[FLASIG]

BREAKING: Hearing Protection Act Provisions Added to Larger Natural Resources Bill, Hearing Tomorrow - The Truth About Guns"The House Committee on Natural Resources will hold a hearing tomorrow on Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreation Enhancement Act. Sounds like a snoozer, right? Not so much any more. And that’s because the bill now includes virtually all of the the HPA’s most important provisions."
That will be on June 14th.

 

[GCBHM]

What I can't get past is how the federal government has a voice at all on the matter. The 2nd Amendment has no exceptions.

 

[dplay]

What I can't get past is how the federal government has a voice at all on the matter. The 2nd Amendment has no exceptions.

There appears to be many exceptions that only liberals can read.

 

[InOverMyHead]

GCBHM, what does suppressors have to do with the 2nd ?

 

[GCBHM]

GCBHM, what does suppressors have to do with the 2nd ?

As it relates to arms, you tell me.

 

[InOverMyHead]

^I'm unable to, hence I asked for clarification.

 

[GCBHM]

^I'm unable to, hence I asked for clarification.

Well, the fact that the ATF regulates them as being part of weapon systems, and the fact that they are used specifically to reduce the noise of firearms, and, when used in this capacity, is considered to be part of the firearm, I would think it is fairly clear why the 2nd Amendment applies to the suppressor issue. However, if you could point me to the section of the US Constitution that grants the federal government to regulate the use of noise suppressors I'd be interested in seeing how it (the federal government) has authority to regulate these items, which, again, when used, is considered part of the firearm.

 

[USMC6872]

Gcbhm
They used the Interstate commerce clause. Twisted like a pretzel, stretched like taffy, and used to cover a multitude of sins.

 

[GCBHM]

Gcbhm
They used the Interstate commerce clause. Twisted like a pretzel, stretched like taffy, and used to cover a multitude of sins.

Oh, that I know...along with the whole good and plenty clause. The 14th Amendment also throws a pretty substantial monkey wrench in the engine as well.

 

[InOverMyHead]

Well, the fact that the ATF regulates them as being part of weapon systems, and the fact that they are used specifically to reduce the noise of firearms, and, when used in this capacity, is considered to be part of the firearm, I would think it is fairly clear why the 2nd Amendment applies to the suppressor issue. However, if you could point me to the section of the US Constitution that grants the federal government to regulate the use of noise suppressors I'd be interested in seeing how it (the federal government) has authority to regulate these items, which, again, when used, is considered part of the firearm.

I think you're making a problematic argument. Silencers are more similar to an accessory like an optic or muzzle break/flash suppressor than something integral like a firing pin. Eye and ear pro are often required in order to practice with your firearm, thus any regulation would have more of a 2nd amend link than a suppressor.

The commerce clause is what's historically been used and it's use upheld (but you know this). The argument seems to be how far outta'field has the clause been used. A few reads to help inform:
The Second Amendment and the Inalienable Right to Self-Defense | The Heritage Foundation

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/v...gives government authority regulate firearms"

http://gov.uchastings.edu/public-law/docs/plri/mcclen1.pdf

Debate on gun control should ask whether Congress has power to regulate - CSMonitor.com

I believe tying suppressors to the 2nd gets in the way of how they should be regarded, as an accessory. "I'd like a pack of gum, one of those cool Gadsden Flag stickers and a suppressor please." <--just that easy.

Ironically if an anti-gunner were quick on their feet, they'd push to require suppressor use in the name of safety and sound pollution.....

 

[Eborg9]

Yeah the 2nd A doesn't say anything about accessories to firearms, or nice things to have in addition to firearms, or anything about suppressors.

So if the people of the US, through their elected officials, want to regulate something like drugs or airplanes or suppressors, they can do that. Reasonable people can argue about which drugs should be regulated and which kinds of explosives, and what kind of safety features are required on cars and, of course, how and when people can or should buy suppressors.

So hopefully, suppressors can become less regulated but to try to tie them, and anything tangentially related to, firearms as being guaranteed by the 2nd A is silly from a legal and constitutional perspective.

 

[GCBHM]

I think you're making a problematic argument. Silencers are more similar to an accessory like an optic or muzzle break/flash suppressor than something integral like a firing pin. Eye and ear pro are often required in order to practice with your firearm, thus any regulation would have more of a 2nd amend link than a suppressor.

The commerce clause is what's historically been used and it's use upheld (but you know this). The argument seems to be how far outta'field has the clause been used. A few reads to help inform:
The Second Amendment and the Inalienable Right to Self-Defense | The Heritage Foundation

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/v...gives government authority regulate firearms"

http://gov.uchastings.edu/public-law/docs/plri/mcclen1.pdf

Debate on gun control should ask whether Congress has power to regulate - CSMonitor.com

I believe tying suppressors to the 2nd gets in the way of how they should be regarded, as an accessory. "I'd like a pack of gum, one of those cool Gadsden Flag stickers and a suppressor please." <--just that easy.

Ironically if an anti-gunner were quick on their feet, they'd push to require suppressor use in the name of safety and sound pollution.....

I get what you're saying, but name another accessory that is regulated by the federal government. If it is not directly related to weaponry then why is it regulated? A suppressor really has no other use other than to suppress noise from a firearm, which is why the federal government regulates them, but the federal government has no authority to regulate them. As it has been said, if you have to explain to the government why you need something before it lets you have it, you're not free. As it relates to arms, not just firearms, the federal government has no authority to regulate the private use and ownership.

 

[GCBHM]

Yeah the 2nd A doesn't say anything about accessories to firearms, or nice things to have in addition to firearms, or anything about suppressors.

So if the people of the US, through their elected officials, want to regulate something like drugs or airplanes or suppressors, they can do that. Reasonable people can argue about which drugs should be regulated and which kinds of explosives, and what kind of safety features are required on cars and, of course, how and when people can or should buy suppressors.

So hopefully, suppressors can become less regulated but to try to tie them, and anything tangentially related to, firearms as being guaranteed by the 2nd A is silly from a legal and constitutional perspective.

There was no such thing as suppressors when the 2nd Amendment was written, but the founders didn't specify firearms either. So, since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specifically spell out guns, are we to assume it means hoes and rakes and pencils for those with special Jason Bourne skills? The people, as you relate it to this argument, have the power to check the federal government via the states. The federal government was never given the power to regulate such items as suppressors, firearms, knives...or "arms," as it is spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. To be frank, under the US Constitution the AFT has no authority to even exist, let alone regulate anything, while we're discussing a constitutional perspective. That said, the 2nd Amendment has not served to stop one single unlawful federal gun regulation in existence today.

 

[InOverMyHead]

I get what you're saying, but name another accessory that is regulated by the federal government. If it is not directly related to weaponry then why is it regulated? A suppressor really has no other use other than to suppress noise from a firearm, which is why the federal government regulates them, but the federal government has no authority to regulate them. As it has been said, if you have to explain to the government why you need something before it lets you have it, you're not free. As it relates to arms, not just firearms, the federal government has no authority to regulate the private use and ownership.

I'm not calling or justifying regulation, I found the tying suppressors to the 2nd interesting. My understanding of the 2nd is that it is tied to arms with overlap of things that are integral to their use. A silencer doesn't fit that metric-to me.

Chewing gum is regulated so it doesn't surprise that silencers are as well.

 

[GCBHM]

I'm not calling or justifying regulation, I found the tying suppressors to the 2nd interesting. My understanding of the 2nd is that it is tied to arms with overlap of things that are integral to their use. A silencer doesn't fit that metric-to me.



Chewing gum is regulated so it doesn't surprise that silencers are as well.

I get what you're saying, and there is merit to it. I just see it differently, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to other thoughts on the matter. Regardless, though, the federal government needs to be kept at bay rather than allowed to have a say. Did you see what I did there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steve40th]

We are so far past the 2A. Its the feds, and ATF holding on to their control, money train.
The Feds are the cancer the forefathers never though forward on.

 

[GCBHM]

The feds are just the tool being used by the progressive corporatives.

 

[InOverMyHead]

That said, the 2nd Amendment has not served to stop one single unlawful federal gun regulation in existence today.

That's a bit of a disingenuous statement.
There are examples in which laws contrary to the 2nd have been struck down.

There seem to be plenty of other cases to champion, but our advocacy group is apparently more concerned with insurance and we tend to only "give at the office".

 

[GCBHM]

That's a bit of a disingenuous statement.

There are examples in which laws contrary to the 2nd have been struck down.



There seem to be plenty of other cases to champion, but our advocacy group is apparently more concerned with insurance and we tend to only "give at the office".

Give it another read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[InOverMyHead]

We are so far past the 2A. Its the feds, and ATF holding on to their control, money train.
The Feds are the cancer the forefathers never though forward on.

Of course our forefathers were well aware of the cancer that we the people pose.
We focus too much on the feds. Get involved locally and the feds will find themselves led by their nose ring. As designed.