[Shethink13]

An appeals court had held that a silencer is not a "bearable" arm protected by the Constitution.

I’m totally confused. If it’s not “bearable” and of itself not a weapon, why does it need to be registered at all. It’s kind of a circular argument.

[Yo-Yo]

"An appeals court had held that a silencer is not a "bearable" arm protected by the Constitution."

I’m totally confused. If it’s not “bearable” and of itself not a weapon, why does it need to be registered at all. It’s kind of a circular argument.

No, you have merged two concepts that the appeals court did not.

I am not for this, I'm just explaining it. The appeals court did not find that a silencer on its own is a "bearable" arm and therefore is not protected by the Second Amendment.

However, just because it is not a "bearable" arm, does not mean it is not a firearm. The 1934 NFA defines silencers as "firearms" for the purposes of taxation (and subsequent regulation.)

Similarly, a Lightning Link drop in auto sear is not a machine gun, but it is defined as a machine gun for purposes of the NFA.