These existing laws clearly define suppressors as “firearms”.

But… The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 3-judge panel ruled that suppressors are not firearms but an accessory and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and the Department of Justice (DOJ) responded the same that a suppressor is not a firearm but an accessory in a 5th circuit case.

So now “The DOJ told the court the NFA’s licensing and registration scheme — fingerprints, photographs, background checks, and the infamous tax stamp — is ‘presumptively constitutional’ because it operates like a ‘shall-issue’ permit system.”

But they are applying the same requirements for ‘firearms’ to “an accessory” ? They are saying ‘its a firearm’ without saying its a ‘firearm’.

Where in the NFA and GCA (or constitution) does it say “an accessory” is subject to “fingerprints, photographs, background checks, and the infamous tax stamp” to be decided under a ‘shall-issue’ permit system?

This needs to be resolved by SCOTUS. It can’t be both a firearm and an accessory, or just an accessory, when only a firearm requirement is being applied as making it subject to “fingerprints, photographs, background checks, and the infamous tax stamp” for firearms and not accessory.

What did I miss here? This doesn’t make any sense to be treated as a ‘firearm’ in requirements to procure but it be an ‘accessory’ for which there are no such requirements in the law.

So if its an ‘accessory’, does that mean individual parts or combination of parts that can be assembled into a suppressor are not firearm, or are they accessory or are they neither until assembled into a suppressor and then when assembled into a suppressor is the suppressor a firearm or accessory requiring such ‘registration’/procurement/ownership requirements because the law doesn’t give such a requirement for ‘accessory’?

Wait, wut??? You don’t care about your hearing??

Obviously, you can’t wear “cans” while hunting, because you need to be able to hear the deer (or wild hogs, or varmints, or whatever, as well as other hunters), but why not use a suppressor? In Europe, not exactly a bastion of firearms freedom, suppressors are mostly OTC accessories.

Use one, or don’t; they’re your ears. But why impose your ignorance on the rest of us?

…and therefore NOT eligible for regulation as arms?

But anything can be regulated. If it isn’t tied to a right, then it’s even easier to regulate.

I’ve never had a need for a suppressor.
Good for you.
Bill of Rights, not Bill of Needs. Also, suppressors for hunting are a good thing. Maybe Elmer should try one…

Counterargument for suppressors just being “accessories”: The NFA declares suppressors as “Firearms” (Section 2.1 => “Types of NFA Firearms”, Subsection 7 => “Silencers”). Kind of hard to argue something that the law defines as n “[Fire] Arm” is not, in fact, an “Arm”.

But if the government called them accessories in court documents…aren’t they kind of admitting they are not arms, and therefore NOT eligible for regulation as arms?