View Poll

Audio here. We only talk about the 2A issue (the other was motion to suppress).

#Peterson

Peterson’s counsel Richthofen and Chief Judge Elrod briefly debate on Congress defining firearm as a silencer under 28 USC § 5845(a)(7) and 18 USC § 921(a)(3)(C). Elrod asks if it is a leap, but Richthofen doesn’t think so (I personally think it is), as he believes that if a silencer is a firearm, then it should be itself a bearable arm. Elrod then asks about whether registration unduly burdens Peterson’s rights, and noted that it’s somewhat similar to shall-issue blessed by Bruen in footnote 9. Peterson responded by citing to Murphy v. Guerrero, a Mariana Islands case that struck down the weapons ID card requirement because of the wait time. Richthofen said that the average wait time is 8 months (which the US rebuts). What’s funny is that when Elrod asks about whether it would create a circuit split with 10th Circuit’s US v. Cox, Richthofen said that he was unaware of it. Richthofen then addresses the leap by mentioning about the can itself. He says that the suppressor alone is not a firearm, but rather an accessory to be attached to one (there are integrally suppressed firearms, in which the suppressor is a component permanently attached to the firearm). He then argues against himself by saying that while bullets are necessary to exercise 2A per Jackson v. City and County of SF, suppressors like hollow bullets aren’t necessary, despite Jackson saying that the hollow point sale ban implicates 2A-related conduct. He then cites to Ezell v. Chicago, which held that the right to keep and bear arms implies maintaining proficiency in firearm operation, which implied that Chicago’s ban on shooting ranges implicated 2A, and hence shooting ranges are not categorically unprotected. Richthofen then cites to US v. Miller, which held that arms not only include firearms, but also accoutrements that rendered firearms useful and functional. In regards to the historical step, he says that there was no historical analogue in 1791, and the first suppressor regulation according to him occurred in 1934. He then cites a 5th Circuit case US v. Anderson, saying that the inclusion of the suppressor in the NFA is s tricking because no data or info regarding lawful and unlawful use of silencers was provided, and no reason was provided as well. He then says that history shows that if Americans had guns, they had to register who they are and that they had a gun (which is for militias).

#US

US’s counsel Berman says that if the panel strikes down the NFA as applied to suppressors as violative of 2A, it would create a circuit split with the 10th. Berman then says that since suppressors themselves aren’t bearable arms, no need to do the historical analysis. US points out the source for the 8 month average waiting time was accessed in June of 2019, and points out that today, the average processing time for suppressor is a few days (median is 5 days). Berman then says that as Peterson didn’t register to firearm, he’s bringing an as-applied challenge, so one can’t allege that the waiting time wouldn’t infringe his 2A rights (i.e. he doesn’t have standing). Berman then says that the average waiting for Form 1 and 4 overall is 26 days, and cites McRorey v. Garland that background checks are presumptively constitutional. He therefore proposes the following test:

1. Is the suppressor a bearable arm in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense?
2. Does the regulation at issue infringe on that right?
3. If so, is it consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation?

As for the historical analysis, US cites an analogue in its response brief (which is the closest IMO), which is a 1631 Virginia law that mandated recording of new residents as well as the arms and ammo coming in. Anyway, Berman says that under current case law, no need to do historical analysis.

#Rebuttal

Richthofen cites Willett’s concurrence in Mock v. Garland, which said that there’s no historical tradition of requiring an ordinary citizen to endure such a process like the NFA’s for an accessory that makes firearm operation safer, and that there’s no relevantly similar analogue in the Founding era that permanently disarmed people for failing to file paperwork and pay the tax.

Richthofen then stumbled in his rebuttal, and then makes a filler general statement to tell the court to interpret the Constitution and grant Peterson relief.

#Personal Take

Richthofen in my opinion did a subpar performance. His source for the wait time to show that the burden was very severe was outdated, he wasn’t aware of the Cox case, and said that suppressors aren’t necessary to firearm operation.

If you haven’t been following the case, Richthofen relied on interest balancing in his argument against the NFA, and I don’t think he explicitly referred to Bruen in his oral argument (I may be wrong). He, however, relied on text, history, and tradition besides the severity of burden analysis, in the oral argument.

If I were Richthofen, I would have said this for the textual level: suppressors are “arms” (which is a leap), but even if they aren’t arms themselves, a regulation on suppressors is essentially a regulation on a class of arms (i.e. suppressed guns), like how a regulation on high cap mags is essentially a regulation on arms that can fire more than the limit without reloading. Richthofen has already rebutted US’s argument that suppressors are not in common use by pointing to statistical data. Right now, there are millions of suppressors nationwide. To recap, the steps are as follows:

1. Is the conduct at issue covered by the plain text? Here, the conduct is suppressor possession, so yes.
2. Is the scheme like the NFA consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation (i.e. is the suppressor “dangerous and unusual” and hence the acquisition can be regulated)? The answer is no.

Given McRorey and the panel, I expect the panel uphold the NFA as constitutional 2-1. Besides the 5th, there are other NFA criminal cases in all but the 1st, 2nd, and the DC circuit as far as I know.

From what I understand when you apply they can deny you a permit to carry for any number of reasons, some valid, some that appear arbitrary. But if you don't get approved for the pistol permit, you're right to bear arms in Connecticut has essentially been stripped from you. How is that legal?

I am not even sure how "suitability" is even legal to get a permit. I mean they could say something stupid like only members of one political party can have them. As far as I know suitability is not in the Second Amendment. Regulation and outright banning are two different things. I'm not talking about a felon or someone with one of the charges they say disqualifies you, although I am against that, too, nothing should disqualify you from rights unless you are IN custody, but to say you're not being able to carry in public means you also cannot have one in the home that never leaves the house (unless you move), essentially strips that right away completely.

So why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled on that? I kind of thought they did with the Heller case, but did they leave it open to interpretation by the states? I found an article here on it. The "suitability review" is what I am talking about: how is that legal? Like the article says it is arbitrary and could take years to appeal if they say no.

For the record, I have not applied, but may choose to do so in the near future, I am just curious about how things like that are legal.

Now that Hunter Biden has been pardoned for the crime of being in possession of drugs while possessing a firearm, I think now is as good of a time as ever to federally legalize firearm ownership for recreational/medical marijuana users. It's a victimless crime, marijuana use and firearm crimes have zero correlation, and it's also 100% unconstitutional as it's just another excuse to bar people (especially people of color historically) from firearm ownership. Thoughts?

I was wondering how others feel about Biden pardoning Hunter? It seems to me that the left loses meat in their argument for further restrictive legislation, when exixting laws are not enforced (at least if you know the president apparently).

How likely is it that we can get the NFA repealed now that Republicans have control of the house and senate?

We don't have the numbers in the Senate to get anything substantial passed, such as the SHUSH Act due to the lack of a Filibuster proof majority even if their was the will to do so (which I dont believe there is in either chamber) and our margins in the House are even thinner than the last Congress. So hope for the legislative branch is all but gone.

By a miracle of God, if the Republicans grew a pair of balls, they could attach it to a reconciliation bill, which can't be filbustered. But let's be real. That isn't likely.

However, I am still hopeful that on the net/net, the Trump presidency will indirectly be a win for the 2nd Amendment via the judges Trump appoints to the Federal Judiciary and hopefully the Supreme Court if a vacancy arises.

To be clear, this isnt meant to be a debate or argument, i just want to hear what yall think on this topic to gather a general consensus in a civil and genuine manner. The following describes the situation and my take/thoughts about it:

There is a channel on youtube which covers 2a news and one of the topics was a man who "illegally" resided in the US whom was in possession of a firearm. The guy got caught BUT the judge ruled in favor of him citing the 2nd amendment. I thought this was fairly agreeable but people in the comments (along with the host of the video) did not like this at all the main point made was that "he entered illegally and therefore has NO RIGHTS!!" which kinda baffled me because are we suddenly in favor of the government having a say on our (what is in my opinion an inalienable right) right to firearms? Granted, I can make exception to people like sex offenders and domestic abusers/violent felons since there is definitive reason to say "this person shouldn't own a gun", but as I see it to apply this same restriction on people who are, more often than not, just looking for a better life and job to support their family? Because of what the government of all people has said should apply to these people? Further, ideas of other illegal activity might be asserted in which illegally entering would be a step among many.

I find it similar to comparing someone who smokes weed every now and again to a drug dealer affiliated with cartels - I'm sure there are cases that might be true but there should be a burden of proof to push that idea; in this case though its more like instead of doing that we just say "doing drugs of any kind is now illegal, now the problem of drug dealing is solved!" - which I mean, probably not? Even then, who are you to say what I should and should not take/smoke if it doesnt directly affect anybody?

I think in general any regulation of our rights is a net negative and that the right to self preservation (and by extension the ownership of firearms, that being the most technologically adequate means as of now) should not be touched by the government with exception to those who have, in a court of law, proven they will abuse this power. I'm not pro-illegal immigration though to be clear, I think illegal immigration should be stopped and that our borders should be secure - I just think being complicit is any such regulation sets a dangerous precedent with respect to idea that the right to self preservation(especially by means of firearms) is inalienable.

Idk, that's my thoughts on it though and would like to hear what yall think on the topic.

I asked someone recently and they gave some answers I was expecting such as mandatory gun registration, capacity restriction, and banning urban open carry.

But they also gave a couple policies that really blew my mind: a complete civilian handgun ban and a ban on all semi automatic firearms.

To me, it was not well thought out to call those "common sense" and it has me wondering if the majority of people who bring up "common sense laws" are actually pushing heavy handed bans like this.

I might go as far as to call it disingenuous, but maybe most people who use this term do not go as far. What are the usual items you encounter under the "common sense" umbrella?

Hello folks. I'll start with the caveat, I understand some people here would not like new people from other countries in America, but I'm sorry, this is intended for those who don't mind, or who like new people who align with their beliefs.

I'm a Colombian citizen living in Colombia. Since I have memory I have been madly in love with firearms, their mechanics and functioning, and today I sometimes help in instructing people and security personnel in a security academy.

Colombia is an abdolute POS for someone like me, and safe to say, it is a country that blatantly and grossly violates people's basic human right of bearing arms for their self defense unless you are wealthy enough to pay for a bunch of paperwork and USD3.2K for A SIMPLE GLOCK 19 5 GEN OR A 43X, and don't let me get started with the costs and availability of ammunition and the stupid processes for carry permits.

For a good long time now it has been my dream to work as a firearms instructor or otherwise in the firearms industry; it's the only thing that authentically makes me feel alive and that I love with true passion, but this country, and what's more, our Kamala Harris+Nancy pelosi (in terms of political affiliation) of a president is a complete numbnut when it comes to firearm laws and planned a complete civilian disarment since the beginning of his campaign.

Now, to the core matter, how eady or how difficult would it be for a foreigner to not only live 100% legally in the US and start working in this field? I sometimes lose all hope, but there's a small glimmer of it if I could somehow end up living in the US. I'm a fervent supporter of the 2A since the first time I read it, and it's one of my core values, but for me, this won't go anywhere here.

Thanks for reading this lame sob story, and feel free to ask how firearm laws and prices are here if you want to get pissed off for free.