The Supremes recently denied cert on a silencer case.Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:42 pmI hope you're right, but I fear that you are wrong.Jusme wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:02 pmI have stayed out of this whole debate, mostly because it strayed so far off course. But in case anyone is interested, if Trump tried to ban anything, it would go to SCOTUS, and be overturned.
Secondly, I don't believe Trump, is well informed, on guns, suppressors, or any other firearm, related items. His sons, are more informed, and will, if they haven't already, filled him in, on the need for the hearing protection act. I simply believe Trump was caught off guard with the questioning, by PM. And he did reiterate several times, that preventing legal carry, in public places, can stop the type of shootings, they had in VA. Trump, has not always been on the right side of history, when it comes to the 2A, but I don't believe, he will make banning suppressors a priority. JMHO
If I recall correctly from the draft ATF ban on bumpstocks, there were as many of those "firearms" (ATF's definition, not mine) as there are suppressor "firearms" that would be banned under this latest proposal. And the SCOTUS declined to hear the case of the bumpstock ban. Why do you think they would make a different decision this time? Both cases rely on similar, convoluted, legal arguments by the ATF that pieces of plastic / metal which are incapable of discharging projectiles of any type, are in fact, dangerous and unusual firearms.
Also, as Soccerdad1995 correctly notes, they haven't overturned Trump's stock ban. They wouldn't even grant a temporary stay pending their opportunity to hear the challenge to rules made by an agency at Trump's direction, bypassing Congress.
Therefore, the smart money says:
The Supremes won't do anything if the ATF stops registering new silencers by Trump's edict.
The Supremes won't do anything if Congress bans silencers for individuals and non-government entities.