• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to Silencer Laws

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Looks to be Trump driven.

Challengers in the case believe the Second Amendment protects such firearm accessories. An appeals court had held that a silencer is not a "bearable" arm protected by the Constitution.

The case comes as a silencer was used during the recent Virginia Beach massacre and President Donald Trump suggested he'd look into restrictions on gun silencers. The Trump administration had also urged the court not to take up the issue.

Silencer law challenges rejected by Supreme Court - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

I have to admit. This comes as a bit of a surprise...but, a rather welcome one.
 
Typical of government in general. Kick the can down the road as far as possible until the problem can’t be ignored anymore then act, usually a decade too late.
 
This comes up every so often. The interest in using a "silencer" is filled with misinformation, standing next to a gun with a silencer still sounds similar to a nail gun going off.

As for the Constitutionality of a silencer, that is a problematic conversation. If you conclude that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is absolute with no limits including modifications and attachments then you would side with the challenge.

But, we already know that is false... and as such the Supreme Court leaving the appeals court decision to stand without hearing the case makes sense.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This comes up every so often. The interest in using a "silencer" is filled with misinformation, standing next to a gun with a silencer still sounds similar to a nail gun going off.

As for the Constitutionality of a silencer, that is a problematic conversation. If you conclude that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is absolute with no limits including modifications and attachments then you would side with the challenge.

But, we already know that is false... and as such the Supreme Court leaving the appeals court decision to stand without hearing the case makes sense.
Click to expand...

Yes. The 2nd has limits. Of course, few people on the gun side of the argument agree with those limits. But, it is what it is.
 
calamity said:
I have to admit. This comes as a bit of a surprise...but, a rather welcome one.
Click to expand...

Welcome for you perhaps but not for everybody.

And Trump was talking about the Hearing Protection Act as one of his goals as POTUS. Trump is looking more and more like an anti gun rights wolf in pro gun rights clothing.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This comes up every so often. The interest in using a "silencer" is filled with misinformation, standing next to a gun with a silencer still sounds similar to a nail gun going off.
Click to expand...

That's why calling such a device a "silencer" is inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive. The proper term is "suppressor" as that's what it does, it does not make a gun silent. Even Hollywood doesn't tell such a lie.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This comes up every so often. The interest in using a "silencer" is filled with misinformation, standing next to a gun with a silencer still sounds similar to a nail gun going off.

As for the Constitutionality of a silencer, that is a problematic conversation. If you conclude that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is absolute with no limits including modifications and attachments then you would side with the challenge.

But, we already know that is false... and as such the Supreme Court leaving the appeals court decision to stand without hearing the case makes sense.
Click to expand...

the application of the second amendment-a complete ban on federal restrictions-because the federal government never had any proper power in that area in the first place-is easy and was only complicated due to a dishonest FDR court. At a state level, the class between incorporation and existing state police powers is going to create court confusion and controversy for years. I think the Supreme Court realizes many state actions have gone beyond proper police powers and now are in conflict with the incorporated second amendment rights, but they are looking for the right case to engage in another McDonald level pronouncement.

There really is no legitimate reason for a state to ban suppressors that have been purchased pursuant to the NFA. at a national level, the NFA is an abomination and violates the second. At a state level, that sort of requirement, is more of a gray area
 
There is a simple solution in the eight States (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming) that enacted their version of the Firearms Freedom Act. Residents of those states can build their own firearms, including silencers or any other firearm accessory, completely free of federal regulation. That includes fully automatic machine guns.
 
Glitch said:
There is a simple solution in the eight States (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming) that enacted their version of the Firearms Freedom Act. Residents of those states can build their own firearms, including silencers or any other firearm accessory, completely free of federal regulation. That includes fully automatic machine guns.
Click to expand...

If the federal government was honest, that is absolutely true. The federal government's dishonest mutation of the commerce clause, should not have any empowerment action in those states concerning firearms.
 
Glitch said:
There is a simple solution in the eight States (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming) that enacted their version of the Firearms Freedom Act. Residents of those states can build their own firearms, including silencers or any other firearm accessory, completely free of federal regulation. That includes fully automatic machine guns.
Click to expand...

And you can be arrested by the feds for possession
 
vegas giants said:
And you can be arrested by the feds for possession
Click to expand...

Actually, according to the Firearms Freedom Act that Wyoming enacted into law, if any federal agent were to attempt to arrest anyone in Wyoming for possessing a firearm that was made wholly within the State of Wyoming the State authorities would arrest the federal agent. It is written into their law.

The federal government has no authority over any product that is manufactured, sold, and used wholly within a given State. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution only gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce.
 
Glitch said:
Actually, according to the Firearms Freedom Act that Wyoming enacted into law, if any federal agent were to attempt to arrest anyone in Wyoming for possessing a firearm that was made wholly within the State of Wyoming the State authorities would arrest the federal agent. It is written into their law.

The federal government has no authority over any product that is manufactured, sold, and used wholly within a given State. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution only gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce.
Click to expand...

See wickard v filburn. This was decided over 80 years ago and allows for federal regulation of inter and and intra state commerce.

I would love it if they arrested a federal agent. They would get smacked down do fast it would make your head swim
 
vegas giants said:
See wickard v filburn. This was decided over 80 years ago and allows for federal regulation of inter and and intra state commerce.

I would love it if they arrested a federal agent. They would get smacked down do fast it would make your head swim
Click to expand...

We've been over this. You were wrong then, and you are just as wrong now.
 
Glitch said:
Actually, according to the Firearms Freedom Act that Wyoming enacted into law, if any federal agent were to attempt to arrest anyone in Wyoming for possessing a firearm that was made wholly within the State of Wyoming the State authorities would arrest the federal agent. It is written into their law.

The federal government has no authority over any product that is manufactured, sold, and used wholly within a given State. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution only gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce.
Click to expand...

Several states are trying to give the sloth-like Supreme court a kick in the ass: hoping it will wake up and start doing its job a bit better and faster
 
TurtleDude said:
Several states are trying to give the sloth-like Supreme court a kick in the ass: hoping it will wake up and start doing its job a bit better and faster
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court did their job in their landmark decision of United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). That decision ended 50 years of Congress' domination over all commerce in the US, and reigned Congress in to their constitutional authority. Which is only to regulate interstate and international commerce. All intrastate commerce is off-limits to Congress. Pay no attention to anything vegas giants may have said, he knows absolutely nothing about either the US Constitution or the Supreme Court decisions. He just likes to pretend that he does, but it is very obvious that he has read nothing on the subject.

On a side note, Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) is particularly interesting to read, and slaps Congress down hard on their prior abuse of the Commerce Clause.
 
Glitch said:
The Supreme Court did their job in their landmark decision of United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). That decision ended 50 years of Congress' domination over all commerce in the US, and reigned Congress in to their constitutional authority. Which is only to regulate interstate and international commerce. All intrastate commerce is off-limits to Congress. Pay no attention to anything vegas giants may have said, he knows absolutely nothing about either the US Constitution or the Supreme Court decisions. He just likes to pretend that he does, but it is very obvious that he has read nothing on the subject.

On a side note, Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) is particularly interesting to read, and slaps Congress down hard on their prior abuse of the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

And yet federal gun control still exists long after Lopez and is enforced all the time. You have no clue what the Lopez ruling means if you think it overturns wickard. That is laughable. Anyone with even the slightest amount of legal knowledge will correct you on this.

Current federal gun control is active, enforced and completely constitutional.

But I did enjoy that laugh
 
calamity said:
Yes. The 2nd has limits. Of course, few people on the gun side of the argument agree with those limits. But, it is what it is.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by OrphanSlug
"no limits including modifications and attachments then you would side with the challenge"
Click to expand...
So if this was so,what happens when it comes to the 1st amendment? their does seem to be an awful lot of "modifications and attachments" in that regard. Public speeches=soap boxes=megaphones=telephone=telegraph(maybe other way around)=computer=cellphone=NSA eavesdropping but you get what I mean. 2nd Amendment=redheaded stepchild?
 
zsu2357 said:
So if this was so,what happens when it comes to the 1st amendment? their does seem to be an awful lot of "modifications and attachments" in that regard. Public speeches=soap boxes=megaphones=telephone=telegraph(maybe other way around)=computer=cellphone=NSA eavesdropping but you get what I mean. 2nd Amendment=redheaded stepchild?
Click to expand...

The first amendment has lots of restrictions and modifications
 
Glitch said:
Actually, according to the Firearms Freedom Act that Wyoming enacted into law, if any federal agent were to attempt to arrest anyone in Wyoming for possessing a firearm that was made wholly within the State of Wyoming the State authorities would arrest the federal agent. It is written into their law.

The federal government has no authority over any product that is manufactured, sold, and used wholly within a given State. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution only gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce.
Click to expand...

Marijuana is legal in some states but the federal government can still come in and bust people. Do you really think it would be any different if the feds got a bug up their arses for home made guns?
 
Glitch said:
Actually, according to the Firearms Freedom Act that Wyoming enacted into law, if any federal agent were to attempt to arrest anyone in Wyoming for possessing a firearm that was made wholly within the State of Wyoming the State authorities would arrest the federal agent. It is written into their law.

The federal government has no authority over any product that is manufactured, sold, and used wholly within a given State. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution only gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce.
Click to expand...

Scotus has disagreed with you. Even Scalia
 
Glitch said:
The Supreme Court did their job in their landmark decision of United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995). That decision ended 50 years of Congress' domination over all commerce in the US, and reigned Congress in to their constitutional authority. Which is only to regulate interstate and international commerce. All intrastate commerce is off-limits to Congress. Pay no attention to anything vegas giants may have said, he knows absolutely nothing about either the US Constitution or the Supreme Court decisions. He just likes to pretend that he does, but it is very obvious that he has read nothing on the subject.

On a side note, Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) is particularly interesting to read, and slaps Congress down hard on their prior abuse of the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

Sorry.. Raich V Gonzalez proves you wrong.
 
jaeger19 said:
Scotus has disagreed with you. Even Scalia
Click to expand...

Scalia was afraid to overturn bogus precedent if that would cause "social upheavals". Gun control is a gray area there. Social security or Title VII is not
 
DebateChallenge said:
That's why calling such a device a "silencer" is inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive. The proper term is "suppressor" as that's what it does, it does not make a gun silent. Even Hollywood doesn't tell such a lie.
Click to expand...
Right on all counts,but I've see to many movies that make them sound like a BB gun.
 
zsu2357 said:
Right on all counts,but I've see to many movies that make them sound like a BB gun.
Click to expand...

Lisle Carbines shooting subsonic 45ACP are not much louder than a cap gun
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom