, forget the 2nd Amendment!
The real question is where in the Constitution did the states reasonably expressly give the feds the specific power to make a given law, the mandatory federal registration of anything in this example.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The few gun-related clauses in Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers are specific to the military and therefore don’t apply to peacetime domestic policy imo.
In fact, take the 2nd Amendment away and the feds still don’t have the express constitutional power to make the registration of anything mandatory.
And although it can be argued that registering a silencer is somehow within Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), the idea of federal registration is more of a tangent to that clause, and therefore an unconstitutional interpolation of that clause imo.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added]." —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
On the other hand, the states have always had the power to require registration of silencers imo, such power now reasonably limited by the 14th Amendment, patriots needing to elect a reasonable patriot Congress to establish such limits.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA!
Corrections, insights welcome.
See my post #26. I answered my own question.
My son got one in Minnesota for his AR. It was a very similar process as what you describe for CT.
The problem is that people are more interested in a pro-life justice than one that has guns and appreciates the 2nd amendment. Until we ask about and expect gun owners, we are going to see justices that are not interested or dismiss 2nd amendment concerns.
Exactly right, and should be so viewed.
Meanwhile, in this context there is no difference between a suppressor and every other accessory such night sights, sophisticated handgrips or, for that matter, adjusting the trigger pull to be very sensitive.
LOL! I’ve done this more than once through the years! ;)
I was arguing that point the other day, that it wasn’t a firearm. My reasoning was that it couldn’t be loaded or fired. Further I stated it was not an item that enhanced a gun’s function other than sound reduction, but I was wrong on that count.
Evidently the silencer disrupts the transition through the sound barrier and allows the projectile to move faster, further, and arguable more true to target.
If this is indeed true, then it is as integral to the gun as any other part that helps it function at optimum.
A screw is not a weapon, but it is part of one. I think the silencer could be considered the same way, only to a much higher level.
I disagree with the court here.
It seems to me the courts bend over backwards to side with the logic of the Left. We must stop that. Wish I knew how.
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.