silencer Archives | Restoring Liberty

(Editor’s note: Joe Miller represented Appellant Jeremy Kettler in this case and conducted the oral arguments for his case before the 10th Circuit. Joe was deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to not take the case, but wasn’t surprised given the unprecedented and mysterious use of a suppressor – on only one of the guns fired – during the recent mass shooting at Virginia Beach. Following the shooting, President Trump announced his opposition to suppressors, as well)

In orders issued Monday morning, the Surpreme Court denied the petitions for hearing of a pair of cases involving gun “silencers” — or suppressors — amid a national debate about whether the firearm accessory should be banned.

The cases of Cox v. United States and Kettler v. United States, had to do with the National Firearms Act (NFA), which was first passed in 1934. The NFA does not ban suppressors, but it does create substantial bureaucratic and financial barriers to transferring them, such as filing paperwork with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and paying $200 for a tax stamp.

Shane Cox manufactured suppressors and sold them unregistered out of his army surplus store. Jeremey Kettler — a disabled Army veteran — bought one of those suppressors and then posted a video of it on social media. After that social media post some drew suspicion from ATF, Kettler was questioned about the purchase and charged with three felonies, including possession of an unregistered firearm. Cox was also charged under the NFA.

Kettler’s lawyers later argued that he thought the “purchase, possession, and use of such a suppressor was entirely lawful.” Both were later convicted under the federal statute.

Later, in federal court, Cox and Kettler raised the question of whether or not the federal government has the authority to regulate commerce between two private parties within one state and also said that the transaction was protected by Kansas state law. The lower courts disagreed, and now the Supreme Court has allowed those rulings to stand.

The justices did not comment on the decision to decline the cases. The Supreme Court’s Monday order list as well as Kettler’s 46-page petition in the case are out.

“Silencers” — more accurately called suppressors — reduce the sound of gunshots by functioning in a similar manner to a car muffler. They redirect the gas created by the combustion reaction of the gunpowder and introducing it more gradually to the surrounding environment.

Contrary to the misconception created by Hollywood action and crime movies, however, they do not completely silence a gunshot, but merely bring the sound level down to around that of a jackhammer.

The devices have existed since the early 1900s but have faced renewed focus from anti-gun activists in recent weeks after one was used at a recent shooting in Virginia Beach, Va.

During a recent interview while in the United Kingdom, President Trump said that he would “seriously look” at banning gun suppressors. He explained that he doesn’t “like” suppressors, but also doesn’t “love the idea” of banning them. (For more from the author of “SCOTUS Declines to Hear Case About Federal Regulation of Gun Silencers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Two Republican senators have introduced legislation that would make suppressors for firearms—or silencers, as they’re more commonly known—more easily available to the American public. The bill would eliminate federal taxes on, and regulations of, suppressors.

“By properly classifying suppressors as a firearm accessory, our bill would allow sportsmen to have better access to hearing protection and preserve the hearing of sportsmen, gun owners, and those who live near shooting ranges,” Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said in a press release.

Crapo introduced the bill, called the Silencers Helping Us Save Hearing Act, on Thursday with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

Many Americans know about silencers only from what they see in the movies—a stealthy gun accessory that helps criminals more easily kill by suppressing the sound of the gunshot.

But “silencers,” Second Amendment advocates say, is a misleading way to describe these firearm accessories because they don’t actually silence the sound of a gunshot.

Instead, they argue, silencers should be more easily available because they protect against hearing damage. In short, proponents view silencers as a safety issue.

Current laws regulating suppressors date back to 1934. Suppressors require registration, a $200 tax on every transfer, and an eight- to 12-month waiting period.

Removing the tax and waiting period, gun advocates say, will make suppressors more widely available to people in the shooting sports industry who face hearing loss over the loud sound of gunshots.

“Suppressors can make shooting safer for the millions of hunters and sportsmen that exercise their constitutional right to use firearms every year,” Lee said in a prepared statement, adding:

The current process for obtaining a suppressor is far too expensive and burdensome. Our bill would remove these unnecessary federal regulations and make it easier for firearms users to protect themselves.

The Crapo-Lee legislation faces an uphill battle, with groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence arguing that making suppressors more widely available could facilitate crime.

“Lawmakers introduced this bill in the name of safety, yet continue to oppose Brady background checks for all gun sales,” a spokesperson for the Brady Campaign told The Daily Signal in February. “Instead of making it harder for dangerous people to get guns, Congress is trying to make it easier for everyone to get silencers.”

The Daily Signal’s feature series, “Underreported,” explored the regulation of suppressors. Watch the video above to learn more. (For more from the author of “Republicans Move to Make Silencers More Easily Available” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Posts