Our motion for summary judgment makes two main sets of arguments. First, the NFA's regulations of untaxed "firearms" exceeds Congress's constitutional authority. Second, the NFA's regulation of suppressors and SBRs violates the Second Amendment.
A thread on the highlights of our motion for summary judgment.
The NFA has always been justified as an exercise in the taxing power. That is how then-Attorney General Homer Cummings explained it in 1934, and it's how every court since has upheld it.
One Representative even said at the time that if you removed the tax, the NFA wouldn't survive.
With the tax now set to $0, the NFA's registration scheme has no basis to exist.
I am going to skip through the commerce clause portions because while they are very legally interesting, they are a bit in the weeds for our purposes here - let's go straight to the Second Amendment stuff.
Suppressors and SBRs are arms, and no history justifies the NFA's regulations on them.
Notably, the United States has previously conceded that suppressors are at least protected by the Second Amendment (though they nonetheless argue the NFA is constitutional).
Suppressors and SBRs are not "dangerous and unusual." For one, they are not "dangerous" because they are not dangerous compared to weapons in common use (which they also are themselves too).
For another, they are not unusual. Today there are at least 3.5 million registered suppressors, and looking back historically, even historical figures like President Teddy Roosevelt owned them.
4.5 million*
As for SBRs, while we believe they should just be considered like any other rifle, even specifically looking at registered SBRs, that number is at 870,000.
And that does not include "AR pistols" and similar firearms, which number in the millions.
The reason suppressors are still so regulated (and outright banned in a few states) likely comes down to a Hollywood-based misconception. People think they are whisper quiet, as portrayed in films like John Wick 2.
But aside from maybe suppressed .22lr and certain subsonic rounds, ammunition fired suppressed is still very loud.
There is considerable scientific and medical backing for the idea that suppressors should be used to protect hearing.
Suppressors are critical home-defense tools. Firing a gun in doors without a suppressor is extremely loud and disorienting, and also causes hearing damage.
Suppressors are rarely used in crime, and the government admits it. Nor are they particularly useful to criminals. They make firearms significantly larger (and thus harder to carry), while not making them quiet enough to not be noticed when fired.
Similarly, SBRs are also rarely used by criminals. Which makes sense, as they are still pretty large to try and carry around.
SBRs were added to the NFA basically by historical accident, because the original bill was going to include pistols and a member of Congress didn't want hunting rifles swept up into it as concealable firearms.
There is no historical tradition supporting the NFA. While the Supreme Court has said licensing regimes that ensure that those who carry arms are law-abiding citizens, that can already be accomplished as to suppressors and SBRs via standard background checks.
That covers the substantive Second Amendment arguments in our motion, but you can read the whole motion here:
saf.org/wp-content/upl…
Support SAF!
saf.org/individual/
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.