N555

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,291
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.

 
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.)
 
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.)
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.
 
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 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:
Back
Top