US v. Peterson - suppressors

[rtschl]

There is good and bad in this. The good is that the the U.S. Government is now stating that suppressors are arms and cannot be banned. The bad is the response states "...the NFA registration and taxation requirement is constitutional because it imposes a modest burden on a firearm accessory... because suppressors are specially adaptable to criminal misuse."

The claim that suppressors are "specially adaptable to criminal misuse" is dangerous to be used as a standard, as ANYTHING could be considered specially adaptable to criminal misuse: baseball bat, car or truck, crowbar, tire iron, hammer, wrench, pipe, frying pan, rolling pin, bricks, shovel, golf club, bottle, chair, sword, a knife, a gun...

But I get Mr. Kostas take being a Californian, this would lift the ban there and every other state that has them banned. I love his quote highlighted and emphasized below and agree 100% with his take on the Supreme Court.

The Federal Government has taken the position that suppressors are arms under the Second Amendment, and cannot be banned!
This is from a filing a little bit ago in US v. Peterson.

A bit funny the difference in my reaction, as a Californian who can't get suppressors at all thanks to the State's total ban, and the reaction of those of you who enjoy the real Second Amendment.

I'm thrilled the government concedes suppressors are "arms," as that is very helpful to our pending case of Sanchez v. Bonta, because the lower court dismissed it by saying they are not.

For those in free states, they focus on the government still defending the NFA. Who cares if they are arms, you don't want to register and be taxed. I get it, but Californians would LOVE to have that status quo haha.

This is on SCOTUS for allowing there to be two Second Amendments by not reining in the antigun circuits.

https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1926102457995645356