Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Dennis in MA]

I'm having a problem with the logical connecting of dots that results in this statement "Suppressors are “firearms” within the context of the Second Amendment"

I'm against regulating suppressors. Not because of 2a, like I said, I don't see the connection unless you're going to call everything that could potentially be attached to a gun a firearm, and we don't do that. Nor should we. I can see including anything that is necessary to the function of the gun, mags, bullets, etc., but not suppressors, any more than I see muzzle breaks or flash suppressors as falling under 2a.

Generally speaking I don't think the gov should be regulation anything without significant and quantifiable reason. They regulate DUI because some people do it and cause serious problems for others. If there was never an idiot who drove drunk, which at one point there wasn't we wouldn't have DUI laws. I've never heard of a RUI (Riding, as in horses) law, because even if it was done it wasn't likely to to harm anyone other than the rider. After all the drunk might fall off and break their neck, but the horse isn't going to crash into a school and kill a half dozen students. Even with this I have issues with how they regulate DUI, but I can see how it got there. And of course DUI is an action not a thing.

So maybe it's best to say, I can see how they get to regulating (laws or regulation, let's not get too caught up on the word) actions, murder, assault, theft, but things are just things until a person does something.

Of course that leaves us with how do you fight an unjust restriction? There is no amendment that says the gov will not restrict things, but can restrict the use, but not mere possession, of things, provided that use can be shown to be of significant danger to the public or person, and show that such a restriction will not violate the rights guaranteed to all people.

Now there might be some past ruling that connects these, but the existence of something like that still only pushes the question back, it doesn't give me the step by step connection to 2a.

I write this in hope of some real conversation. If you're one of those that just screams 2A 2A 2A, well... go ahead, it's your right. But it doesn't help make good conversation and frankly just makes that person look, well, not so smart.

I'm pretty sure, at least in some areas, there is a OWI statute that relates to livestock as well. (Operator intoxicated, not the livestock. Hard to lock up a horse in people-jail.)

Sure you might not hit a bus and kill kids. But you wander Old Blue out into the highway, the bus veers to avoid and kills all the kids anyhow.

 

[42!]

I'm pretty sure, at least in some areas, there is a OWI statute that relates to livestock as well. (Operator intoxicated, not the livestock. Hard to lock up a horse in people-jail.)

Sure you might not hit a bus and kill kids. But you wander Old Blue out into the highway, the bus veers to avoid and kills all the kids anyhow.

thank you for the image of drunk livestock

 

[KBCraig]

I'm pretty sure, at least in some areas, there is a OWI statute that relates to livestock as well. (Operator intoxicated, not the livestock. Hard to lock up a horse in people-jail.)

Sure you might not hit a bus and kill kids. But you wander Old Blue out into the highway, the bus veers to avoid and kills all the kids anyhow.

In Texas, the offense is "Public Intoxication", Penal Code 49.02 (there is no BAC level required; it is based on behavior and officer testimony).

Sec. 49.02. PUBLIC INTOXICATION. (a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

"Intoxicated" is defined by statute as, "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body".

 

[42!]

In Texas, the offense is "Public Intoxication", Penal Code 49.02 (there is no BAC level required; it is based on behavior and officer testimony).

Sec. 49.02. PUBLIC INTOXICATION. (a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

"Intoxicated" is defined by statute as, "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body".

Oh for god's sake. I was just trying to give an example, convey an idea. Yes there are exceptions. I'll try to come up with a more exact example. But I think I got the idea across even if there are exceptions and details that differ. The subject wasn't OUI or DUI or OWI anyway.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I hear Texas sheep get horny when drunk. In case you guys are thinking of making a trip.

 

[42!]

I hear Texas sheep get horny when drunk. In case you guys are thinking of making a trip.

I'm always amazed by the level of thread drift that happen on NES. From a SCOTUS ruling to sheep f'ing I love it.

 

[P51MA]

I'm having a problem with the logical connecting of dots that results in this statement "Suppressors are “firearms” within the context of the Second Amendment"

I'm against regulating suppressors. Not because of 2a, like I said, I don't see the connection unless you're going to call everything that could potentially be attached to a gun a firearm, and we don't do that. Nor should we. I can see including anything that is necessary to the function of the gun, mags, bullets, etc., but not suppressors, any more than I see muzzle breaks or flash suppressors as falling under 2a.

Generally speaking I don't think the gov should be regulation anything without significant and quantifiable reason. They regulate DUI because some people do it and cause serious problems for others. If there was never an idiot who drove drunk, which at one point there wasn't we wouldn't have DUI laws. I've never heard of a RUI (Riding, as in horses) law, because even if it was done it wasn't likely to to harm anyone other than the rider. After all the drunk might fall off and break their neck, but the horse isn't going to crash into a school and kill a half dozen students. Even with this I have issues with how they regulate DUI, but I can see how it got there. And of course DUI is an action not a thing.

So maybe it's best to say, I can see how they get to regulating (laws or regulation, let's not get too caught up on the word) actions, murder, assault, theft, but things are just things until a person does something.

Of course that leaves us with how do you fight an unjust restriction? There is no amendment that says the gov will not restrict things, but can restrict the use, but not mere possession, of things, provided that use can be shown to be of significant danger to the public or person, and show that such a restriction will not violate the rights guaranteed to all people.

Now there might be some past ruling that connects these, but the existence of something like that still only pushes the question back, it doesn't give me the step by step connection to 2a.

I write this in hope of some real conversation. If you're one of those that just screams 2A 2A 2A, well... go ahead, it's your right. But it doesn't help make good conversation and frankly just makes that person look, well, not so smart.

Sure, but it’s the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear firearms.

I don’t see why this doesn’t cover all small arms and light infantry paraphernalia, at a minimum.

 

[42!]

Sure, but it’s the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear firearms.

I don’t see why this doesn’t cover all small arms and light infantry paraphernalia, at a minimum.

This would come down to a definition of "arms". And for me that's anything that is designed to be a weapon, or is commonly used as such, without including things that are incidentally used as weapons, nor would it include an entire type of item when there are sub-classes that are and are not intended as weapons.
So gun are arms, not because that's their only use but because it is a historically common use and clear intent in the vast majority of design. On the other hand hammers are not even though they have been used as such, because that is neither their design intent nor is it a common use. The in-betweens, lets say axes, there are battle axes that are designed primarily as weapons, but axes in general are not weapons.

But even with the vague parts of this, accessories are not arms. A leather strap for retaining your battle axe is not an arm, nor is the grip for an AR15, a muzzle break, or a suppressor. Sure, you could take a suppressor and hit someone on the head with it, but that doesn't make it an arm under 2a any more than a rock is.

As for the because law xx.xxz says so, that's not an explanation, it just means they got it wrong. And just like now, I'd really love to hear their step by step logic that got it there. Even if I disagree with the logic I'd like to know what it was. I just don't see any way they got from A to B on this.

And maybe that's where the fight really needs to be. Challenge the NFA as unconstitutional because it says suppressors fall under 2a. A win would be SCOTUS ruling that suppressors are not arms. This would remove them from any NFA regulation. At that point, if the politicians wanted to try and regulate them, they would need to provide some kind of logic, which simply does not exist, instead of adding them to a group that is easier to show some elements as being dangerous.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

And maybe that's where the fight really needs to be. Challenge the NFA as unconstitutional because it says suppressors fall under 2a. A win would be SCOTUS ruling that suppressors are not arms. This would remove them from any NFA regulation. At that point, if the politicians wanted to try and regulate them, they would need to provide some kind of logic, which simply does not exist, instead of adding them to a group that is easier to show some elements as being dangerous.

No, they would not need logic as "not arms" would mean "not covered by the 2A".

 

[Mesatchornug]

This would come down to a definition of "arms". And for me that's anything that is designed to be a weapon, or is commonly used as such, without including things that are incidentally used as weapons, nor would it include an entire type of item when there are sub-classes that are and are not intended as weapons.
So gun are arms, not because that's their only use but because it is a historically common use and clear intent in the vast majority of design. On the other hand hammers are not even though they have been used as such, because that is neither their design intent nor is it a common use. The in-betweens, lets say axes, there are battle axes that are designed primarily as weapons, but axes in general are not weapons.

But even with the vague parts of this, accessories are not arms. A leather strap for retaining your battle axe is not an arm, nor is the grip for an AR15, a muzzle break, or a suppressor. Sure, you could take a suppressor and hit someone on the head with it, but that doesn't make it an arm under 2a any more than a rock is.

As for the because law xx.xxz says so, that's not an explanation, it just means they got it wrong. And just like now, I'd really love to hear their step by step logic that got it there. Even if I disagree with the logic I'd like to know what it was. I just don't see any way they got from A to B on this.

And maybe that's where the fight really needs to be. Challenge the NFA as unconstitutional because it says suppressors fall under 2a. A win would be SCOTUS ruling that suppressors are not arms. This would remove them from any NFA regulation. At that point, if the politicians wanted to try and regulate them, they would need to provide some kind of logic, which simply does not exist, instead of adding them to a group that is easier to show some elements as being dangerous.

Do you contend, then, that their use of "arms" would be meant to not include armor? Traditionally, the two words are tightly tied together. In fact, they share a root:

arm | Etymology of arm by etymonline

"to fit together" (source also of Sanskrit irmah "arm," Greek arthron "a joint," Latin… See origin and meaning of arm.

www.etymonline.com

armor | Etymology of armor by etymonline

"mail, defensive covering worn in combat," also, generally, "means of protection," from… See origin and meaning of armor.

www.etymonline.com

Once we start looking at those roots - which will have to happen when investigating THT - we'll find that an accepted contemporary definition of "arms" includes "tools, implements (of war)." This broader definition seems to me to obviously include the kind of useful accessories that include suppressors.

 

[LakeTrout]

Now that's the idea.
A muffler doesn't become unlawful until its used on a firearm, hence it's the action.
But this would mean the assumption of some kind or "constructive" use, since mere possession of a suppressor is unlawful.

On the other hand, a muffler isn't a car, so why would a suppressor be a gun?
And while there is regulation of the noise levels a car can make, they don't tell the manufacturers how to make it happen, if they can do it without a muffler that's ok too.

With regard to whether or not silencers are covered under the 2A, I think that the part of the 2-A that states “a well-regulated militia” covers suppressors, optics, magazines, etc.

It doesn’t say “a poorly outfitted bunch of fat boys”. The intent is to be properly equipped. Silencers are a modern piece of kit that falls under the scope of this intent, in my view. It seems pretty straightforward.

 

[MaverickNH]

Do you contend, then, that their use of "arms" would be meant to not include armor? Traditionally, the two words are tightly tied together. In fact, they share a root:

arm | Etymology of arm by etymonline

"to fit together" (source also of Sanskrit irmah "arm," Greek arthron "a joint," Latin… See origin and meaning of arm.

www.etymonline.com

armor | Etymology of armor by etymonline

"mail, defensive covering worn in combat," also, generally, "means of protection," from… See origin and meaning of armor.

www.etymonline.com

Once we start looking at those roots - which will have to happen when investigating THT - we'll find that an accepted contemporary definition of "arms" includes "tools, implements (of war)." This broader definition seems to me to obviously include the kind of useful accessories that include suppressors.

I’m no military historian, but I wonder if personally-worn armor didn’t fall into disuse between the adoption of firearm as personal main battle weapons (vs ballistic and handheld sharp things). Flak Jackets were used to resist blast weapons (bombs, rockets, artillery) - NFA-type weaponry nowadays. Would modern body armor have a historical analogy to the 1760-1840 era, or even Civil War era?

Defending private ownership of body armor might require another strategy…

 

[P51MA]

With regard to whether or not silencers are covered under the 2A, I think that the part of the 2-A that states “a well-regulated militia” covers suppressors, optics, magazines, etc.

It doesn’t say “a poorly outfitted bunch of fat boys”. The intent is to be properly equipped. Silencers are a modern piece of kit that falls under the scope of this intent, in my view. It seems pretty straightforward.

^this
"well regulated" is the more archaic use of the word regulated, meaning to be in good working order, proficient, properly equipped, etc.

When taken in its totality, the 2A encompasses the entirety of what would be needed for a militia man from weapons, related supplies, and practice, possibly with or without a local group of some sort. It might even cover such things as MREs, although I don't think that is likely to ever make it into a court!

 

[pastera]

This would come down to a definition of "arms". And for me that's anything that is designed to be a weapon, or is commonly used as such, without including things that are incidentally used as weapons, nor would it include an entire type of item when there are sub-classes that are and are not intended as weapons.
So gun are arms, not because that's their only use but because it is a historically common use and clear intent in the vast majority of design. On the other hand hammers are not even though they have been used as such, because that is neither their design intent nor is it a common use. The in-betweens, lets say axes, there are battle axes that are designed primarily as weapons, but axes in general are not weapons.

But even with the vague parts of this, accessories are not arms. A leather strap for retaining your battle axe is not an arm, nor is the grip for an AR15, a muzzle break, or a suppressor. Sure, you could take a suppressor and hit someone on the head with it, but that doesn't make it an arm under 2a any more than a rock is.

As for the because law xx.xxz says so, that's not an explanation, it just means they got it wrong. And just like now, I'd really love to hear their step by step logic that got it there. Even if I disagree with the logic I'd like to know what it was. I just don't see any way they got from A to B on this.

And maybe that's where the fight really needs to be. Challenge the NFA as unconstitutional because it says suppressors fall under 2a. A win would be SCOTUS ruling that suppressors are not arms. This would remove them from any NFA regulation. At that point, if the politicians wanted to try and regulate them, they would need to provide some kind of logic, which simply does not exist, instead of adding them to a group that is easier to show some elements as being dangerous.

From Heller

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter-
pret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the
English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
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.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dic-
tionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary
of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinaf-
ter Webster) (similar).

Anything is an "arm" for 2A purpose when used in lawful defense

 

[pastera]

I’m no military historian, but I wonder if personally-worn armor didn’t fall into disuse between the adoption of firearm as personal main battle weapons (vs ballistic and handheld sharp things). Flak Jackets were used to resist blast weapons (bombs, rockets, artillery) - NFA-type weaponry nowadays. Would modern body armor have a historical analogy to the 1760-1840 era, or even Civil War era?

Defending private ownership of body armor might require another strategy…

Per Heller, body armor is a protected arm for 2a purposes.
See my previous post

 

[pastera]

^this
"well regulated" is the more archaic use of the word regulated, meaning to be in good working order, proficient, properly equipped, etc.

When taken in its totality, the 2A encompasses the entirety of what would be needed for a militia man from weapons, related supplies, and practice, possibly with or without a local group of some sort. It might even cover such things as MREs, although I don't think that is likely to ever make it into a court!

Heller was very clear in the definition of what is meant by arms.
What has not been adjudicated is what was meant by "in common use".
I believe it will get changed from "a lot of people own it" to a more proper definition of "a reasonably prudent person would agree that the item is commonly used as an offensive or defensive tool"

 

[appraiser]

then are knife ordinances now unconstitutional?

 

[pastera]

then are knife ordinances now unconstitutional?

They always have been.
The issue is getting them before the court

 

[Coyote33]

piece of kit

 

[LakeTrout]

then are knife ordinances now unconstitutional?

Yes.

 

[Hoover]

then are knife ordinances now unconstitutional?

Hawaii just lost a federal lawsuit regarding knives.

 

[42!]

No, they would not need logic as "not arms" would mean "not covered by the 2A".

So lets say they weren't arms and grouped together under 2a, under what current law would the gov be able to restrict their possession?

 

[Mesatchornug]

I’m no military historian, but I wonder if personally-worn armor didn’t fall into disuse between the adoption of firearm as personal main battle weapons (vs ballistic and handheld sharp things).

I'm sure it had, but id be surprised if they assumed this represented a permanent change.

Flak Jackets were used to resist blast weapons (bombs, rockets, artillery) - NFA-type weaponry nowadays. Would modern body armor have a historical analogy to the 1760-1840 era, or even Civil War era?

This depends on if we think individual specific equipment needs analogs, or if the idea of "standard equipment" is sufficient.

(@pastera, I do see and share your point, as well)

 

[42!]

Do you contend, then, that their use of "arms" would be meant to not include armor? Traditionally, the two words are tightly tied together. In fact, they share a root:

arm | Etymology of arm by etymonline

"to fit together" (source also of Sanskrit irmah "arm," Greek arthron "a joint," Latin… See origin and meaning of arm.

www.etymonline.com

armor | Etymology of armor by etymonline

"mail, defensive covering worn in combat," also, generally, "means of protection," from… See origin and meaning of armor.

www.etymonline.com

Once we start looking at those roots - which will have to happen when investigating THT - we'll find that an accepted contemporary definition of "arms" includes "tools, implements (of war)." This broader definition seems to me to obviously include the kind of useful accessories that include suppressors.

Under this argument nearly everything would fall under 2a, which is obviously not what is meant.
This argument would clearly make trucks covered under 2a, see what I mean.

With regard to whether or not silencers are covered under the 2A, I think that the part of the 2-A that states “a well-regulated militia” covers suppressors, optics, magazines, etc.

It doesn’t say “a poorly outfitted bunch of fat boys”. The intent is to be properly equipped. Silencers are a modern piece of kit that falls under the scope of this intent, in my view. It seems pretty straightforward.

So based on your position a rifle sling is an arm under 2a? It enhances the use of the actual arm, the rifle, just as a suppressor would. Interesting position.

^this
"well regulated" is the more archaic use of the word regulated, meaning to be in good working order, proficient, properly equipped, etc.

When taken in its totality, the 2A encompasses the entirety of what would be needed for a militia man from weapons, related supplies, and practice, possibly with or without a local group of some sort. It might even cover such things as MREs, although I don't think that is likely to ever make it into a court!

same as above

From Heller

Anything is an "arm" for 2A purpose when used in lawful defense

OK, so a suppressor, or any other accessory, could only be regulated if used for self defence. Great, most of us will never use one in a defence situation, and if we did we probably wouldn't care what the gov had to say about it, at least we'd be alive.

There is just no logical path from suppressor to 2a, and why would we even want one. Some may suggest, grouping it with arms under 2a somehow protects it. Really? I own 3, how many do you guys in MA own? Hows that protection working for you.
On the other hand, if it wasn't an arm, there are no laws allowing the Fed to regulate it. They would need to pass new laws, and establish an agency to create rules and enforce them. Or pass more laws to give that responsibility to an existing one. To get the money and laws, they will need to show some compelling need, a reason the Fed needs to do this. Crime you say? Sorry no stats of one being used in a crime. Politicians would rather spend time lining their pockets.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Under this argument nearly everything would fall under 2a, which is obviously not what is meant.
This argument would clearly make trucks covered under 2a, see what I mean.

I'm afraid I don't see what you mean.

 

[Picton]

I don't think the Founders would have regulated suppressors.

I view them the same way I view scopes, laser sights, or (for that matter) forward handgrips: they are optional things that enhance the utility of your firearm.

The former analogues might have been rifled barrels, or (a few years later) percussion-ignition rather than flintlock, or carbine rings, or perhaps attached pistol ramrods rather than detachable ones: all were optional, and enhanced the gun for people who wanted (or could afford) them. In and of themselves, they were not firearms any more than scopes are. Mate them to a firearm and they became integral features of that firearm. And we know how the Founders viewed firearms.

 

[chuckules]

I don't think the Founders would have regulated suppressors.

And we know how the Founders viewed firearms.

I’ve seen shirts/stickers with either Jefferson or Washington holding an AK.
I’ve always imagined if they saw one being shot that the reaction would have been:

“SPLENDID! WHAT A MARVELOUS DEVICE!!!”

 

[42!]

I'm afraid I don't see what you mean.

You say "Once we start looking at those roots - which will have to happen when investigating THT - we'll find that an accepted contemporary definition of "arms" includes "tools, implements (of war)." This broader definition seems to me to obviously include the kind of useful accessories that include suppressors."

Tools and implements of war would clearly include wheels, trucks, on and on. under this definition. We clearly do not consider these arms. So this "accepted" definition clearly isn't.

 

[Mesatchornug]

You say "Once we start looking at those roots - which will have to happen when investigating THT - we'll find that an accepted contemporary definition of "arms" includes "tools, implements (of war)." This broader definition seems to me to obviously include the kind of useful accessories that include suppressors."

Tools and implements of war would clearly include wheels, trucks, on and on. under this definition. We clearly do not consider these arms. So this "accepted" definition clearly isn't.

I see what you're saying. I just don't think it follows in the same way. But even then, the clear purpose of the 2A is to protect tools of war from government interference.

 

[pastera]

So lets say they weren't arms and grouped together under 2a, under what current law would the gov be able to restrict their possession?

If silencers are not an arm then the government is not restricted from infringing on the personal possession or use of them.
It is our duty to show that they are an arm protected by the 2nd and prima facia evidence of that fact is that the NFA itself.

§921. Definitions​

(a) As used in this chapter—

(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer;

(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

Given that the definition only applies to a "device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm" and by statute is controlled as a firearm, then the government has explicitly stated that it's common use is as an arm as defined by the History, Text and Tradition of the COTUS. As state by Heller and amplified by Caetano, that device need not have existed at the time of the founding in order to fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment.