sic0048 wrote:To those saying this is a constitutional issue aren't considering two things
- first, a silencer is not a firearm. Therefore it is not a constitutionally protected item.
- second, the Supreme Court decides which laws are constitutional and which laws are not. Until the Supreme Court says a law is unconstitutional, it is considered to be a valid law. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Just because you think a law infringes on your rights granted by the constitution, you still have to follow those laws until the Supreme Court overturns them as being unconstitutional.
You're wrong on both counts.
1- The ATF classifies suppressors as Firearms, therefore they are regulated as firearms.
2- SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. The Burden of Proof is upon those CREATING the restrictions to our Rights. Not on those wishing to PRESERVE the Rights that so many Generations of USA Citizens and non-citizens have fought for.
2b- You don't seem to be from a Legal Background. You are neglecting so many Legal Theories including Nullification. If everyone follows the Laws until the Courts overturn them, there will NEVER be laws questioned in Court, because they lack the Principle of Standing.
wiki wrote:In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.