TexasCHLforum.com

While I do not agree with the Trump administration I do see what I believe is their logic:
The truth of the matter is that Silencers, like machine guns, are relatively unusual in regards to the general public due to the NFA. Since they are unusual they do not qualify for protection under Heller as it currently stands.

Now for my thoughts:
As for regulating them out of existence, like they did with bump stocks, it might become a bit more difficult. Consider that the same law that makes them so unusual regulates them so strictly that it will likely protect them from regulatory fiat. As a result it would likely require an act of congress and the signature of the president to eliminate them.

The NRA and NSSF have invested in advancing 'silencer rights' so they have a vested interest in protecting the progress they made and any future progress they hope to make. While we are here talking, chatting, and demanding the NRA make some public statement I suspect they are busy working to educate the president, his staff, and everyone who will listen in congress about why suppressors need to be protected. While I suspect they are doing that other groups are out there going King Kong thumping their chests and shouting "Trump Bad, Suppressor Good. Frum Mah cold ded hans." and sending out chain emails saying "Trump is gonna ban suppressors!!! Donate money to us now to stop him. Don't let Trump take away the suppressors because only we can stop it."

There is a reason the anti gunners, socialists, liberals, and so on (I know I repeated myself) constantly bash the NRA while they ignore nearly everyone else and it's probably because they are the most effective and don't telegraph their intentions in the media.

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:21 pm

G.A. Heath wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:15 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:24 pm Bump stocks being banned is more than a 2A right. It is government confiscation without reimbursement of legally owned property. Same thing if they confiscate land that you own to build a shopping center. The issue of the government stealing your private property that previously was legal to own is the issue. Now had the government required bump stocks to be turned in and each one was financially reimbursed than it would be a 2A right alone. But that's not the case. So, there are 2 distinct issues. Money for the bump stocks and whether the ownership of a bump stock is the equivalent of ownership of a machine gun. I personally hope the government loses on both issues.

While I may agree with you, I can give you a good idea of what the government will claim. Essentially they will claim that the devices were sold due to a misinterpretation of the GCA of 1934 and were never actually legal. Since they are in reality contraband no compensation is due even though the feds have decided to not prosecute anyone who had one and destroyed it. As for the second amendment they will claim they are unusual and/or unsafe so they do not enjoy the protection of the second amendment per Heller.

There is that ATF finding under Obama that specifically said they were not illegal and I would hope that is what is used.

I believe this is what the ATF said in 2010. "We find that the bump stock is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act," ATF said in a letter at the time."

I understand what you are saying, however government attorney's will likely argue that the Obama era determination by the ATF was in error and did not make the devices legal, meaning they were always illegal. Just be happy they chose not to charge you with a felony comrade.

rotor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:24 pm Bump stocks being banned is more than a 2A right. It is government confiscation without reimbursement of legally owned property. Same thing if they confiscate land that you own to build a shopping center. The issue of the government stealing your private property that previously was legal to own is the issue. Now had the government required bump stocks to be turned in and each one was financially reimbursed than it would be a 2A right alone. But that's not the case. So, there are 2 distinct issues. Money for the bump stocks and whether the ownership of a bump stock is the equivalent of ownership of a machine gun. I personally hope the government loses on both issues.

While I may agree with you, I can give you a good idea of what the government will claim. Essentially they will claim that the devices were sold due to a misinterpretation of the GCA of 1934 and were never actually legal. Since they are in reality contraband no compensation is due even though the feds have decided to not prosecute anyone who had one and destroyed it. As for the second amendment they will claim they are unusual and/or unsafe so they do not enjoy the protection of the second amendment per Heller.