Imagine years and years of zero silencer availability

N555

N555

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,554
Location
New Mexico and Texas panhandle
We have 8 states ran by the authoritarians that ban private ownership of silencers.
Just think what's going to happen when (not if) the big court strikes down those laws. Now there's 2 cases in Illinois.
Morris v Raul
And
Anderson v Raul
If just the Illinois ban is struck down they will buy every silencer in inventory everywhere probably overnight.
There's almost 13 million people in Illinois.
California 40 million
NY 20 million
NJ 9 million
Mass 7 million
DE 1 million
HI 1.5 million
RI 1 million
That about 92 million let's just say it's 1/3 of the population living under tyrannical oppression.
If 2/3 of the US population owns 2.6 million silencers then that 1/3 of the silencer starved popular could easily want about a million silencers asap.
If 2/3 of the US population owns 2.6 million silencers and Illinois is about 1/17 of the US population they will want up to 100,000 silencers pretty quickly, then that will probably grow to 150,000 total after it soaks for several years.
I'm sure that's at least 10x the entire unsold inventory held by all US manufacturers and distributors.
Hmm there's no tag for Rhode Island, I guess they just aren't important.

So this has legs and it's up and running.
My suggestion is impulse buy every silencer you might ever want.
 
I’ve found that Armed Scholar is generally clickbait. While informative, I’ve found that he often has video titles and covers that get people all excited and happy. However, when you listen to the videos, you find that the rulings and impacts are far less significant and unlikely than the titles and covers suggest. Not to mention, even if it is truly positive news, it is usually not long-lasting as appeals, lengthy legal processes, and defiant authoritarians prevent the rulings from having their intended impact. For example, the Bruen decision was heralded as a ruling that would all but destroy any future gun control attempts; however, we say governors and other dictators (NY governor specifically) defy the ruling and enact even more gun control.

My point is that 1) I take any excitement from Armed Scholar with a grain of salt and 2) even if there is a favorable outcome, we need to hold our breaths as the evil anti-2A forces usually mobilize and lessen the goodness of the ruling

I am not trying to be a downer, but my prediction is that those states will continue to prevent suppressor ownership for the foreseeable future if not forever.
 
Last edited:
The Illinois court tried to say that "silencers aren't bareable arms, 2a does not apply" and "because they didn't exist in 1793, bla bla bla" as the historical analog...
So the cases are movin on up.
The cases aren't won but the state isn't being allowed to simply brush them aside based on contradictory, made up nonsense and lame excuses which has been the presence for at least the last 80 years.

youtu.be

Supreme Court Decision Prevents Suppressor Purchase & Possession Bans!!!

In this video I provide an important update on the current efforts to remove state suppressor bans!🇺🇸 Support the Channel🇺🇸Join USCCA http://usccapartner...
youtu.be youtu.be
 
I expect that ultimately it would have to be shown that suppressors would have to be in "common use" for them to be considered covered by 2A. I'm not sure if they are. (Honestly - I really don't know.)
 
.38 Special said:
I expect that ultimately it would have to be shown that suppressors would have to be in "common use" for them to be considered covered by 2A. I'm not sure if they are. (Honestly - I really don't know.)
Click to expand...
The second amendment doesn't have a " common use" clause. That is the bogus litmus test the 1939 SCOTUS used in US V. Miller to support a ruling that the NFA was not unconstitutional. The case was also never really finished, as it was remanded back to district courts and faded into obscurity with Miller having died.

In contrast, the Heller decision does affirm an individual right with no connection to militia or common use. But Heller also has more vague language regarding restrictions, so left NFA and other specific regulations for another case.

It would be interesting to see a case similar to Miller today after the Heller and McDonald rulings, but regardless, there are grounds for challenging state & local bans on NFA items. As well, with about 3 million cans in civilan hands, not to mention heavy use by military and LE these days, Miller could very well bite them in the arse.
 
I don't believe you have it quite right, @MachIVshooter. My understanding is the Heller leaned heavily on "common use". Scalia cited both Miller and "common use" in the decision: "United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54."

It may or may not be "bogus", but there is good reason to believe it will be continued to be used as a test.
 
MachIVshooter said:
The second amendment doesn't have a " common use" clause. That is the bogus litmus test the 1939 SCOTUS used in US V. Miller to support a ruling that the NFA was not unconstitutional. The case was also never really finished, as it was remanded back to district courts and faded into obscurity with Miller having died.

In contrast, the Heller decision does affirm an individual right with no connection to militia or common use. But Heller also has more vague language regarding restrictions, so left NFA and other specific regulations for another case.

It would be interesting to see a case similar to Miller today after the Heller and McDonald rulings, but regardless, there are grounds for challenging state & local bans on NFA items. As well, with about 3 million cans in civilan hands, not to mention heavy use by military and LE these days, Miller could very well bite them in the arse.
Click to expand...
I love is when people being up Miller.
Remember miller died before they made it up to the supreme court and the case was argued in absenca.
So it became USA v USA and the court found in favor of USA.
No one saw that coming...

I think the point of "common use" in USA v USA (rip Miller) is that sawed off shot guns weren't in common use by militaries. So they weren't protected by 2a. Had nothing to do with common use by the public. Apparently there were enough sbs in use by the public to warrant an effect ban on them.
 
Last edited:
Not worth $1,000

BUT… if you have the money, I suggest buying

1 high quality .22
2 Pistol suppressors
2 Rifle suppressors
1 Shotgun suppressors

Not worth the money… but that’s my goal
 
Over a $1000 bucks to put one on one of my rifles and then have to rework my accurate loads. Nah I got very good hearing protection and recoil is something I have learned how to deal with with no issues. Make them affordable and do away with the stamp and I may try one...ymmv
 
When will there be a class action lawsuit against govt for interfering with public safety regarding guns?

Laws prevent excessive noise in multiple products, industries and areas for both safety and quality of life.

Earplugs in your dump truck aren’t necessary, but it didn’t start out that way. Jackhammers are quieter today than 75 years ago. In total, guns from manufacturers are louder than 75 years ago. 7x57 Mauser vs 7 PRC.

Manufactures have the ability to make guns sold to the public quieter, but errant laws and regulations prevent manufacturers from doing so. Essentially, guns as purchased, should be viewed as an unfinished product courtesy of govt.

Govt interference to the public, yet law enforcement has the means (our money and their legal loopholes) to make their guns quieter.
 
N555 said:
2.6 million silencers
Click to expand...

Since the numbers (not the concept) depend upon this basis, got a citation for that?

Any discussion depending upon the decisions by the courts is by their very nature wishful (at least on our side) so it all comes down to we hope or think that an ultimate decision, and then the subsequent additional court challenges, will improve our position. BUT we won't know until then so acting to support the groups in the fight is in our best interest.
 
Last edited:
hso said:
Since the numbers (not the concept) depend upon this basis, got a citation for that number?

Any discussion depending upon the decisions by the courts is by their very nature wishful (at least on our side) so it all comes down to we hope or think that an ultimate decision, and then the subsequent additional court challenges, will improve our position. BUT we won't know until then so acting to support the groups in the fight is in our best interest.
Click to expand...
That's the ATF number for privately held silencers they released as 2021. It's regularly talked about on this form.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JDeere said:
Over a $1000 bucks to put one on one of my rifles and then have to rework my accurate loads. Nah I got very good hearing protection and recoil is something I have learned how to deal with with no issues. Make them affordable and do away with the stamp and I may try one...ymmv
Click to expand...
Chances are your most accurate load will still be the most accurate load, point of aim will need to be adjusted.
 
Take away the $200 tax, onerous application process, and long wait times and there will be an explosion of supply to meet the demand. Right now silencer making is a niche business because it's hard to sell enough in a day to make a decent profit for even a two person shop.

If the glorious day ever comes when we can buy them off the shelf then every guy with an old South Bend in his garage will be churning them out.
 
plainsdrifter said:
I ain't buying until legalized and no tax.
That should drop the price by half.
Click to expand...

If they can be imported and millions could be sold openly, the prices would drop a lot more than that.

When I build them, the most expensive cost is the $200 stamp.
 
jmorris said:
If they can be imported and millions could be sold openly, the prices would drop a lot more than that.

When I build them, the most expensive cost is the $200 stamp.
Click to expand...

Then we can have a bunch of threads with everyone asking where I can buy a USA made suppressor!
 
Have to get cans legal in all 50 states and add another million silencers to the registry before they get removed from the registry.
Everyone who owns a silencer is helping show how useless the law is.
Same thing happened with assault weapons bans. There's something to the tune of 40 to 100 million "assault weapons" or more depending on what they want to count today as "assault weapons". (Remember they're trying to count pistols that carry more than 15 rounds as assault weapons now too).
It's looking like those days are numbered.
 
Last edited:
N555 said:
Have to get cans legal in all 50 states and add another million silencers to the registry before they get removed from the registry.
Click to expand...
How on earth do you figure that?
Silencers will remain regulated until Congress removes them or SCOTUS does. The number of silencers is irrelevant, the number of states where they are legal is irrelevanr.



Everyone who owns a silencer is helping show how useless the law is.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Most certainly the NFA tax and registration process is doing exactly what it was intended to do. Make the purchase of certain firearms more difficult and more expensive.



It's looking like those days are numbered.
Click to expand...
In the 1960's it was "Saturday Night Specials"
In the 1980's it was "Assault Weapons"
Now, its "Weapons of War"
In another decade the anti gun crowd will have another catchy new term to use for guns that they want to ban.

No matter what we think or how the US Supreme Court rules, there will always be those that blame the gun and not the hand that holds it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Illinois Supreme Court ruling deals major blow to anti-gunners
Replies
6
Views
569
taliv
T
F
  • Locked
2nd Amendment, Silveira and the Supreme Court (threads merged)
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
MuzzleBlast
M
C0untZer0
  • Locked
Magazine ban in Illinois
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Trent
Trent
B
  • Locked
NFA Prohibition’s Ugly Legacy - Unintended Consequences
Replies
0
Views
1K
BCR-SHoRTY
B
B
  • Locked
$250 of gun gear or 2 years of ban-free bliss?
Replies
14
Views
994
Reno
R
Back
Top