Louisiana Judge Finds Silencers are NOT Protected by Second Amendment

AmmoLand ^ | January 25, 2024 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On September 7, 2023, Brennan Comeaux was arrested for possessing unregistered silencers without serial numbers. He was appointed a federal defender in Louisiana in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Louisiana is in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On December 20, 2023, a motion to dismiss was filed by Comeaux’s attorney. From the Motion to Dismiss:

By indictment, the government accuses Brennan Comeaux of possessing unregistered firearms in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (Count One) and receiving and possessing firearms unidentified by serial number in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). ECF 1. Specifically, the government alleges that Mr. Comeaux built his own firearm suppressors, five in total, and did not register them or identify them by serial number as required by federal law. Mr. Comeaux is not a prohibited person prevented from possessing firearms under federal or state law.

Mr. Comeaux alleges that these statutes violate the Second Amendment on their face and as applied to him as that right has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (June 23, 2022).

The argument put forward is simple: the requirement to register arms and the requirement for arms to have serial numbers is a latecomer to American jurisprudence, only occurring after 1911, far too late to be considered as a longstanding and accepted law within the right to keep and bear arms.

The Biden administration countered with three arguments.

1. Silencers are accessories, not “arms,” protected by the Second Amendment.
2. There is a history of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Silencers are “dangerously unusual.”
3. There is a historical tradition of regulation of commerce in firearms.  Therefore, silencers can be regulated with serial numbers and registration.

[marktwain]

The judge never considered how common silencers are. The judge essentially ignored the Bruen decision.

[Oscar in Batangas]

The Miranda Rule should apply to firearms as well as detainees. It is ‘settled law’, isn’t it?

[ClearCase_guy]

If silencers seem “unusual”, perhaps it is because the federal government has been infringing them for decades. They’d be pretty darn common if you could pick them up at Walmart.

[uranium penguin]

IANAL...

BUT.. If this judge has ruled that suppressors are NOT guns/Arms.. And it gets upheld.

I think this just became a whole new ball game.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

The judge is a Humpty Dumpty Jurist/Lawyer.

1. Silencers are accessories, not “arms,” protected by the Second Amendment.
Charges filed under USC26which deals with arms (2ndA) and accessories and attachments to arms. Making the specified accessories and attachments “arms” by inclusion.

2. There is a history of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Silencers are “dangerously unusual.” “A word salad-phrase made to fit the precedent. No relevant code defining either word. Subjective and vague.

3. There is a historical tradition of regulation of commerce in firearms. Therefore, silencers can be regulated with serial numbers and registration. The silencers were made for the exclusive use of the defendant and not intended to be sold let alone “sold in interstate commerce”.

The judge has decided not on the merits but on the zeitgeist and narrative that is acceptable to his “superiors”.

[bert]

Once fastened to the barrel of the gun, the silencers are part and parcel of a protected armament.

During the war, to kill progressives in a secret manner, the sound suppressor is required, just as is the magazine and the hammer.

[Carriage Hill]

Ping.

[linMcHlp]

Keep and Bear Arms, includes weapons, ammunition, powder, maintenance equipment, storage, being well-trained to Arms, upholding civilian authority, being answerable to civilian authority, being prepared to respond to the Muster, etc.

[CodeToad]

Someone needs to open a gun range near his home and see if he changes his mind about silencers.

[SauronOfMordor]

If silencers were legal, they would be a standard part of firearms as hearing protection.

[ansel12]

The gun is the one consumer product that the left prevents consumer noise protection for and insists that it remains harmful and permanently damaging to the users’ hearing.

[Rlsau1]

Suppressors are actually safety devices which protect one’s hearing. I wish I had had access to them many years ago. They really are no different than ear plugs or muffs.

[bgill]

That’s like saying cars can’t come with steering wheels.

[caver]

It would seem to me that if silencers are NOT Protected by Second Amendment, then they should not be governed by the Second Amendment, thus making them entirely legal. Just like a scope is attached to a rifle and is entirely legal.

[uranium penguin]

but.. if a supressor is ruled to be NOT a firearm...

I think a lot of the ATF’s and gov’s view of things gets quickly tossed out the window.

Up to now.. MANY items have been ruled as guns or bombs by ATF. a bent piece of metal, by itself, unconnected to anything per ATF IS a Machine gun. That crap under your kitchen sink, used to clean that sink, IS legally a bomb/ unregistered destructive device..

If that “solvent trap” or muffler pipe is NOT a firearm, but an accessory. Then constructive posession becomes a lot more difficult. constructive posession, to make. a fire arm accessory? And as parts/ accessories, not guns. It could give a lot more leeway to states to handle regulation.

[linMcHlp]

I am certain that our Second Amendment holds its post in the Bill of Rights, as part of its duty to protect our First Amendment from being silenced.

[marktwain]

but.. if a supressor is ruled to be NOT a firearm...

I think a lot of the ATF’s and gov’s view of things gets quickly tossed out the window.

It is somewhat difficult to see how it can "not be a weapon" and be "dangerously unusual".

The National Fireams Act declared silencers to be firearms by governmental fiat. The government is not required to be rational or consistent.

The ATF is caught in the restrictions on governmental power inherent in the Second Amendment. This may or may not be a good test case. It is in the fifth circuit. The Fifth has been more Second Amendment friendly than most.

[sauropod]

review

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

The libs are on the wrong side of this one. Silencers protect hearing, I’m surprised OSHA or some other fruitcake gov agency hasn’t taken this up as a cause, guns should never be fired without silencers. It would make war quieter too not disturbing animals in their habitats.