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.
The Miranda Rule should apply to firearms as well as detainees. It is ‘settled law’, isn’t it?
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.
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.
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”.
Ping.
Someone needs to open a gun range near his home and see if he changes his mind about silencers.
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.
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.
That’s like saying cars can’t come with steering wheels.
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.
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.
review
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.
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.
And nails are “accessories” for blunt objects like hammers.
1) FALSE. Federal law says otherwise; Category 1(e): Silencers, mufflers, and sound suppressors.
2) Nonsense. In much of the world, certainly in highly civilized countries in Europe, not using a silencer is considered bad manners. Silencers are highly usual.
3) Again, nonsense. The so-called "historical tradition" begins with the highly non-traditional, and obviously unconstitutional National Firearms Act in 1934 ... more than a century after the founding of The Republic.
An honest judge would tell the Biden Regime to pound sand.
These silencers were made and found in Louisiana. The Constitution limits federal law enforcement to acts in interstate commerce. These silencers have never been in interstate commerce.