That's not much of a surprise.Interesting to me was the statement that silencers are entirely viewed as an accessory, not an actual “arm”, and therefore fall outside of the purview of the second amendment.
The Rule of Lenity normally applies when a statutory provision is unclear in itself, In that case deference is to be given to a reasonable reading by the defendant. I don’t believe it is normally applied when there is a conflict between a state and a federal law.Regarding the validity of Kansas' SAPA act, exempting guns kept in Kansas from fed regulation, the court said ignorance of the law is no excuse. IIRC there is a concept called "lenity" which says that if a legal issue is vague and a reasonable person would assume an interpretation that the court says is wrong, that's still a valid defense. What does the INGO bar say about that?
That's not much of a surprise.
Yeah, that's a language problem with the NFA. Suppressors/silencers are included in the definition of "firearm." But, we know they really aren't. (Arguably, this is a "legal fiction.")
So, a court trying to interpret the issue has to acknowledge the reality that they are accessories, while also accepting that a statute includes them as "firearms."
Statutory "firearm" =/= "arms" for Constitutional purposes...but may. This is far from the most egregious legislative language sin that there is out there.
It seems to me this case stands for three things. 1) The NFA - or most any regulatory system designed primarily as a punitive box - can be made constitutional by tying the box with a ribbon of taxation which will let the courts focus on the ribbon while ignoring the box itself. (E.g., this case and Obamacare, aka, The Affordable Care Act.)
2) The states cannot overrule federal law if the feds want to press the issue.
3) A suppressor is an accessory. Period.
I wonder if a firearm could be designed and constructed in such a way that the suppressor elements were integral to its design and construction so that the suppressed firearm could come within the Second Amendment's protection. If they could, they would sell like ice cream on the 4th of July.
I don't think it stands for the proposition that something that violates the 2d Amendment is constitutional because you call it a tax. They found that the 2d Amendment is not violated by restricting "silencers" because they are not constitutional "arms" and SBRs do not fit the Heller definition of the kind of arms that cannot be prohibited. Since neither, in their view, have 2d Amendment protection, then if they are subject to regulation, then they can be taxed even if the tax is a backdoor ban.
Suppose the NFA is amended to impose a tax of $5.00 per bullet for any round that can be fired in a modern firearm. While I agree that this case does not "stand for the proposition that something that violates the 2d Amendment is constitutional," what I am saying is that a court can easily use this case, and some of the cases cited therein, to make the argument that because it it a tax, and the constitution specifically gives congress the "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," (Art 1, Section 8) that it is constitutional irrespective of a burden on the exercise of our 2A rights.
You and I may agree that is completely wrong, but the door is certainly open to that if there are 5 progressives on the Supreme Court.
What do you think?
Interesting to me was the statement that silencers are entirely viewed as an accessory, not an actual “arm”, and therefore fall outside of the purview of the second amendment.