Join TexasGunTalk

Everything You're NOT Supposed to Know About Suppressors

Discussion in 'Gun Legislation' started by Crossroads, Aug 6, 2019.

  1. Crossroads

    Crossroads New Member

    21
    25
    13
    Dec 18, 2018
    Round Rock, TX
    Whenever you've got 32 minutes to watch a video. Pretty well done by T.REX Arms. How did suppressors become part of the NFA, how did the NFA come to be, and some correlation to political/media manipulation to pass laws.

     


    diesel1959, gll, EZ-E and 2 others like this.
  2. benenglish

    benenglish Lifetime Supporter Staff Member Lifetime Member Admin

    13,652
    7,358
    113
    Nov 22, 2011
    Spring
    I saw this back when it was first uploaded and it's excellent.
     
    gll and jordanmills like this.
  3. FireInTheWire

    FireInTheWire Ego kills talent TGT Supporter

    4,651
    6,641
    113
    Jan 22, 2018
    Big Country
    Thanks. This will only send me down the "Seeing red" rabbit whole more on the laws.
     
  4. Crossroads

    Crossroads New Member

    21
    25
    13
    Dec 18, 2018
    Round Rock, TX
    Starting at 19:40 he talks about US vs Miller 1939 where it was argued the NFA infringed on short barrel shotguns. The Supreme Court ruled it didn't infringe because short barrel shotguns were not military weapons. Wait What? According to the poo spewers on the TVs no civilian needs a "Military Style" weapon. :confused:
     
    jordanmills, EZ-E and Dancing Heretik like this.
  5. benenglish

    benenglish Lifetime Supporter Staff Member Lifetime Member Admin

    13,652
    7,358
    113
    Nov 22, 2011
    Spring
    This is why I've repeatedly told people for years to read US v. Miller. It's actually a great ruling for us. It holds that military weapons are specifically what the 2A protects.

    In Miller, the lower court erred badly on the facts but the SC couldn't fix that because of the unique (I think) defense presented. And, yes, I'm going to leave it at that because I want people to actually read the ruling and what's behind it.

    In fact, I believe I could argue that, with the right case, the rationale the court used to decide Miller could be used to overturn almost the entirety of the NFA, the Hughes Amendment, and any assault weapons ban. The ruling is short and well worth a read.
     
  6. pronstar

    pronstar TGT Addict TGT Supporter

    4,162
    8,082
    113
    Jul 2, 2017
    Dallas
    Wow, that case is a great read, thanks for posting it


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     
  7. benenglish

    benenglish Lifetime Supporter Staff Member Lifetime Member Admin

    13,652
    7,358
    113
    Nov 22, 2011
    Spring
    You're welcome. The case is pretty fascinating, as well as some of the shenanigans that will inevitably be noted in even a cursory analysis of it.
     
  8. Big Green

    Big Green Pew Pew TGT Supporter

    1,834
    2,238
    113
    Mar 5, 2018
    College Station
    Very interesting Ben, thank you for sharing.

    So, with the argument that only weapons to support the militia, I would have to turn in my 10/22 and exchange it for a M14? Where do I sign up?
     
  9. benenglish

    benenglish Lifetime Supporter Staff Member Lifetime Member Admin

    13,652
    7,358
    113
    Nov 22, 2011
    Spring
    No.

    To address that question, we have to look at what the Supreme Court has subsequently said about Miller. In the Heller case, it held that
    In addressing how previous cases did or did not agree with this position, the opinion went on to say
    They specifically addressed Miller thusly:
    Note the false equivalency established by the court. They said that arms "used by the militia" were the equivalent to arms "in common use".

    This is a bit of distorted reality that's should eventually be resolved. Until it is, though, everyone with a Fudd gun of any type (and I'm not throwing shade; I love my many, many Fudd guns) can stand on this ambiguity to say "My 10/22 is in common use, therefore it's a type used by the militia (according to the SC), therefore it's protected."

    Besides, that's not where the heat is right now. The heat is on "assault weapons" and the great thing about Miller is that it, in fairly plain language, makes it clear that weapons of war are what are protected by the 2A.

    I wonder if all those folks screaming to ban "weapons of war" have ever read Miller? 99.9% of them - probably not.
     
  10. TheDan

    TheDan 4th Best Member TGT Supporter

    17,746
    6,499
    113
    Nov 11, 2008
    Austin - Rockdale
    No, you would just have to put a suppressor on it ;)
     


Share This Page