What about suppressors and Heller?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sacp81170a

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
2,410
Location
Farmington, AR
What effect will Heller have on suppressors? I can see a real medical need to have a suppressor on your home defense firearm so as to protect your hearing. How would this play out as an angle of attack on the NFA? Is a suppressor an arm or just a safety device?
 
Right now I think there are a lot of steps between any NFA challenge and success. First we need incorporation. Second we need strict scrutiny. When we have those two things, the field will be set for suppressors, SBR/SBS and 922(o) to be the opening salvo on the NFA.
 
Or, move to Missouri...

Gov. Matt Blunt, yesterday signed a bill (HB2034) "Allowing for the lawful manufacture, purchase and possession of firearm suppressors;" amongst other things. Been looking forward for that to happen. I always thought it strange that MO didn't allow suppressors. I put it down to the long border with Illinois and St Louis wanting to be so much like Chicago.

Kerf
 
It may possibly open up the few remaining states to allow them. Currently you can get them in 35 states already.
We would probably have more luck using Europe as an example than Heller as suppressor use there is very common as a noise control measure.
 
It seems to me that suppressor ownership would be the first thing to attack the NFA on. In some ranges in Europe they are required, and even in the United States they are commonly used relative to machine guns.

I also wonder whether we need incorporation before we move on to strict scrutiny and / or repealing part or all of the NFA. In many states suppressors are not illegal, rather it is the federal taxation and registration of suppressors which is odious to our 2A rights. Is there a good reason to wait and not attack these denials of our freedom in multiple cases running concurrently?
 
I also wonder whether we need incorporation before we move on to strict scrutiny and / or repealing part or all of the NFA.
Click to expand...

You absolutely need those two things.

First of all, you need incorporation because the best legal battle is where you find the worst rule. The worst rules are all at the state level, so getting incorporation lets you target those rules (it also lets a lot of people who don't enjoy the same level of freedom that I do get on board and further buttress the eventual "common use" argument).

Second, you need strict scrutiny; because any less protective standard is going to make it incredibly easy to rule against NFA items.

Is there a good reason to wait and not attack these denials of our freedom in multiple cases running concurrently?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, you could try to challenge the NFA now before any of these things were established; but the probability you would set bad precedent is very good - and it wouldn't just be bad precedent on NFA items, it would also be bad precedent on incorporation and scrutiny, since you need those two things to get to most NFA cases.

El Tejon had a very good analogy to building a house. If we don't lay the proper foundation now, then it won't help us much to build a $6 million mansion on a bed of shifting sand (which is what going for NFA now does).
 
Actually all one needs to do is challenge Miller.

Miller was wrongfully decided, in that the defendant was not represented.

The Court admitted that it decided the case based on a lack of "evidence that a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches was of use to the militia".
Well of course a short barreled shotgun is "of use to the militia". Our armed services have been utilizing them since way before Miller - but there was no defense present to bring this evidence before the court. So the governemnt got what it wanted and the NFA stood. There is also clear SCOTUS precident that the licensing or taxation of a RIGHT is unconstitutional. So with Heller reinforcing that the RKBA is indeed such a RIGHT, and NFA weapons clearly satisfying the "Miller Test" of militia usefulness, and previous decisions that taxation of a RIGHT is unconstitutional - all one then has to do is establish whether or not a State can strip a Citizen of the United States of any of the Enumerated BOR Rights for other than Due Process cause.
 
and NFA weapons clearly satisfying the "Miller Test" of militia usefulness
Click to expand...

If the "Miller Test" was as you described AND still good law, then you might have a point. However, nine justices on the Court seem to disagree and five of them just penned a decision that "clarifies" what Miller stands for.

I'd be looking at that new test if you plan to do any NFA challenges. I'd also be waiting on incorporation and strict scrutiny to be successful first; but I am kind of cautious that way.
 
If the "Miller Test" was as you described AND still good law, then you might have a point. However, nine justices on the Court seem to disagree and five of them just penned a decision that "clarifies" what Miller stands for.

I'd be looking at that new test if you plan to do any NFA challenges. I'd also be waiting on incorporation and strict scrutiny to be successful first; but I am kind of cautious that way.
Click to expand...
Well the Justices keep refering to Miller as if it is "Still good law" and a simple application of the Brandeis Brief techniques showing that we ourselves have outfitted "Militias" all over the world with just exactly these types of weapons - proving their "usefulness to the Militia". What they may or may not have "clarified" about Miller in Heller is what I take to be "In Dicta" and not really binding upon much of anything.
As for incorporation, where is it spelled out that a State has the authority to strip a Citizen of the United States of his/her Enumerated BOR rights for other than Due process causes - which last I checked did not include place of residence.
 
should be required by OSHA
Click to expand...
Lets not do that,

Next thing you know BY LAW you will have to use them 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
Only in the workplace by union members ;) For us recreational shooters not getting paid it would be strictly optional :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top