SCOTUS upholds federal silencer law

[task0778]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

Nope, you still need the tax stamp, which means $200 and waiting on an approval for 8-12 months. Not "just registering it where you bought it."

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

Again, there is still the tax stamp requirement, which requires payment of $200 and waiting on approval for 8-12 months. And they're called suppressors, not silencers. That is a Hollywood term. They don't make it "silent" by any means.

I don't give a damn what you call 'em, if the law says you have to pay $200, then pay the effing $200 and register the damn thing or take your chances with the fed cops. I don't think anybody is going to get in any trouble with the law if you paid the money and did the registration paperwork, but I dunno how it works in reality. What are you saying, you gotta have the completed and approved paperwork in your possession when you go hunting? The application and the receipt for the $200 doesn't cut it? Look at the case specifics below, these guys totally ignored the law, sorry if I don't feel much compassion for them:

Shane Cox owned an army surplus store in Kansas where he sold unregistered homemade silencers and Jeremy Kettler bought one of them. They were convicted under the National Firearms Act, passed in 1934, which requires individuals to register silencers and to pay a federal tax of about $200. The law has the effect of limiting the number of silencers, but not banning them. It also makes it harder to transfer them.

They followed state law.

Doesn't matter. I think you know that federal law trumps (no pun intended) state law.

 

[task0778]

The US Supreme Court on Monday left intact a federal law that requires the registration of some firearms, including silencers, and turned away a request to consider whether such firearm accessories are protected by the Second Amendment.

Silencer law challenges rejected by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

I think this is the correct ruling by the court, a firearm without a silencer is good enough protection for an individual in their own home IMHO. A silencer was used during the recent Virginia Beach massacre, and if a state wants to ban them altogether then I think that should be their prerogative.

I think they should be legal.
It's not like you cant hear the shot,it just brings the decibels down to a safe level.

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

It makes no sense to have to pay $200 bucks to make my .45 as quiet as my .22 you'll still hear both of em from a mile away.

Well then, don't buy the God-Damned silencer/suppressor. What are you saying, it's okay to ignore a federal law cuz you don't want to spend the required $200?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The US Supreme Court on Monday left intact a federal law that requires the registration of some firearms, including silencers, and turned away a request to consider whether such firearm accessories are protected by the Second Amendment.

Silencer law challenges rejected by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

I think this is the correct ruling by the court, a firearm without a silencer is good enough protection for an individual in their own home IMHO. A silencer was used during the recent Virginia Beach massacre, and if a state wants to ban them altogether then I think that should be their prerogative.

I think they should be legal.
It's not like you cant hear the shot,it just brings the decibels down to a safe level.

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

It makes no sense to have to pay $200 bucks to make my .45 as quiet as my .22 you'll still hear both of em from a mile away.

Well then, don't buy the God-Damned silencer/suppressor. What are you saying, it's okay to ignore a federal law cuz you don't want to spend the required $200?

Who the fuck said anything about ignoring federal law?

 

[Vastator]

The US Supreme Court on Monday left intact a federal law that requires the registration of some firearms, including silencers, and turned away a request to consider whether such firearm accessories are protected by the Second Amendment.

Silencer law challenges rejected by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics

I think this is the correct ruling by the court, a firearm without a silencer is good enough protection for an individual in their own home IMHO. A silencer was used during the recent Virginia Beach massacre, and if a state wants to ban them altogether then I think that should be their prerogative.

I think they should be legal.
It's not like you cant hear the shot,it just brings the decibels down to a safe level.

They ARE legal, as far as the federal law in question is concerned. You just have to register the silencer, that's all.

It makes no sense to have to pay $200 bucks to make my .45 as quiet as my .22 you'll still hear both of em from a mile away.

Well then, don't buy the God-Damned silencer/suppressor. What are you saying, it's okay to ignore a federal law cuz you don't want to spend the required $200?

To be fair... Many states, and their citizens are doing just that, with regard to marijuana laws. And the Fed gov seems rather disinterested in dropping the hammer on these folks. And pot isn't even constitutionally protected. One could at least argue that integrally suppressed weapons should be covered by the 2A. But like all power mongers; the Gov is very unlikely to relinquish "authority" it has comandeered. The best time to fight this was back when the legislation was signed into law...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

The problem most have with the NFA/ATF requirements are the hoops one must jump through to obtain a suppressor – the forms, the trust documents, the tax stamp, and the more than six-month wait for the process to be completed.

There is an argument to be made that this places un undue burden on the Second Amendment right.

But clearly that argument won’t be heard by the Court any time soon.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It isn't about protection against an attacker....it is about protecting the hearing of the user. One silencer and two pistols........and you want to put red tape on owning a silencer.......? That is foolish and unecessary. Fire a 9mm, .45 or .357 in your hallway of your home during an attack...after you get back from the hearing Doctor, tell us how a silencer isn't something you would have liked to have had.....how about if members of your family are in the room....think your children like their hearing?

Nonetheless, the second amendment does not seem to be violated when a state restricts silencers. It's not the constitution's aim to prevent anything you personally might consider a stupid law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But clearly that argument won’t be heard by the Court any time soon.

For suppressors, you mean.

 

[Pete7469]

Doesn't matter. I think you know that federal law trumps (no pun intended) state law.

I suppose so, but I'm not a lawyer.

I was under the impression that if the item was made in, and stays in the state, the feds can not regulate it.

I wouldn't really give a shit about the extra $200 tax, but when even the fucking french can buy suppressors right off the shelf? Seems obnoxious that we have to pay extra and jump through the hoops, especially when we really are just talking about a device that lowers the muzzle blast 30 dbl.

My buddy's .300BLK is still loud enough that you need ear protection if you're going to do any sustained shooting.


.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

My buddy's .300BLK is still loud enough that you need ear protection if you're going to do any sustained shooting.


.

'

What's he shooting? I've seen people shooting hot supersonic ammo with suppressors, which makes me scratch my head. Supersonic ammo is going to cause a sonic boom (the notorious "double crack") since it breaks the speed of sound by definition. Some .300 blk ammo labeled subsonic even runs pretty hot, breaking the sound barrier every 3rd to 5th shot. I note you said "sustained" shooting, which could mean 100+ rounds, which certainly could get pretty hard on the ears even with an integrally suppressed barrel shooting subsonic.

 

[task0778]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

The problem most have with the NFA/ATF requirements are the hoops one must jump through to obtain a suppressor – the forms, the trust documents, the tax stamp, and the more than six-month wait for the process to be completed.

There is an argument to be made that this places un undue burden on the Second Amendment right.

But clearly that argument won’t be heard by the Court any time soon.

The undue burden argument is a tough sell IMHO, because you can still buy the gun and use it. Which means your right to bear arms isn't infringed. From what some around here are saying, the silencer/suppressor isn't all that much of a difference maker anyway.

I think the federal law is a good one, maybe the answer is to reduce the $200 payment (why so much) and the waiting period (why so long). But I'll be honest about it, these things can be dangerous if used in places where gunshots can be heard and people can evacuate before they get shot, vs some people not hearing anything and becoming a potential victim. The loud noise a gun makes can be a good thing if it warns people in the vicinity OR in some cases scares the shit out of a potential burglar who might be armed and who's breaking into your house.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

The undue burden argument is a tough sell IMHO, because you can still buy the gun and use it. Which means your right to bear arms isn't infringed. From what some around here are saying, the silencer/suppressor isn't all that much of a difference maker anyway.

I think the federal law is a good one, maybe the answer is to reduce the $200 payment (why so much) and the waiting period (why so long). But I'll be honest about it, these things can be dangerous if used in places where gunshots can be heard and people can evacuate before they get shot, vs some people not hearing anything and becoming a potential victim. The loud noise a gun makes can be a good thing if it warns people in the vicinity OR in some cases scares the shit out of a potential burglar who might be armed and who's breaking into your house.

Remember, adding suppressors to the NFA of 1934 had nothing to do with safety or most of the other reasons cited today for keeping suppressors regulated (such as those you outlined), and everything to do with reducing the incidents of people hunting on federal land during the Great Depression using home made potato suppressors. If someone wanted to suppress the decibel rating of a given weapon using appropriate ammo for a one-time shooting spree, they could easily make something at home that would accomplish the same purpose.

 

[Vastator]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

The problem most have with the NFA/ATF requirements are the hoops one must jump through to obtain a suppressor – the forms, the trust documents, the tax stamp, and the more than six-month wait for the process to be completed.

There is an argument to be made that this places un undue burden on the Second Amendment right.

But clearly that argument won’t be heard by the Court any time soon.

The undue burden argument is a tough sell IMHO, because you can still buy the gun and use it. Which means your right to bear arms isn't infringed. From what some around here are saying, the silencer/suppressor isn't all that much of a difference maker anyway.

I think the federal law is a good one, maybe the answer is to reduce the $200 payment (why so much) and the waiting period (why so long). But I'll be honest about it, these things can be dangerous if used in places where gunshots can be heard and people can evacuate before they get shot, vs some people not hearing anything and becoming a potential victim. The loud noise a gun makes can be a good thing if it warns people in the vicinity OR in some cases scares the shit out of a potential burglar who might be armed and who's breaking into your house.

Nope. It's merely an undue burden to the law abiding. A suppressor is nothing more than a muffler. And the "criminally inclined" can churn one out in an hour or so with parts off the shelf at most big box stores, if they have in mind, that which you fear. Placing restrictions on all to assuage the fears of the few, is no way to legislate...

 

[task0778]

Doesn't matter. I think you know that federal law trumps (no pun intended) state law.

I suppose so, but I'm not a lawyer.

I was under the impression that if the item was made in, and stays in the state, the feds can not regulate it.

I wouldn't really give a shit about the extra $200 tax, but when even the fucking french can buy suppressors right off the shelf? Seems obnoxious that we have to pay extra and jump through the hoops, especially when we really are just talking about a device that lowers the muzzle blast 30 dbl.

My buddy's .300BLK is still loud enough that you need ear protection if you're going to do any sustained shooting.


.

1. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm guessing the feds can pretty much regulate whatever they want to, up until the SCOTUS says no, you can't. I don't know if requiring a silencer/suppressor to be registered is the same as regulating it, but I would imagine it's the same thing as buying the gun that you put in on.

2. No offense intended, but I couldn't care less what the French do.

3. Silencers/suppressors are designed to reduce the noise, right? There are some situations where that's a good thing, like legally hunting hogs or whatever. But there are also some bad situations where people do not hear the shots being fired thanks to a silencer/suppressor, and therefore do not have the warning to get the hell out of dodge or hide somewhere if they can't leave. In this day and age, should we make it easier and quicker for a terrorist or nutcase to get a silencer/suppressor by repealing that federal law? Is it worth even one life if people have to pay $200 and wait 8-12 months?

 

[Vastator]

Doesn't matter. I think you know that federal law trumps (no pun intended) state law.

I suppose so, but I'm not a lawyer.

I was under the impression that if the item was made in, and stays in the state, the feds can not regulate it.

I wouldn't really give a shit about the extra $200 tax, but when even the fucking french can buy suppressors right off the shelf? Seems obnoxious that we have to pay extra and jump through the hoops, especially when we really are just talking about a device that lowers the muzzle blast 30 dbl.

My buddy's .300BLK is still loud enough that you need ear protection if you're going to do any sustained shooting.


.

1. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm guessing the feds can pretty much regulate whatever they want to, up until the SCOTUS says no, you can't. I don't know if requiring a silencer/suppressor to be registered is the same as regulating it, but I would imagine it's the same thing as buying the gun that you put in on.

2. No offense intended, but I couldn't care less what the French do.

3. Silencers/suppressors are designed to reduce the noise, right? There are some situations where that's a good thing, like legally hunting hogs or whatever. But there are also some bad situations where people do not hear the shots being fired thanks to a silencer/suppressor, and therefore do not have the warning to get the hell out of dodge or hide somewhere if they can't leave. In this day and age, should we make it easier and quicker for a terrorist or nutcase to get a silencer/suppressor by repealing that federal law? Is it worth even one life if people have to pay $200 and wait 8-12 months?

Real patriots aren't in the habit of trading freedom, for security...

 

[task0778]

Look guys, the federal law that was upheld does NOT ban silencers, it just makes you register when you buy one. It's the law, comply or face the consequences. All you gotta do is register the silencer when you purchased it, where's the problem with that?

Hearing issue, my ass. You can wear hearing protection devices if you so desire, but allowing people to buy silencers without registering them is akin to tacit permission to go into any place with a bunch of people and start shooting without alarming most of them. So you get more shooting victims; surely we all remember the reports after most mass shootings where people say they heard the shots and went into hiding or left the area if they could. So we'd make it easier for a shooter to kill people relatively without much noise?

The problem most have with the NFA/ATF requirements are the hoops one must jump through to obtain a suppressor – the forms, the trust documents, the tax stamp, and the more than six-month wait for the process to be completed.

There is an argument to be made that this places un undue burden on the Second Amendment right.

But clearly that argument won’t be heard by the Court any time soon.

The undue burden argument is a tough sell IMHO, because you can still buy the gun and use it. Which means your right to bear arms isn't infringed. From what some around here are saying, the silencer/suppressor isn't all that much of a difference maker anyway.

I think the federal law is a good one, maybe the answer is to reduce the $200 payment (why so much) and the waiting period (why so long). But I'll be honest about it, these things can be dangerous if used in places where gunshots can be heard and people can evacuate before they get shot, vs some people not hearing anything and becoming a potential victim. The loud noise a gun makes can be a good thing if it warns people in the vicinity OR in some cases scares the shit out of a potential burglar who might be armed and who's breaking into your house.

Nope. It's merely an undue burden to the law abiding. A suppressor is nothing more than a muffler. And the "criminally inclined" can churn one out in an hour or so with parts off the shelf at most big box stores, if they have in mind, that which you fear. Placing restrictions on all to assuage the fears of the few, is no way to legislate...

I think it's also a burden on the law-breakers too, do you really want silencers/suppressors available to every swingin' dick that wants one? Makes it a lot easier for a terrorist or nutcase to get one, no? Not every "criminally inclined" person has the know-how to build and install one of those things. This isn't about assuaging the fears of a few, first of all I suspect it's more than a few, and even though it does not eliminate the problem, it does mitigate it somewhat and makes it less easy. If the rest of us are somewhat unduly burdened, well that's a decision that we'll have to make. Do I want/need the silencer/suppressor that bad?

 

[Osiris-ODS]

1. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm guessing the feds can pretty much regulate whatever they want to, up until the SCOTUS says no, you can't. I don't know if requiring a silencer/suppressor to be registered is the same as regulating it, but I would imagine it's the same thing as buying the gun that you put in on.

I am a lawyer. The rule is, if there's a substantial likelihood that a product will cross state lines, the Commerce Clause is triggered, allowing the federal government to exercise its lawmaking authority. That is the reason the federal government is allowed to designate drugs like marijuana schedule I narcotics under the Controlled Substances Act, which trumps state law concerning legality of marijuana, such as state "compassionate use" acts (though the federal government has ceded much of its authority concerning that particular aspect in recent years). That said, see Gonzales v. Raich, where the Supreme Court last ruled that the federal government's scheduling of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the CSA trumps California's compassionate use act based on the Commerce Clause. Anyone interested in the scope of the federal government's powers should read this case, which explains the Commerce Clause quite well (even how it can be arbitrarily and capriciously triggered by the federal government to exercise federal authority over matters that are clearly preserved for the states under the 10th Amendment). A copy of the decision can be read here:

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)

 

[M14 Shooter]

The undue burden argument is a tough sell IMHO, because you can still buy the gun and use it. Which means your right to bear arms isn't infringed.

Interesting.
By that argument, so long as woman can still have an abortion, restriction on abortions do not infringe on said right.

 

[task0778]

Doesn't matter. I think you know that federal law trumps (no pun intended) state law.

I suppose so, but I'm not a lawyer.

I was under the impression that if the item was made in, and stays in the state, the feds can not regulate it.

I wouldn't really give a shit about the extra $200 tax, but when even the fucking french can buy suppressors right off the shelf? Seems obnoxious that we have to pay extra and jump through the hoops, especially when we really are just talking about a device that lowers the muzzle blast 30 dbl.

My buddy's .300BLK is still loud enough that you need ear protection if you're going to do any sustained shooting.


.

1. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm guessing the feds can pretty much regulate whatever they want to, up until the SCOTUS says no, you can't. I don't know if requiring a silencer/suppressor to be registered is the same as regulating it, but I would imagine it's the same thing as buying the gun that you put in on.

2. No offense intended, but I couldn't care less what the French do.

3. Silencers/suppressors are designed to reduce the noise, right? There are some situations where that's a good thing, like legally hunting hogs or whatever. But there are also some bad situations where people do not hear the shots being fired thanks to a silencer/suppressor, and therefore do not have the warning to get the hell out of dodge or hide somewhere if they can't leave. In this day and age, should we make it easier and quicker for a terrorist or nutcase to get a silencer/suppressor by repealing that federal law? Is it worth even one life if people have to pay $200 and wait 8-12 months?

Real patriots aren't in the habit of trading freedom, for security...

Well now, that depends on your definition of what designates a 'real patriot'.

 

[skews13]

Even the fuckin french can buy suppressors right off the shelf. Suppressors aren't "silencers". They barely reduce the sound of gunfire enough. When shooting subsonic ammunition you can still hear a distinct pop. Full power rifle rounds still require hearing protection. I think it's a shitty ruling.

Then, respectfully, you're wrong.

The 2nd Amendment was written as a bulwark against a tyrannical, over-reaching government, not for your, or anybody else's personal pleasure.

Not for hunting. Not for collectors, not for target shooting, not for anything other than to protect The Rights of The People from an aggressive government.

If Venezuela had a 2nd Amendment, or North Korea, or Cuba, or virtually any other socialist shithole.........

We do. It's why socialists are so set on removing, damaging or otherwise taking down the 2nd.

Silencers is a Bridge Too Far

We certainly disagree then. I don't see where a suppressor goes too far. I know plenty of people who have one or more. That asshole in Virginia did not have any more of advantage in using one.

That wasn't the best part. This was.

Monday's order also means the high court is skipping out on a chance to rule on the scope of gun laws and protections: The federal law being challenged also requires the registration of some firearms.

 

[task0778]

The undue burden argument is a tough sell IMHO, because you can still buy the gun and use it. Which means your right to bear arms isn't infringed.

Interesting.
By that argument, so long as woman can still have an abortion, restriction on abortions do not infringe on said right.

No, that's two different issues and a bullshit argument. How about we stick to the discussion about gun silencers/suppressors. I won't be responding further to this nonsense.