US attorney files brief suppressors aren't arms

[grandpapeepap]

If they aren't arms they can be just banned right? This doesnt seem very pro gun from the current admin.

 

[treelogger]

If they aren't arms they can be just banned right? This doesnt seem very pro gun from the current admin.

If they aren't arms, they are not protected by the 2A. Therefore any normal federal or state product regulation becomes possible. On the other hand, it probably wipes out the current federal NFA regulation. Would congress replace that with something new? Given how dysfunctional congress is (now even more than usual), anything is possible. And once the protection under the 2A expires, it's quite possible that some other federal agency tasked with regulation (such as EPA, OSHA or CPSC) would regulate suppressors, without needing congress to act.

And: Above I said that the 2A might protect arms from certain forms of regulation. But as Heller shows, not all forms of regulation; the Heller decision explicitly talked about "dangerous and unusual". And Heller is now over 15 years old, yet state bans on suppressors (and assault weapons) have so far mostly survived legal challenges. With Bruen, that might change. But I don't think Bruen is all that powerful. For example, as Bruen relies to a large extent on "you have to find an example of a pre-1875 law that matches", the fact that some state had an excise tax on muskets that are not useful for militia service as early as 17xx pretty much means that most modern excise taxes (such as our particularly despised California 11%) is likely constitutional. Oops.

So all in all, I think this decision amounts to a nothing-burger for California, and at best to minor changes for the other states, but it could be bad.

The value I see in this decision is that it may make gun law a little more logical at the federal level. Declaring a suppressor to be a firearm was insane: It is not, since by itself it does not lob bullets in any direction. The same argument can be used against declaring AR upper receivers in 50BMG caliber to be firearms (I think that happened at the state level): again, it's illogical that one particular upper caliber is a firearm, while all the others aren't. While I hate to agree with an airhead like Mrs. Bondi on anything, her department's support for this might actually end up on the correct side of history.

Finally: Discussing whether the Trump administration is pro-gun or anti-gun falls squarely in realm of politics, which we should not discuss here.

 

[Tank Mechanic]

A drop in auto sear for an AR-15 is classified as a machine gun. It clearly is not.

 

[grandpapeepap]

If they aren't arms, they are not protected by the 2A. Therefore any normal federal or state product regulation becomes possible. On the other hand, it probably wipes out the current federal NFA regulation. Would congress replace that with something new? Given how dysfunctional congress is (now even more than usual), anything is possible. And once the protection under the 2A expires, it's quite possible that some other federal agency tasked with regulation (such as EPA, OSHA or CPSC) would regulate suppressors, without needing congress to act.

And: Above I said that the 2A might protect arms from certain forms of regulation. But as Heller shows, not all forms of regulation; the Heller decision explicitly talked about "dangerous and unusual". And Heller is now over 15 years old, yet state bans on suppressors (and assault weapons) have so far mostly survived legal challenges. With Bruen, that might change. But I don't think Bruen is all that powerful. For example, as Bruen relies to a large extent on "you have to find an example of a pre-1875 law that matches", the fact that some state had an excise tax on muskets that are not useful for militia service as early as 17xx pretty much means that most modern excise taxes (such as our particularly despised California 11%) is likely constitutional. Oops.

So all in all, I think this decision amounts to a nothing-burger for California, and at best to minor changes for the other states, but it could be bad.

The value I see in this decision is that it may make gun law a little more logical at the federal level. Declaring a suppressor to be a firearm was insane: It is not, since by itself it does not lob bullets in any direction. The same argument can be used against declaring AR upper receivers in 50BMG caliber to be firearms (I think that happened at the state level): again, it's illogical that one particular upper caliber is a firearm, while all the others aren't. While I hate to agree with an airhead like Mrs. Bondi on anything, her department's support for this might actually end up on the correct side of history.

Finally: Discussing whether the Trump administration is pro-gun or anti-gun falls squarely in realm of politics, which we should not discuss here.

If they arent protected by the 2a they can just be banned out right, Federally or at State level. They have no protections like bump stocks which were banned by EO and no grandfather clause.

A drop in auto sear for an AR-15 is classified as a machine gun. It clearly is not.

Congress said it is by law, just like suppressors are arms. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

 

[Librarian]

Report today that DOJ wants to reconsider that expressed position.

BREAKING: DOJ Backs Off on Claim Suppressors Aren't Covered by 2A

It was just a couple of days ago when Cam took issue with a DOJ attorney claiming that suppressors w

bearingarms.com

 

[grandpapeepap]

Report today that DOJ wants to reconsider that expressed position.

BREAKING: DOJ Backs Off on Claim Suppressors Aren't Covered by 2A

It was just a couple of days ago when Cam took issue with a DOJ attorney claiming that suppressors w

bearingarms.com

I read last night they were gonna do a 180, wonder if it has to do with the ATF new chief counsel a pro 2a lawyer type. Robert Leider