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”.
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.
The parallel argument is that making your own silencer keeps you out of the regulated market, which is against the regulations.
The farmer's case was about exceeding crop limits even though the excess was never going to leave the farm because it would be used as feedstock for the animals. SCOTUS ruled that the farmer must participate in the market and cannot grow his own crop in excess of the regulated amount.
-PJ
How can it not be a firearm, but at the same time it must be registered because firearms are?