SCOTUS upholds federal silencer law

[Osiris-ODS]

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.

The NFA of 1934 requires the registration of fully automatic weapons (aka, machine guns). That has always been the case for practically anyone alive today. It does not require registration of weapons that are semi automatic such as AR-15s, etc. Nothing new there, if that's what you're suggesting. Some have called for the blanket repeal of the NFA, which SCOTUS simply declined to hear.

 

[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...

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?

It wouldn’t bother me a bit, if they handed them out like candy. I know what they are. And what they aren’t. I know what they can do. And can’t do.
And anyone with internet acces can instantly pull up how to schematics at will. It isn’t a highly technical piece of kit.

 

[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.

No, that's two different issues and a bullshit argument.

Nope. Same-same.
Your standard is as long as you can (exercise a right) that right is not infringed.
That being the case, there's no argument against waiting periods, permits, registration. licensing, mandatory education, etc, for abortions, because a woman can still have one.

I won't be responding further to this nonsense.

Be sure to tuck that tail nice and tight as you run away.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Wow! We agree leave this decision to the local communities. I can't think of a "Lawful" use or need for a silencer. IMHO the more noise the mother makes the better! I wanna know when someone is shooting close by...….. So I can run for cover and not get shot. Chicago should require louder guns I guess ! Banning them obviously hasn't worked! Just sayin'

When did it become the bill of 'lawful use or needs'?

If a silencer has no effect on the use of a gun, what is the purpose of banning one?

 

[Flash]

I have several dozen firearms and do a tremendous amount of shooting. I am a certified firearms instructor and range officer. I have Class III machine guns but I don't have a silencer.

I don't have a silencer because they aren't very effective. I have seen and shot many of them over the years and they don't work very well. They are sound reducers, not silencers. They really don't reduce the sound all that much, even the expensive ones. At least not in a rifle or pistol with any power to it. They also add a lot of weight to a gun and interferes with accuracy and in many cases the cycling ability of semi autos. They also get plugged up pretty damn fast.

Hollywood has made silencers to be effective but in real life they are not.

The only effective ones I have seen have been for .22 rifles and pistols. If you have a varmint around your home that you want to dispatch a silenced .22 can help without disturbing your neighbors too much.

However, the filthy government has absolutely no business restricting the silencers and making you pay a stupid tax to own one. That is unconstitutional.

The filthy government needs to start apply stick scrutiny to the right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights. Stop being Liberal assholes to undermine our Liberties. .

 

[Pete7469]

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.

Remington 220 grain stuff, it's borderline sonic still cracks loud enough at a 200 yard range. It's a great hog gun though, you can fire it a few times without it bothering you much.

I have a .45 LC Carbine that you can shoot all day without worrying about your ears. My .22 is much louder.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 ******* 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?

“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.”

Correct.

It’s the doctrine of presumed constitutionality – all laws and measures are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, ultimately the Supreme Court.

The doctrine is predicated on a deference to the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Consequently, the NFA/ATF policies concerning suppressers and class III weapons are neither un-Constitutional nor do they violate the Second Amendment.

It is appropriate to note, however, certain inconsistencies with the reasoning involved.

For example, the lower court held that suppressors are not ‘bearable arms’ entitled to Second Amendment protections.

But magazines are not ‘bearable arms’ yet they are subject to judicial review – the same can be said for ammunition.

 

[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.

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.

In 1934 per capita annual income was $5,565.00 – the $200 tax stamp rendered the NFA a de facto ban on fully automatic weapons for the vast majority of Americans.

The Court’s refusal to hear the challenge to the NFA is consistent with its refusal to hear other Second Amendment cases – the High Court clearly doesn’t consider this and other issues ripe for review, it considers Second Amendment jurisprudence to be in its infancy, and the Court is content to allow that jurisprudence to continue to evolve over the coming decades among the lower and state courts.

Whether one considers the law to be good or bad doesn’t change the fact that the law is excessive government overreach – it’s unnecessary, unwarranted, and nothing but a ‘solution’ in search of a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist with regard to suppressors.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Stupid ruling.

Why? A silencer is no more dangerous than a baseball bat.

Seems like a good ruling to me