Silencers Aren't "Arms" Protected by Second Amendment, Fourth Circuit Holds

By Free Republic | Created at 2024-12-13 12:54:05 | Updated at 2024-12-24 00:04:20 1 week ago

Silencers Aren't "Arms" Protected by Second Amendment, Fourth Circuit Holds
Reason ^ | 12/12/24 | Eugene Volokh

Posted on 12/13/2024 4:47:22 AM PST by CFW

From U.S. v. Saleem, decided [yesterday] by Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson, Steven Agee, and Allison Rushing:

The Supreme Court in Heller defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." Therefore, "the Second Amendment extends … to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." While a silencer may be a firearm accessory, it is not a "bearable arm" that is capable of casting a bullet.

Moreover, while silencers may serve a safety purpose to dampen sounds and protect the hearing of a firearm user or nearby bystanders, it fails to serve a core purpose in the arm's function. A firearm will still be useful and functional without a silencer attached, and a silencer is not a key item for the arm's upkeep and use like cleaning materials and bullets. Thus, a silencer does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.

Julia K. Wood represents the government.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; 4thcircuit; banglist; silencers

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you.

I disagree. But unfortunately, no one listens to me.

1 posted on 12/13/2024 4:47:22 AM PST by CFW

To: CFW

If they’re not “arms”, what gives the atf the right to regulate them?

2 posted on 12/13/2024 4:50:41 AM PST by farmguy ( )

To: CFW

The benefit of silencers is that they greatly facilitate target practice in areas where the sound of a firearm is a problem. Silencers are therefore elemental to "a well regulated militia"; i.e., one that is combat ready and therefore "necessary to the security of a free State."

As an argument, that should do. I'd bet the lawyers who lost that ruling missed it.

3 posted on 12/13/2024 4:53:36 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Read Entire Article