Summary: NFA applies to silencers that have not moved in interstate commerce, no matter what state law says.
The good news: only probate, no jail time.
The bad news: prohibited possessors for life. (And probably financial ruin.)
https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/tent ... 8rv5jimcW0
So much for intrastate silencers
- smithers599
- ArizonaShooting.org Member
- Posts: 4406
- Joined: June 29th, 2018, 6:58 am
- Reputation: 23
- Location: East side
-
- ArizonaShooting.org Member
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: May 15th, 2018, 8:36 pm
- Reputation: 12
- Location: Tempe
Re: So much for intrastate silencers
Duh. Anyone testing that law was just begging to be made an example of.
- smithers599
- ArizonaShooting.org Member
- Posts: 4406
- Joined: June 29th, 2018, 6:58 am
- Reputation: 23
- Location: East side
Re: So much for intrastate silencers
When these laws were passed, the big question in my mind – and I’m sure others had the same thought as well – was not whether the federal government would choose to stomp on people who made unregistered silencers, SBRs, and machine guns while complying with these state laws, but how hard they would choose to stomp.
Re: So much for intrastate silencers
They should keep appealing it all the way to the supreme court where it is hopefully overturned.
-
- ArizonaShooting.org Member
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: May 15th, 2018, 8:36 pm
- Reputation: 12
- Location: Tempe
Re: So much for intrastate silencers
SCOTUS has historically (and recently with medical marijuana) upheld Federal law over state law...this won't change for suppressors.
- smithers599
- ArizonaShooting.org Member
- Posts: 4406
- Joined: June 29th, 2018, 6:58 am
- Reputation: 23
- Location: East side
Re: So much for intrastate silencers
I think there may actually be a little hope for an appeal to the Supreme Court. If you read the article, you see that the defendants argued that their 2A rights were violated. The court responded to that by saying that a silencer is not an "arm," therefore the rights to keep and bear "arms" are not implicated. To that, the plaintiffs pointed out that the NFA defines a silencer as a "firearm," so by the government's own definition, a silencer is an "arm." To that, the court said -- nothing. They covered up their ears and pretended they didn't hear that.
The court also said that the silencer was not an "arm" because it was just a component of an arm. So then, how is a receiver an "arm"?
The court also said that short-barreled rifles were different from long-barreled rifles because making the barrel shorter makes the bullet more destructive. ORLY?
This whole train of thought could lead to the NFA being ruled unconstitutional.
There is plenty of room here for an appeal, if the defendants can find somebody to bankroll them.
The court also said that the silencer was not an "arm" because it was just a component of an arm. So then, how is a receiver an "arm"?
The court also said that short-barreled rifles were different from long-barreled rifles because making the barrel shorter makes the bullet more destructive. ORLY?
This whole train of thought could lead to the NFA being ruled unconstitutional.
There is plenty of room here for an appeal, if the defendants can find somebody to bankroll them.
- XJThrottle
- ArizonaShooting.org Bronze Supporter
- Posts: 2900
- Joined: June 26th, 2018, 5:43 pm
- Reputation: 7
- Location: Phoemex
Re: So much for intrastate silencers
If the NFA was dissolved you wouldn't hear a single bitching peep out of me about the money I've already spent on stamps.