National Hearing Protection Act Reintroduced

[Member 53867]

Well, crap...

 

[Ducati_Meister]

My guess is they'll fart around like they did the last time and it didn't get passed like Conceal carry reciprocity nation wide. But lord knows, miracles do happen.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Well, crap...

Seems like they're following the same line of reason that ATF/DOJ did for pistol braces. Following that, too.. could argue that the various AWBs are legal because the accoutrements/accessories that turns "ordinary" semiautomatic weapons into "assault" weapons aren't "protected by 2A".. same for magazines

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Seems like they're following the same line of reason that ATF/DOJ did for pistol braces. Following that, too.. could argue that the various AWBs are legal because the accoutrements/accessories that turns "ordinary" semiautomatic weapons into "assault" weapons aren't "protected by 2A".. same for magazines

This was a foolish lawsuit and argument that never should have been made. Whoever did this suit is an idiot. You don't argue it on 2A grounds.

Cargill was smart and did not try to argue that bumpstocks were legal on 2A grounds. And he won. This retard has bubblegumed things up for all of us just at a time we were making headway on suppressors in many areas. Complete and total idiot this guy was and his lawyer.

 

[CamoDeafie]

This was a foolish lawsuit and argument that never should have been made. Whoever did this suit is an idiot. You don't argue it on 2A grounds.

Cargill was smart and did not try to argue that bumpstocks were legal on 2A grounds. And he won. This retard has bubblegumed things up for all of us just at a time we were making headway on suppressors in many areas. Complete and total idiot this guy was and his lawyer.

Should've been on procedural grounds, like "why are these non firearms regulated under the NFA, since they are in common use, (points to Silencer CO's Data of over 2.1 million registered suppressors), therefore neither Dangerous, nor Unusual, and not requiring coverage by The NFA?"

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Should've been on procedural grounds, like "why are these non firearms regulated under the NFA, since they are in common use, (points to Silencer CO's Data of over 2.1 million registered suppressors), therefore neither Dangerous, nor Unusual, and not requiring coverage by The NFA?"

APA, tax, ATF overreach, whatever. Any grounds except 2A. Imagine if Cargill had tried to say bumpstock is an arm in and of itself. He would have lost big time.

The idiot in this case just removed a brick from the wall we have been building for years. He basically put the judges in a box where the only possible answer they could give is "no". Stupid, stupid, move.

 

[mhayd93]

APA, tax, ATF overreach, whatever. Any grounds except 2A. Imagine if Cargill had tried to say bumpstock is an arm in and of itself. He would have lost big time.

The idiot in this case just removed a brick from the wall we have been building for years. He basically put the judges in a box where the only possible answer they could give is "no". Stupid, stupid, move.

I think this take is a bit hyperbolic given the fact that a suppressor is regulated under the NFA: National Firearms Act. It is treated as though it were a firearm just like everything else under the NFA umbrella; machine gun, SBR, etc.

This ruling now firmly establishes that a suppressor is indeed not a firearm. This opens the floodgates for further challenges on the basis that a non-firearm has no business being regulated under the umbrella of firearms legislation.

 

[User 1234]

This was an appeal by a criminal defendant trying anything to get out of jail. It was not a lawsuit by a 2A organization trying to overturn a law in a civil case.

The ruling is still terrible, but the person who made the argument should not be blamed. It should have won.

Now the Fifth Circuit might rehear the case en banc and reverse this ruling, or the USSC might take it up.

 

[lucusloc]

I don't think there are useless challenges. I think there are strategic challenges, and challenges that can be lost now to set up a future victory later, but pushing the government in any way we can is basically always useful to some degree.

With regards to this particular case the ruling opens up attacks on all kinds of logical inconsistencies, from suppressors not being bearable arms to suppressors being explicitly defined as firearms in the NFA (and therefor legally defined as "bearable arms") to the assertion that accessories are not part of "arms" and the underlying argument that therefor arms configuration can be regulated. This ruling (if it stands) opens up the floodgates to a myriad of further challenges that will force regulators to pick a paradigm, instead of issuing orders al la cart depending on which argument they want to make.

It may be a loss for us now, but as these cases make their way up the judicial ladder courts will be forced to homogenize the rulings and we will be able to leverage that to toss out many such regulations under prior SCOTUS precedent. It just takes time to get there.