Mike D
Well-Known Fanatic
On Sat, 2025-02-08 at 11:57 -0500, Michael Delaney wrote:
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/02/co...ail&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-b1e1e08395-22304872
Apparently, they don't even attempt to hide their double speak any longer. According to the above article, they claim suppressors are NOT firearms, but in defense of their registration/stamp process, they claim the opposite.
That was from an article this morning;A panel of three judges took up the case and heard arguments. Mr. Peterson claimed that the NFA was unconstitutional, and suppressors were protected arms. Lawyers for the ATF claimed that suppressors were not arms at all. They said they were accessories that were afforded no Second Amendment protections.
If this isn't the NFA/BATFE admitting that silencers are NOT firearms, which they claim they are, when subject to licensing and a $200 stamp, what is it? I don't see how they can play BOTH sides of that fence
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/02/co...ail&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-b1e1e08395-22304872
Apparently, they don't even attempt to hide their double speak any longer. According to the above article, they claim suppressors are NOT firearms, but in defense of their registration/stamp process, they claim the opposite.