Posted on 08/03/2023 7:14:39 AM PDT by marktwain
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, on November 25, 2022, Larry Morse and Theodore Ray Buck, Jr. filed a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, claiming the state ban on the sale and possession of silencers violates the Second Amendment. A similar lawsuit was filed by Carlin Anderson and David Clark on February 27, 2023, backed by the American Suppressor Association. The two lawsuits, Morse v Raoul and Anderson v Raoul, have been consolidated as of June 15, 2023. The parties involved have agreed the principle area of contention is whether silencers are arms protected by the Second Amendment. Morse and other plaintiffs claim silencers are obviously bearable arms and are in common use, so they cannot be banned from ownership as they are in Illinois. Here are excerpts from the pleading in Morse v. Raoul. From courlistener.com:
29. As of 2020, there were 2,042,719 suppressors owned by law abiding citizens as registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (“NFRTR”), far more than was needed for the DC Circuit to find AR-15s in common use. And that is despite legal impediments to owning a silencer, including the National Firearms Act requirements—paying a $200 transfer tax, submitting a detailed application and fingerprints, and a multi months-long wait for the federal government to process the application. See26 U.S.C. § 5811. Even arms that are far less common have been found to be protected.
Plaintiffs point out that silencers are used for numerous lawful purposes. From the complaint:
33. And the primary purpose of suppressors are for lawful purposes, including hunting, which Heller v. District of Columbia, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314, 331, 670 F.3d 1244, 1261 (2011) holds is part
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Suppressors are also useful as hearing protection.
I would argue...
A suppressor is NOT a firearm.
It should NOT be treated as a firearm. It should NOT be an NFA item. It should should be completely unregulated.
The ATF should have nothing to do with it at all.
They aren’t a bearable arm. They are merely an accessory and should be treated as such. As in, “Would you like a suppressor with your new firearm today? All I have to do is add it to the ticket.”
Agreed.
The ATF is chartered by law to enforce federal firearm laws. Silencers are not firearms.
Otherwise, the government could just keep whittling away at improvements. Here is a sort of slippery slope example:
Red dot sight? You do not "need" that accessory. Telescopic sight? the same. Pistol grip? the same. Magazine of more than one round? the same. Better trigger? the same. Rifled barrel? the same.
Accessories must be protected. They should include shoulder stocks for pistols, as well.
Suppressors facilitate the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights. They are covered by the 2nd Amendment.
I believe that Illinois is one of a handful of states than ban silencers. If my memory is correct, silencers are legal in 38 states.
“They aren’t a bearable arm. They are merely an accessory and should be treated as such. As in, “Would you like a suppressor with your new firearm today? All I have to do is add it to the ticket.””
They are NOT “an ARM” at all..
Any more than a muffler is a CAR.
“They aren’t a bearable arm. They are merely an accessory and should be treated as such”
I hear what you are saying but the logic could also be since they are not a firearm then they can be prohibited.
In that vain, so could pistol grips. They are not firearms, just an accessory. So are scopes, and slings. Just accessories.
Arms, IMHO, include all accessories and ammunition. Yes, the above items are accessories but they are comprised under the word “arms”.
Gotta use a better term: “Hearing protection device”.
I see what you are saying.
Highlights;
♦ the Supreme Court:
◊ never read or heard the defendants’ views, because they were not represented in any form
◊ heard only one side of the matter, the government’s side
◊ did not accept most of the government’s arguments
◊ based its conclusion on a small part of the government’s argument
◊ declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)
The U.S. v Miller, revisited (JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)
It’s not a firearm, but it’s also not completely unrelated to firearms. It’s a firearm accessory.
Now, if you pursue this argument, you might successfully argue that it shouldn’t be covered by the NFA, but then you would also be arguing at the same time that it’s not covered by the 2nd amendment, and then they could be banned by a simple majority of Congress. So maybe be careful what you wish for.
From the article...
“Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/07/illinois-are-suppressors-protected-by-the-second-amendment/#ixzz89KudG8me
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Defendants Kwame Raoul, Brendan F. Kelly, Craig Miller, and Bryan Robbins respectfully move the Court to enter judgment in their favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Plaintiffs raise a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois law prohibiting the possession of silencers, which are attached to firearms to reduce the noise of gunfire. But the Second Amendment protects only “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” (emphasis added). Silencers are not weapons. They are not used for self-defense. And they are not necessary to the effective use of a firearm. So they are not “Arms” within the meaning of the constitutional text, and thus plaintiffs cannot prevail on their Second Amendment claim.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2023/07/illinois-are-suppressors-protected-by-the-second-amendment/#ixzz89KuwHdW6
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Two problems exist with the above claim. The first is that silencers are explicitly treated as arms in both Illinois and federal law. While silencers are not “arms” by themselves, they clearly add to the effectiveness of firearms and aid in the use of firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. The second is accessories, which make arms more effective, such as aiding in training, are protected under the Second Amendment. The State of Illinois claim could be used to ban magazines (currently under contention) or other firearms accessories such as telescopic sights, red dot sights, flash suppressors, or even such things as rifled barrels or recoil pads.
The Supreme Court, in Caetano, made clear all items which constitute bearable arms fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. Outright bans on bearable arms are not allowed if the arms are in common use for lawful purposes.
This is why the State of Illinois is contending silencers are not arms. If they are not arms, why are they regulated and banned, especially under Illinois and United States weapons statutes? Illinois code 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6) bans the possession of any device or attachment designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of a firearm. If they are not useful to make firearms more effective, why ban or restrict them?”
Remember when it was found an empty two liter soda pop bottle worked well as a suppressor? Someone even came out with a connection to make it fit a .22 barrel better. Then the ATF shut them down.
To answer the question, ask the same question with a different part.
- Are sights protected by the 2nd amendment?
- Are barrel shrouds protected by the 2nd amendment?
- Are magazines protected by the 2nd amendment?
- Are stocks protected by the 2nd amendment?
the answer seems fairly obvious to me
“Silencers are not firearms.”
But yet the Union government has treated them as such since 1934.
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.