SCOTUS & Suppressors

[survivalshop]

Read this & also these two quotes are interesting . https://www.news4jax.com/news/politics/supreme-court-rejects-challenges-to-silencer-laws

" An appeals court had held that a silencer is not a "bearable" arm protected by the Constitution. " ( Bump Stocks would also fall under this )

" The Trump administration had also urged the court not to take up the issue." 

[DNP]

Now they get to decide which parts are “bearable”?  Triggers and magazines aren’t really bearable either...kinda important to the “bearable” part, but obviously we weren’t meant to have functional arms to bear...just symbolic ones to hold up so they can see when we’re unhappy.  What’s extremely unbearable is the bullshiit they continuously drop on us. 

[SimonSays]

This is what I posted in the comment section:

The article left out one important piece of information. Kansas passed a state law that modified the part of the NFA (National Firearms Act) that regulates suppressors. Kanas law did not require the registration of nor a registration fee be paid for its citizens to make, possess or sell suppressor in that state. These 2 men believed state law would protect them from Federal prosecution, just as Oregonians believe state law will protect them from Federal marijuana law violations. They were wrong. Now, 2 men, who believed they were following the law, have had their lives ruined.

[98Z5V]

4 hours ago, SimonSays said:

This is what I posted in the comment section:

The article left out one important piece of information. Kansas passed a state law that modified the part of the NFA (National Firearms Act) that regulates suppressors. Kanas law did not require the registration of nor a registration fee be paid for its citizens to make, possess or sell suppressor in that state. These 2 men believed state law would protect them from Federal prosecution, just as Oregonians believe state law will protect them from Federal marijuana law violations. They were wrong. Now, 2 men, who believed they were following the law, have had their lives ruined.

I'll bet if they only made, and possessed, and not taked them out of Ks state lines - they'd be good.  As soon as they "sold,"  they got themselves into the position of an FFL CLass 3  SOT.  Which they probably weren't.  Despite state law, they got on the wrong side of the BATFE as soon as they did that.

[jtallen83]

I find it ironic that there was a mass shooting with a suppressor involved right before this decision is handed down. And still very little in the way of details on the shooting. 

[Magwa]

More hocus pocus, BS it is just common sense to see the roll of a suppressor hearing protection I wish every gun in this country was sold with one and it was taught in school to protect your hearing and all the available ways to do so this country is so backwards in so many ways and then it thinks it is so progressive in others.... european country's sell suppressors with the sale of guns why is this even arguable?

[DNP]

3 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

I find it ironic that there was a mass shooting with a suppressor involved right before this decision is handed down. And still very little in the way of details on the shooting. 

I did a quick search the other day for articles. Everything was 7-8 days old. Nothing new except references to it calling for more gun control. 

[jtallen83]

14 minutes ago, DNP said:

I did a quick search the other day for articles. Everything was 7-8 days old. Nothing new except references to it calling for more gun control. 

They decided to reject the case so, stare decisis,  the lower court decision becomes precedent, just not as strong, not a roe v. wade type strength yet. 

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/06/11/scotus-rejects-kansas-suppressor-case/

[survivalshop]

6 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

I find it ironic that there was a mass shooting with a suppressor involved right before this decision is handed down. And still very little in the way of details on the shooting. 

Ya, it's amazing how the public never hears the facts & if we do we only get what they want us to hear . It's like pulling teeth to get updates. Nor do we know if the Suppressor truly was used . 

I found that quote about not a" Bearable Arm" to be a bit troubling , but until SCOTUS really gets to a decision on " Shall not be Infringed " we will get lower courts making dumb a$$  statements .

[98Z5V]

5 hours ago, survivalshop said:

Ya, it's amazing how the public never hears the facts & if we do we only get what they want us to hear . It's like pulling teeth to get updates. Nor do we know if the Suppressor truly was used .

Exactly, brother.  Look how long it took to get Vegas reports out - and we still don't have the full truth...  

[mrmackc]

The general public don't give a rat's arse about the noise damage to us shooters  or  our audiences we get shooting guns, they don't want Johnny Crimeboy shooting them and nobody hearing the BANG! They say "Stop shooting those damn noisey old high powered guns, and you will be okay."

[jtallen83]

Funny how it is ok for a state to ignore federal law when it comes to drugs but not when it comes to a safety device that could  possibly save a kids hearing. Must be trying to keep us redneck hillbillies deaf and stoned some reason.?.?.

More people than ever are educated in the fact that suppressors do not get as quiet as Hollywood quiet. Problem is that still isn't very many people. It's a lost battle once the propaganda machine becomes engaged in the subject. Question to evaluate is do they take suppressors, grandfather in existing and stop new production, or outlaw and do a buy back?   oh yeah and I forgot, there is always the "bump stock method" just regulate the meaning and make them a felony.

[98Z5V]

13 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

  oh yeah and I forgot, there is always the "bump stock method" just regulate the meaning and make them a felony.

I keep saying it, and it keeps being ignored - they cannot do that without Congressional action, as it's already been determined, and there is law on it that's almost 100 years old.

[jtallen83]

8 minutes ago, 98Z5V said:

I keep saying it, and it keeps being ignored - they cannot do that without Congressional action, as it's already been determined, and there is law on it that's almost 100 years old.

So do you think the court will strike down the regulation?

[98Z5V]

12 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

So do you think the court will strike down the regulation?

Supreme Court?  They CANNOT strike down NFA 1934.  Only Congress can do that.  The Supreme Court cannot.

[98Z5V]

Here's a very good opinion article on exactly what I'm saying:

https://gatdaily.com/trump-on-silencer-ban-im-going-to-seriously-look-at-it/?trk_msg=HG0BQJ1153QKN4QPUIQ0467BL4&trk_contact=8V0L65B89JG3CKL2PPP2IG35AC&trk_module=new&trk_sid=INI07QT7C8M3L2D7BB03ML3KQG

Here's the opening comments from that article, and it only gets better the further you go...

Quote

The legal footwork that allowed the bumpstock ban used the NFA to classify them as “new” machine guns.

Silencers do not inhabit that same part of the National Firearms Act and aren’t subject to the same reclassification. Banning the devices would be an act passed through Congress. Such an act would certainly pass the House and could likely be passed in the Senate with President’s support. But will it get that far?

Edited June 13, 2019 by 98Z5V

[survivalshop]

22 hours ago, 98Z5V said:

Supreme Court?  They CANNOT strike down NFA 1934.  Only Congress can do that.  The Supreme Court cannot.

What if they make a decision its unconstitutional ?

[98Z5V]

42 minutes ago, survivalshop said:

What if they make a decision its unconstitutional ?

What if, what if...  you can What If this all you want... 

They can't. And they won't.  They aren't there to MAKE laws, they are there to interpret them.  And Constitutional Law is their primary focus.  The only determination they could make would be to abolish the NFA 1934, GCA 1968, and FOPA 1986, based on them being unconstitutional.  They cannot add to any of those acts.  In any way.  They cannot take away anyone's ability to own a suppressor, or modify the process (law) required to own a suppressor.  Or SBR, SBS, AOW, Title II...

[survivalshop]

It's not if , because they can determine anything law makers can come up with as unconstitutional & that will make it null & void . They do something like it every year . 

It is wishful thinking that they do so , but they have the power & final say , it's their job . They are not adding anything , to anything or making/changing a law  , just making a judgement call on its constitutionality .