Supreme Court rejects challenges to silencer laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can as long as you do not violate the NFA on things like select fire, short barrelled rifles/shotguns, caliber, and other restrictions.

Well, my racers have no lights, muffler or pollution control stuff, yet I can race it on the track.
My point was I CANNOT modify my semi-auto to full auto, shorten the barrel or remove the stock and still go shooting at the local range. This is contrary to what I can do with my car as long as I don't take it on a public road.
 
I just wish they'd stop referring to them as silencers. There's a difference between silent and quieter.
Sure, but they’re called “silencers” because that’s what Hiram Percy Maxim called his invention over 100 years ago. I get what you’re saying, but I guess an inventor has the right to name his invention anything he wants even if it’s not a technically accurate description of what it does.
 
And what we stridently insist today must be called "semi-automatic" firearms were called "automatic" or "autoloading" or just "auto" at that same time. It's not .45 SACP. Similarly, the meaning of "pistol" not including revolvers was something made up by the 1934 NFA, and, until fairly recently, was not a distinction made in common usage.

Word usage and meaning changes over time. True in all languages.
 
Well, my racers have no lights, muffler or pollution control stuff, yet I can race it on the track.
My point was I CANNOT modify my semi-auto to full auto, shorten the barrel or remove the stock and still go shooting at the local range. This is contrary to what I can do with my car as long as I don't take it on a public road.

Hate to tell you this but if your local or state government chose to do so, they could ban you from having a vehicle without a muffler, pollution control, etc. even if it never took the road. Public nuisance grounds for example on muffler or lack of pollution control would give states their traditional power to legislate using police powers to regulate people for their safety and welfare. If they can forbid someone from braiding someone else's hair for money in their own home, they can certainly regulate your vehicle.

I suspect that the Court would also uphold federal restrictions using Congressional powers under the Commerce clause based on either the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act (part of this law is also based on the navigable streams power) (what you can use as fuel for example) as they already can regulate water runoff from your property and what chemicals you can use on them as well as certain pollutants. I believe that California and some other states already do some of that. You want to be terrified about federal regulatory power, read Wickard v. Filburn or its later progeny Raich v. Gonzalez over the reach of the commerce clause power.
 
Texas10mm asked:
Where else in Government will the failure to pay a $200 "tax" result in jail time and a $10k fine?

Look at Title 26 of the United States Code (a/k/a the Internal Revenue Code).
 
Hate to tell you this but if your local or state government chose to do so, they could ban you from having a vehicle without a muffler, pollution control, etc. even if it never took the road. Public nuisance grounds for example on muffler or lack of pollution control would give states their traditional power to legislate using police powers to regulate people for their safety and welfare. If they can forbid someone from braiding someone else's hair for money in their own home, they can certainly regulate your vehicle.

I suspect that the Court would also uphold federal restrictions using Congressional powers under the Commerce clause based on either the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act (part of this law is also based on the navigable streams power) (what you can use as fuel for example) as they already can regulate water runoff from your property and what chemicals you can use on them as well as certain pollutants. I believe that California and some other states already do some of that. You want to be terrified about federal regulatory power, read Wickard v. Filburn or its later progeny Raich v. Gonzalez over the reach of the commerce clause power.

While I am far from an Indy 500 or Daytona racer the only way Florida has to regulate the modifications I make to my racer is to close all the tracks in the state.
I know there are more than a few politicians that would love to see all the firing ranges closed and made into golf courses.
 
Where else in Government will the failure to pay a $200 "tax" result in jail time and a $10k fine?

The $200 seems like a lot of money. Do those hearing-aid style electronic hearing protectors work against non-constant noise like gun shots? They seem to cost a lot but there is no paperwork or waiting period.
 
The $200 seems like a lot of money. Do those hearing-aid style electronic hearing protectors work against non-constant noise like gun shots? They seem to cost a lot but there is no paperwork or waiting period.

It WAS. When the NFA was passed in 1934, $200 equals about $3,800 in today's dollars. The tax stamp was designed to prevent common use by making them hard to purchase.
 
Laws like this are very important. How else will they know who’s house to send swat teams to when they start confiscating firearms?
 
Starting to see pure political posts - such deleted. Stick to the use rather than general disdain for either party or players.
 
Try not paying your income tax.....

If you owe $200 in income tax and fail to pay it they don't take you to court and charge you with a crime that can result in jail time and a $10k fine. Just ask Al Sharpton.

You'll get letters, interest, then they will garnish your wages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top