Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to U.S. gun silencer law

[OpportunityCost]

It helps poachers

Irrelevant.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[vegas giants]

Irrelevant.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Opinion noted and dismissed

 

[OpportunityCost]

Opinion noted and dismissed

Since you haven't addressed my primary point, that government needs to provide need to ban, people don't have to provide need to do what they want, it makes no sense for you to dismiss anything.

 

[pamak]

Since you haven't addressed my primary point, that government needs to provide need to ban, people don't have to provide need to do what they want, it makes no sense for you to dismiss anything.

Why do you expect other to address your point when you dismiss without any explanation their points as being"irrelevant"?

His point was that a government has an interest in discouraging poaching! If you find this justification as being insufficient make your point.We know that environmental considerations are used to prohibit different things, including the hunting and fishing of certain kinds of animals and fish. Apparently, that was enough of justification and such measures were not stopped by legal decisions.

 

[vegas giants]

Since you haven't addressed my primary point, that government needs to provide need to ban, people don't have to provide need to do what they want, it makes no sense for you to dismiss anything.

To prevent poaching

 

[TurtleDude]

Why do you expect other to address your point when you dismiss without any explanation their points as being"irrelevant"?

His point was that a government has an interest in discouraging poaching! If you find this justification as being insufficient make your point.We know that environmental considerations are used to prohibit different things, including the hunting and fishing of certain kinds of animals and fish. Apparently, that was enough of justification and such measures were not stopped by legal decisions.

Do you have an understanding of the poaching angle? It comes from the days of massive hardship in the early 30s and yes, some people-trying to feed their families-used suppressed firearms to poach game or -in more cases-kill cattle. In many of the few actual cases, if these people were charged, the juries of their peers acquitted them. Game wardens and agricultural inspectors pushed for suppressors be de facto banned so they could lodge federal charges against poachers

BTW its not a problem these days. Most "poachers" use jack lights and 22s to illegally kill deer.

 

[OpportunityCost]

To prevent poaching

You can prevent drunk driving by banning alcohol...or cars.

It doesn't mean you should or it won't have unintended consequences.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why do you expect other to address your point when you dismiss without any explanation their points as being"irrelevant"?

His point was that a government has an interest in discouraging poaching! If you find this justification as being insufficient make your point.We know that environmental considerations are used to prohibit different things, including the hunting and fishing of certain kinds of animals and fish. Apparently, that was enough of justification and such measures were not stopped by legal decisions.

Oh, just ban the guns too. I'm sure that will solve it. You miss the point, you don't get to violate the rights of citizens to get at criminals. The criminals are already engaged in illegal activity, logically it follows the only thing you will accomplish will be to violate the rights of citizens.

 

[Lursa]

Actually, silencers are quite useful, but too many people believe all the Hollywood hype that silencers "silence" guns. They don't. They take about 10-15 db off the noise. The purpose of silencers is to protect hearing. The Supreme Court must have been at the gun range without ear protection, because they are certainly deaf on this issue.

For home defense, just as important is the reduction of vision from muzzle flash. The silencer reduces the flash as well as the noise...and you need your vision when defending yourself and family.

It's a stupid law, just like laws against hollow points. People only consider the obvious (and usually the movie version)...and not reality.

 

[Lursa]

Which has absolutely not a thing to do with whether there exists any real legitimate need or reason for a private citizen to own one.

Sure it does...it reduces muzzle flash, enabling a homeowner to see their targets better when being burglarized at night...thus having a better chance of protecting their family.

 

[Lursa]

You're not answering the question. What legitimate need or reason exists for private citizens to own silencers that outweighs the greater public good a ban on them would bring? Hint: Because you can is not good enough or legitimate reason.

What, specifically, is the harm to 'the public good' from silencers?

 

[Lursa]

Plus, they're really handy for mowing down people as well. Wouldn't want to stop people from exercising their God-given rights to do that, would we?

Why should the people trying to protect themselves be put at a greater disadvantage with less? I've been cornered by 3 men in a parking garage. I wasnt armed at the time. If other people hadnt come in and scared them off, do you think that 18 bullets would have been enough? With everyone moving and hiding behind cars? Are you aware that 1 shot rarely stops someone immediately (despite what you see in the movies)? Have you ever read any accounts of actual firefights? There's a famous FBI one that would be very enlightening for you...the criminals took multiple .45 rounds and kept coming.

Previously posted:

Here is a seemingly minor regulation that people feel is 'harmless' to the average law-abiding gun owner. Limiting magazine capacity to 10 bullets. Seems pretty reasonable, right? Who needs more than 10 bullets, right?

Here's why we need more than 10 bullets:

--It's a fact that even trained police miss frequently in shoot outs.

--It's a fact that in a real life attacks, people are usually moving and screaming and being jostled and it's very hard to aim accurately.

--It's a fact that there are often multiple attackers in a situation.

--It's a fact that, unlike in the movies or TV, a single shot rarely stops an attacker. They may die later, but not immediately, and they keep attacking. It usually takes multiple shots to STOP the danger. That is why cops are taught to shoot at least 3 times immediately: 2 to the chest, 1 to the head.

So that will use up 10 bullets pretty darn fast. So it's not such a 'reasonable' regulation. It puts me and every other law-abiding citizen at a grave disadvantage (one that the criminals wont be hampered by...they'll still keep their higher capacity magazines)*​

 

[vegas giants]

You can prevent drunk driving by banning alcohol...or cars.

It doesn't mean you should or it won't have unintended consequences.

That's nice. So what

 

[vegas giants]

What, specifically, is the harm to 'the public good' from silencers?

It helps poachers

 

[vegas giants]

Oh, just ban the guns too. I'm sure that will solve it. You miss the point, you don't get to violate the rights of citizens to get at criminals. The criminals are already engaged in illegal activity, logically it follows the only thing you will accomplish will be to violate the rights of citizens.

Well then they better not ban anthrax or other chemical arms

 

[OpportunityCost]

Well then they better not ban anthrax or other chemical arms

They don't have a legitimate use. You are new to this debate with logic thing, aren't you?

 

[vegas giants]

They don't have a legitimate use. You are new to this debate with logic thing, aren't you?

They are arms.

Shall not be infringed.


Merica

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Since you haven't addressed my primary point, that government needs to provide need to ban, people don't have to provide need to do what they want, it makes no sense for you to dismiss anything.

I get what you intend to say, but possibly you should find a better word than "need".

After all, there was no "NEED" to abolish slavery - was there? And there was no "NEED" to enact either the 11[SUP]th[/SUP], 12[SUP]th[/SUP], 13[SUP]th[/SUP], 14[SUP]th[/SUP], 15[SUP]th[/SUP], 16[SUP]th[/SUP], 17[SUP]th[/SUP], 18[SUP]th[/SUP], 19[SUP]th[/SUP], 20[SUP]th[/SUP], 21[SUP]st[/SUP], 22[SUP]nd[/SUP], 23[SUP]rd[/SUP], 24[SUP]th[/SUP], 25[SUP]th[/SUP], 26[SUP]th[/SUP], or the 27[SUP]th[/SUP], Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[pamak]

Oh, just ban the guns too. I'm sure that will solve it. You miss the point, you don't get to violate the rights of citizens to get at criminals. The criminals are already engaged in illegal activity, logically it follows the only thing you will accomplish will be to violate the rights of citizens.

But apparently, based on the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene silencers are not protected by the Second Amendment and we do not have a violation of a fundamental right here. From what I know, when you say that the government has to show a need to ban something, this is true when the ban (or any legislation in general) violates some fundamental right.

In SUCH case, the government has to show certain things such as that the ban serves an important public interest and that this interest can only be served with such ban (and not by another less intrusive legislation). There is some legal term for such justification which should satisfy strict standards (strict scrutiny test).

On the other hand, when the legislation does not affect a fundamental right, the standard of justification are less strict. In such cases, if the legislation served a rational government objective, such as for "public safety," or environmental concerns, the legislation is constitutional.


Rational Basis Test | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute


Overview
The rational basis test is a judicial review test. A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.

The Requirements of the Test
To pass the rational basis test, the statute or ordinance must have a legitimate state interest, and there must be a rational connection between the statute's/ordinance's means and goals.

Rational Basis Test Comparison
There are three judicial review tests: the rational basis test, the intermediate scrutiny test, and the strict scrutiny test. The intermediate scrutiny test and the strict scrutiny test are considered more stringent than the rational basis test.

The rational basis test is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I get what you intend to say, but possibly you should find a better word than "need".

After all, there was no "NEED" to abolish slavery - was there? And there was no "NEED" to enact either the 11[SUP]th[/SUP], 12[SUP]th[/SUP], 13[SUP]th[/SUP], 14[SUP]th[/SUP], 15[SUP]th[/SUP], 16[SUP]th[/SUP], 17[SUP]th[/SUP], 18[SUP]th[/SUP], 19[SUP]th[/SUP], 20[SUP]th[/SUP], 21[SUP]st[/SUP], 22[SUP]nd[/SUP], 23[SUP]rd[/SUP], 24[SUP]th[/SUP], 25[SUP]th[/SUP], 26[SUP]th[/SUP], or the 27[SUP]th[/SUP], Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Such a ridiculously wide stance that you have one foot on Spain and the other on Florida.

 

[OpportunityCost]

But apparently, based on the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene silencers are not protected by the Second Amendment and we do not have a violation of a fundamental right here. From what I know, when you say that the government has to show a need to ban something, this is true when the ban (or any legislation in general) violates some fundamental right.

In SUCH case, the government has to show certain things such as that the ban serves an important public interest and that this interest can only be served with such ban (and not by another less intrusive legislation). There is some legal term for such justification which should satisfy strict standards (strict scrutiny test).

On the other hand, when the legislation does not affect a fundamental right, the standard of justification are less strict. In such cases, if the legislation served a rational government objective, such as for "public safety," or environmental concerns, the legislation is constitutional.


Rational Basis Test | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute


Overview
The rational basis test is a judicial review test. A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.

The Requirements of the Test
To pass the rational basis test, the statute or ordinance must have a legitimate state interest, and there must be a rational connection between the statute's/ordinance's means and goals.

Rational Basis Test Comparison
There are three judicial review tests: the rational basis test, the intermediate scrutiny test, and the strict scrutiny test. The intermediate scrutiny test and the strict scrutiny test are considered more stringent than the rational basis test.

The rational basis test is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue.

You're aware that most state judges have been ignoring strict scrutiny for anything gun related for decades, right?

 

[MauiMan]

From United Press International

Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to U.S. gun silencer law
​

June 10 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court declined requests Monday to consider a challenge that says firearm silencers are protected under the Second Amendment, and therefore owners should not be required to register them.

Two cases are behind the challenge, from two men who were convicted of failing to register their silencers. The high court's unanimous decision affirms an appeals court ruling that upheld the men's convictions, saying silencers are not "bearable" arms protected by the Constitution.

The case was brought by Army surplus store owner Shane Cox, who made unregistered homemade silencers, and customer Jeremy Kettler, who bought one. They were convicted of violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which requires silencers be registered and taxes paid to the government. The law makes it harder to acquire or sell a silencer, but does not constitute a ban. Eight states and Washington, D.C., do ban silencers.

The ruling came less than two weeks after authorities say a worker used a handgun and silencer to kill 12 people in Virginia Beach, Va. on May 31.

COMMENT:-

What an absolutely asinine ruling!!! Everyone knows that the Founding Fathers were 100% on board with the Original Intent that silencers were an essential part of the ability of the average person to resist an oppressive and tyrannical socialist government that had abandoned all traditional (and biblically sanctioned) morality and social order. Not only that but silencers are an absolutely essential adjunct to any hunter's equipment and here we have a bunch of left-wing, libtard, socialist, pinko, commie judicial activists trampling all over every American's 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment **R*I*G*H*T*S**!!!

Isn't it time that Mr. Trump tossed them all out of office and put in some **R*E*A*L** "People's Judges" so that the country can return to the peace, prosperity, economic order, and social order that it had when the Founding Fathers first established the world's first (and still only) Republic "With Liberty and Justice For All" (as long as you were White, Male, and Christian)?

[The above officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]​

The Court simply did not grant certiorari—that is their judicial prerogative. Apparently, these cases were not even worthy of review. The Supreme Court is not a bunch of political hacks. Here’s the link to the certiorari denial:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061019zor_3dq4.pdf

 

[pamak]

You're aware that most state judges have been ignoring strict scrutiny for anything gun related for decades, right?

Then, by your own admission, the government does not need to apply strict criteria to justify the restrictions it imposes in certain areas. And just to clarify things, here we do not talk about a state court in a liberal state. Here we talk about the Supreme Court which did not think that it was important to spend time hearing a legal challenge against silencers.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Then, by your own admission, the government does not need to apply strict criteria to justify the restrictions it imposes in certain areas. And just to clarify things, here we do not talk about a state court in a liberal state. Here we talk about the Supreme Court which did not think that it was important to spend time hearing a legal challenge against silencers.

I find it appalling. Its not an admission. That's the most dishonest piece of chicanery I've seen in a while. Its the foundation of why 2nd amendment cases get overturned, because state appellate courts are not applying the same scrutiny to 2nd amendment cases as they do other civil liberties.

 

[pamak]

I find it appalling. Its not an admission. That's the most dishonest piece of chicanery I've seen in a while. Its the foundation of why 2nd amendment cases get overturned, because state appellate courts are not applying the same scrutiny to 2nd amendment cases as they do other civil liberties.

But here we talk about a conservative Supreme Court.

By the way, the difference regarding the standards courts use for different cases to justify or not government legislation include things which I find way more important such as permitting gerrymandering for partisan reasons but not permitting it when it harms protected classes like racial groups. "Public safety" give a rational basis to justify the government regulation for silencers, and I do not see how the lack of a silencer harms somebody's ability to defend himself. On the other hand, I really do not see any reasonable basis to violate the principle of one person-one vote which has harmed so many voters across the country.