What’s Happening to Suppressors?
BY Herschel Smith
20 hours, 30 minutes ago
I don’t know. Len Savage sends this.
I guess it’s complicated, but according to Mike, it would be a good thing for suppressors to remain under consideration as firearms because then it warrants 2A protection.
I still want to see suppressors off the NFA. For hearing protection. For me. For the children.
|
|
On March 20, 2025 at 3:16 am, Miles said:
Yes, they should – at least – be out from under NFA regs.
They really should not even be ‘firearms’ although they’re defined as such by current law.
The deal is that the gun grabbers are trying to say that magazines and now cans aren’t ‘arms’ (although by any definition they are part and parcel of armaments which includes accoutrements) and thus can be regulated and banned because only ‘arms’ are provided protection by the 2nd amendment.
It’s a rack on which the corrupt bureaucraps, judges and justices in our legal system will hang their hats to try to restrict the rights of the people to continue to exert whatever control they can still muster.
On March 20, 2025 at 3:58 am, Joe Blow said:
Its a tube made of metal with some baffles in it….
Sigh, this really gets tiresome. I DO NOT understand stupid people:
Is it a firearm?
Then restricting its ownership and usage by citizenry is abhorrent to the 2nd Amendment and null and void.
Is it NOT a firearm?
Then why are there any restrictions or registrations required to own a metal tube?
Done. Are attorneys REALLY this stupid? Most of the ones I’ve met are pretty bright. Am I missing a part of the argument besides disgusting federal over-reach and abuse of powers? Cuz that’s all I see here.
On March 20, 2025 at 6:48 am, Latigo Morgan said:
Suppressor manufacturers don’t want to see them come off the NFA – profit margins will plummet.
“Stamp collectors” don’t want to see them come off the NFA – their investment value will plummet.
ATF doesn’t want to see them come off the NFA – they’ll lose an excuse to stomp kittens, kill family dogs and terrorize the citizenry.
On March 20, 2025 at 10:20 am, foot in the forest said:
It is a muffler and should be treated as such. MIDAS come to mind?
On March 20, 2025 at 12:08 pm, MTHead said:
Doesn’t the right to defend oneself include defending one’s hearing? Seems pretty basic to me.
And if you weren’t putting them on a firearm, which is covered by the 2A, no one would care what you had one for. Just like a magazine. If it didn’t go in a gun, no one would care.
This is the communist court acting in desperation. Plain and simple.
The real problem is a spineless SCOTUS. This could have all ended long ago with one ruling saying thus.
Shall not be infringed, bitches. You go to jail if you do. If the mob don’t hang you first, which would only be justice.
Communist crap ruling.
On March 20, 2025 at 4:00 pm, Michael (from Utah) said:
“The real problem is a spineless SCOTUS. This could have all ended long ago with one ruling saying thus.”
This statement is absolutely true, but the Supreme Court has always been mealy-mouthed in everything it publishes. It seems designed that way to keep the plebes under the thumb of the government.