Jump to content
specops56

The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case challenging suppressors' inclusion in the NFA....

Recommended Posts

Court rejects challenge to regulation of gun silencers


https://apnews.com/0958862d44824d9596feb5ec097273be
“WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to federal regulation of gun silencers Monday, just days after a gunman used one in a shooting rampage that killed 12 people in Virginia.”

 

So much for the “conservative,” “originalist,” “pro 2A” Trump SCOTUS.

 

Terry

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you not find it odd that a "mass shooting" involving a suppressor happened right before SCOTUS was set to decide if they were going to take up this case?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, meh77gmc said:

Do you not find it odd that a "mass shooting" involving a suppressor happened right before SCOTUS was set to decide if they were going to take up this case?

Convenient timing this obvious is an indication of desperation. They're in such a hurry that they are getting sloppy about their blatant psy-ops.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from the article:

 

"President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place."

 

6mVha5o.jpg

 

Terry

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cowards......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing the Devil's advocate here, is a suppressor necessary to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic?  Before you flame me, think about what SCOTUS does.  They make decisions based on Constitutional Rights so with the intent of 2A, banning suppressors doesnt really infringe on someone owning firearms.  Same view with bump stocks.  IMO banning an accessory to a firearm doesnt eliminate the firearm or our right to own them.

 

We here are avid 2A supporters and I dont want to see suppressors banned anymore than anybody else.  SCOTUS not hearing this case is based on infringement of Constitutional rights and I dont believe banning accessories falls under 2A and obviously they felt the same way.  We see any action against firearms as an infringement and our President not doing as promised.  His support of banning bump stocks and now considering a suppressor ban is very troubling.  Will he cave on "keep and bear arms"?  He needs to weigh these decisions carefully

 

The case in question really involves States Rights vs Federal.  The manufacturer and purchaser were both under the impression if a suppressor is legal to possess according to State law, manufactured in that State, purchased by a resident of that State, and never leaves the State, it is not governed by Federal law.  Personally I dont see the difference between this case and States legalizing MJ.  While illegal Federally, its legal within the borders of that State so what is the difference with suppressors?  Maybe that would have been a better approach rather than infringement of 2A.

 

This is my $0.02.  I understand y'all's viewpoint and the passion involved.  The above isnt an argument against your view, its how I look at the SCOTUS decision and I doubt my view will change.  There are bigger issues involved here but the basics are where we need to look.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how they could have played it any other way. What would they have done, take suppressors out of the NFA? That is not their job its Congresses job. Parkland and other shootings like Vegas put a stop on that along with the election with a house that will not do it. Making an illegal suppressor is not something the SC can make legal. Its not infringement to regulate. An outright ban maybe but suppressors are not arms. They are add ons. So do not really get  covered by the second amendent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playing the Devil's advocate here, is a suppressor necessary to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic?  Before you flame me, think about what SCOTUS does.  They make decisions based on Constitutional Rights so with the intent of 2A, banning suppressors doesnt really infringe on someone owning firearms.  Same view with bump stocks.  IMO banning an accessory to a firearm doesnt eliminate the firearm or our right to own them.
 
We here are avid 2A supporters and I dont want to see suppressors banned anymore than anybody else.  SCOTUS not hearing this case is based on infringement of Constitutional rights and I dont believe banning accessories falls under 2A and obviously they felt the same way.  We see any action against firearms as an infringement and our President not doing as promised.  His support of banning bump stocks and now considering a suppressor ban is very troubling.  Will he cave on "keep and bear arms"?  He needs to weigh these decisions carefully
 
The case in question really involves States Rights vs Federal.  The manufacturer and purchaser were both under the impression if a suppressor is legal to possess according to State law, manufactured in that State, purchased by a resident of that State, and never leaves the State, it is not governed by Federal law.  Personally I dont see the difference between this case and States legalizing MJ.  While illegal Federally, its legal within the borders of that State so what is the difference with suppressors?  Maybe that would have been a better approach rather than infringement of 2A.
 
This is my $0.02.  I understand y'all's viewpoint and the passion involved.  The above isnt an argument against your view, its how I look at the SCOTUS decision and I doubt my view will change.  There are bigger issues involved here but the basics are where we need to look.
 
 
 
 
 
I understand you are playing the devils advocate and not being argumentive at all . I believe it is a misconception that suppressors are not covered under the second amendment , when the government put them under the firearms act they made them the same as a firearm . I don't remember which one ( not that old) but back in the 30s when explaining why SBS s and SBR s were not covered by the second a Supreme Court Justice wrote that only weapons normally carried and used by the military were covered under the second . SBR s and suppressors are common on the battlefield today. Bump stocks ? Don't know of any military who would use them . Will Trump sway on the second in the end ? He did put a second supporter in the SCOTUS already now will he cinch it down with another pro second or will he do the " even the playing field " crap ? The Republican parties worse fear is Trump will secure the border - abolish abortion and protect gun rights so if he nominated a fence sitter they would definitely be happy because that is the three platforms they run on and without them the Republican party is in big trouble . As far as the argument ,are they necessary ?, are adjustable stocks ,flash suppressors , high capacity magazines or hangy down things necessary ? If they are not necessary then why do we spend $$$$ supplying our troops with them ? If muskets are good enough for me they are good enough for the UN peace keepers too.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hlhneast said:

Playing the Devil's advocate here, is a suppressor necessary to defend against enemies both foreign and domestic?  Before you flame me, think about what SCOTUS does.  They make decisions based on Constitutional Rights so with the intent of 2A, banning suppressors doesnt really infringe on someone owning firearms.  Same view with bump stocks.  IMO banning an accessory to a firearm doesnt eliminate the firearm or our right to own them.

 

We here are avid 2A supporters and I dont want to see suppressors banned anymore than anybody else.  SCOTUS not hearing this case is based on infringement of Constitutional rights and I dont believe banning accessories falls under 2A and obviously they felt the same way.  We see any action against firearms as an infringement and our President not doing as promised.  His support of banning bump stocks and now considering a suppressor ban is very troubling.  Will he cave on "keep and bear arms"?  He needs to weigh these decisions carefully

 

The case in question really involves States Rights vs Federal.  The manufacturer and purchaser were both under the impression if a suppressor is legal to possess according to State law, manufactured in that State, purchased by a resident of that State, and never leaves the State, it is not governed by Federal law.  Personally I dont see the difference between this case and States legalizing MJ.  While illegal Federally, its legal within the borders of that State so what is the difference with suppressors?  Maybe that would have been a better approach rather than infringement of 2A.

 

This is my $0.02.  I understand y'all's viewpoint and the passion involved.  The above isnt an argument against your view, its how I look at the SCOTUS decision and I doubt my view will change.  There are bigger issues involved here but the basics are where we need to look.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a suppressor is an “add on” and “add ons” are not covered by the 2A, then by that logic only box stock firearms as they come from the factory are covered by the 2A. That AR you built with those match barrel, match trigger, keymod “add ons” is not covered. If your gun came from the factory with a 10 rd mag then that 30 rd mag you’re  using is an “Add on” and not covered. Seeing the slippery slope? The gun grabbers would seize on that kind of logic.

 

Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A suppressor does not affect your Second Amendment rights. I don't see how the court could rule any other way.  This case to me was a question of state's rights vs. federal government.  You can thank FDR for a lot of this.  The Supreme Court overturned some of FDR's programs and he had four terms to change the makeup of the court and get his overturned programs declared constitutional. President Lincoln killed states rights a long time ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silencers in the U.S. are permitted by some states mainly for controlling predatory animals and varmints. Very common overseas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 5:14 PM, meh77gmc said:

Do you not find it odd that a "mass shooting" involving a suppressor happened right before SCOTUS was set to decide if they were going to take up this case?

Bingo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't believe that the entire NFA should withstand SCOTUS scrutiny. There's nowhere in the 2A that mentions anything about "reasonable regulation". But, I also realize that they will likely never admit that they made a mistake long ago, and that terrible injustice has prevailed ever since. FFA 1968 is another example of their deliberate misinterpretation of The Constitution that they will likely never admit shouldn't have been allowed to stand.

 

A French style revolution will probably be necessary to right the ship. Go through the elected officials one-by-one and "take care of" those that have committed high crimes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×