We are neither surprised, not amused.<\/p>\n
Ninth Circuit Rules Suppressors Are Not Second Amendment Arms<\/a><\/p>\n The Ninth Circuit just handed gun control lawyers another gift, and it came from exactly the kind of case Second Amendment advocates should dread.<\/p>\n In\u00a0United States v. Jo\u00e3o Ricardo DeBorba<\/a>, the court upheld a stack of federal gun convictions against a man who was unlawfully in the United States, had claimed U.S. citizenship on firearm-related paperwork, was subject to domestic violence no-contact orders, and was caught with firearms, ammunition, and an unregistered suppressor.<\/p>\n The court treated suppressors as optional firearm accessories and said they are not covered because they are not necessary to the ordinary operation of a firearm. In other words, because a gun can technically fire without a suppressor, the court says a suppressor falls outside the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n A suppressor is not some decorative range toy. It protects hearing, reduces blast, improves communication, helps training, and makes shooting safer for the shooter and those nearby. Hunters use them. Instructors use them. Competitive shooters use them. Ordinary Americans use them. In much of the civilized world, suppressors are treated as basic safety equipment, not criminal contraband.<\/p>\n The Second Amendment does not protect only a stripped-down firearm in its most primitive form. It protects the right to keep and bear arms in a way that is useful, effective, and practical. Optics help a shooter hit what he is aiming at. Magazines feed the firearm. Lights help identify a threat. Suppressors help protect hearing and allow safer training and defensive use.<\/strong><\/p>\n Constitutional attorney and AmmoLand contributor\u00a0Mark W. Smith<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0The Four Boxes Diner<\/a>\u00a0hammered that point in his\u00a0video breakdown<\/a>\u00a0of the decision. Smith argued that the court ignored the broader meaning of \u201carms\u201d under Bruen, where an arm includes an instrument that facilitates armed self-defense. As Smith put it, the key is not whether an item is absolutely necessary, but whether it helps facilitate the protected right.<\/p>\nBad cases still make law, and this one may do real damage. The most dangerous part of the ruling is not simply that DeBorba lost. Given the facts, that outcome was hardly surprising. The problem is that the Ninth Circuit went out of its way to say that suppressors, also called silencers, are not \u201carms\u201d protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.<\/h4>\n