Silencers, why the fuss?

[ROCK6]

You are legally allowed to own one.

However, it is a product that would make a murder easier.

I am perfectly fine with how they are regulated. The silencer lobby is the perfect example of a lobby group that does not align with the majority of America's opinion.

Sorry "constitutionalist" originalists, if you use the theory of originalism, the 9th Amendment kills your theory.

This is a completely ignorant statement, one I would expect to see on some socialist, left-wing, antigun forum; not here. I can respect your opinion, but to make a bold statement that it's a “majority of America’s opinion” is utterly asinine. Since the majority of the American public could couldn’t even distinguish between the Constitution and Bill of Rights or even most couldn’t even recall the First Amendment (which has been proven over and over, both on the streets and in our schools), the “majority of America’s opinion” is a weak and flaccid argument. It’s the same argument antigun fanatics use all the time and hope that the gullible and uneducated masses will pick up and repeat much like your argument here. Please, leave the “vast majority” out of this debate since many have proven ignorant of the facts. Public opinion is the reason we are a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy...granted it's a misconception for the analogy of lemmings, but public opinion is nothing more than a fickle attitude which often leads to disaster in the form of policies, laws and repeated nonsense like perceptions towards sound suppressors.

ROCK6

 

[MachIVshooter]

However, it is a product that would make a murder easier.

I am perfectly fine with how they are regulated. The silencer lobby is the perfect example of a lobby group that does not align with the majority of America's opinion.

Sorry "constitutionalist" originalists, if you use the theory of originalism, the 9th Amendment kills your theory.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

You also haven't a clue what the 9th amendment to the United States Constitution means.

 

[wild cat mccane]

What year were silencers regulated? Subtract that from 2016. That many years and the law hasn't changed? Majority agrees.

Thanks to all the comments about me being ignorant and not refuting the orginalist problem of why silencers are regulated. It is absolutely what the previous poster said, the people of the US are allowing their regulation through cost. Just like the cost of a class 3 full auto rifle. Higher price = less. Require background check at a higher standard of review and time = less.

 

[Warp]

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

You also haven't a clue what the 9th amendment to the United States Constitution means.

Who says he is a friend?

 

[wild cat mccane]

Because I can assume I own more firearms than a lot of the posters in this thread...combined?

Sorry I hurt your feelings about your lack of Google skills

 

[barnbwt]

There was a lot of poaching going on during the Deprrssion, and wealthy connected landowners in cahoots with FDR would rather see the peasants starve --that's all there was to it (MGs and pistols were a different matter, and more to do with the Bonus Army and worry of assassination during civil strife, by wealthy landowners in cahoots with FDR who would prefer the peasants to be gunned down in the streets unapposed)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Troll along, kitty, the bait's gone bad.

-Loud, declaratory statement in rude opposition, not really even on topic
-Nonsensical arguments based on majority opinion, or time alone
-Rapid degradation to personal attacks ("I own more guns, therefore I'm right")
-And, sarcastic admission of being an insulting jerk.

'Bye!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

You are legally allowed to own one.

However, it is a product that would make a murder easier.

I am perfectly fine with how they are regulated. The silencer lobby is the perfect example of a lobby group that does not align with the majority of America's opinion.

Sorry "constitutionalist" originalists, if you use the theory of originalism, the 9th Amendment kills your theory.

Let me get this straight -- here's what the 9th Amendment says:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, it says there are rights that we have that are not in the Constitution, and you interpret that to mean the government can take away rights that ARE in the Constitution?

 

[wild cat mccane]

A silencer is not a firearm.

Please don't flame for wiki, it is just more understandable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

Even under the most "constitutionalist" view point, the government of the people can regulate this item. It doesn't get into the fact that there are limits on all rights (e.g. 1st amendment and yelling fire)

 

[Warp]

A silencer is not a firearm.

Please don't flame for wiki, it is just more understandable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

Even under the most "constitutionalist" view point, the government of the people can regulate this item. It doesn't get into the fact that there are limits on all rights (e.g. 1st amendment and yelling fire)

Who is prohibited from yelling fire, or being capable of yelling fire?

BTW: http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com...-shout-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

 

[farm23]

Warp is right and once our government has a program in place if is VERY hard to change anything. There is very little to justify the restrictions on silencers but don't hold your breath waiting for any changes.

 

[Speedo66]

If you can buy your way into something, keeping in mind $200 was an enormous amount when the law was first passed, then it seems the intent of the law was not to outlaw the use of silencers, but to totally discourage their purchase by people of moderate means.

Seems this law is more of a social class issue than a legal issue. The actual cost of registration could have been accomplished at a small fraction of the original cost of the required stamp at the time. It's only because of inflation that people of moderate means are able to afford them now, and for some, it may still be a barrier when added to the cost of the silencer itself.

It really is time for Congress to decide to either dramatically raise the stamp cost to reflect the original tariff and thus disenfranchise most of the population again, or eliminate it all together.

 

[ROCK6]

What year were silencers regulated? Subtract that from 2016. That many years and the law hasn't changed? Majority agrees.

It's not your opinion but your condescending attitude that is both presumptuous and unnecessary. Silencers were only regulated because the wealthy land owners felt they're lands were at risk of poaching with them. There never was an issue as your alluded to before that they made murders easier (unless you meant poaching). The "majority of Americans" probably couldn't even give the definition of poaching...again a good reason that the regulated purpose has been outlived and it's no longer necessary. The "majority" agreed with slavery, but that didn't make it right. I'm all for a lobbyist to repeal a defunct and outdated law or regulation and sound suppressors make sense on many levels. The "majority" could easily be swayed to support removing them from the NFA registry for the sole purpose of hearing conservation and combating noise pollution.

There's no need for us to fight amongst ourselves over this. Making sound suppressors easier to legally acquire is only a win for the pro-2A crowd. I would be perfectly fine if they treated silencers like regular firearms with the same background checks required; and do away with the stupid tax.

ROCK6

 

[Sam1911]

Seems this adequately covered the original question quite a ways back and has now devolved into a game of "thump the chump."

While it appears we do have a volunteer willing to dress up in the piñata costume, I don't see much value in letting the beating continue.

As the man said, "Let's quit before we both do something you're going to regret!"