Dangerous Ruling On Suppressors
- Thread starter Longshot231
- Start date
Then one wonders why the ATF will have any jurisdiction over suppressors....and same for NFA....if this ruling that they are not arms stands.
By extension then, they should be removed from the NFA.
The whole reason I printed out the 1934 NFA Hearings and had the pages bound was to pour through them to find where they discussed why silencers were even included. They never had any discussions about them that I have been able to find, but more importantly, the AG admitted on Day 1 that the provisions he was proposing are unconstitutional.
You could hand this over to a drunk bum of an attorney and kill the NFA using its proposers’ own words that were recorded before the Ways & Means committee.
It gets worse. AG Cummings stated that his way to work around the 2A was to make keeping & bearing the arms listed in the NFA only permissible by tying a tax to it.
Then the Asst AG proposed that the tax be made so high as to be inaccessible, thus achieving their actual goal of infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
You could hand this over to a drunk bum of an attorney and kill the NFA using its proposers’ own words that were recorded before the Ways & Means committee.
It gets worse. AG Cummings stated that his way to work around the 2A was to make keeping & bearing the arms listed in the NFA only permissible by tying a tax to it.
Then the Asst AG proposed that the tax be made so high as to be inaccessible, thus achieving their actual goal of infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
Last edited:
So hard to "like" that you're speaking the truth, and "hate" that the truth is so blatantly evil....
So the court declares a suppressor not a firearm so as to allow the ATF to prosecute someone for having an illegal firearm. Sounds about right.
Very steep slippery slope going down into a cesspit, just like red flag laws. If they can rule that suppressors are "not firearms", thus not protected under the 2nd, they can do the same with magazines, parts and components, and other essentials as well. This needs urgent national awareness and shining as much light on it as various Youtubers and podcasters had done is the first step.
Pretty sure there has already been federal rulings magazines are arms. I can't believe SC didn't hear the AR ban case.
The whole deal is appalling and is a matter time we will all get screwed over on this. Should be able to get an accessory without taxation bullshit.
Here is the actual opinion from the Fifth Circuit. It is pretty short and easy to read.
Unfortunately the current crop of Republicans do not have the backbone to get this done, and enough screeching Democrats would filibuster it in the Senate that it would be stopped even if they did have the backbone to push a bill out of committee.
There have been hearing protection type acts in every session for years now. They go nowhere.
Understatement of the year, but Trump appointed somebody who reflects his views on the Second Amendment, including red flag laws with no due process ahead of sending a SWAT team to seize guns.
I don’t own a suppressor but own a muzzle brake. A muzzle brake doesn’t require a tax stamp to purchase or own. Mine came with a Seekins SP10. But you can buy them separately with no tax stamp. Why are they treated differently? Neither a brake nor suppressor Is required for the firearm to function properly. Looks like just a politically driven difference of treatment?
Good point. The difference is politically driven.
Suppressors are deemed evil because they reduce the report of the firearm. The gun grabbers think that the level of sound reduction is that of a mouse fart. It's in all the John Wick movies so it must be true.
Similar threads
