MNGunTalk.com

Link to one of many articles: https://www.salon.com/2019/06/10/suprem ... -massacre/

After reading the article however it isn't as bad as it first seemed. The SC declined without explanation to hear a case in which someone challenged the NFA's regulation of suppressors. IOW they simply left the status quo in place, without establishing any new precedents.

While I wish we didn't have the NFA at all, I have to concede that constitutionally it's (barely) within the proper authority of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

P.S.,I picked an article at random, not realizing how pro-gun control salon.com is; sorry. Googling Supreme Court silencer will bring up any number of links.

Lumpy wrote:Link to one of many articles: https://www.salon.com/2019/06/10/suprem ... -massacre/

After reading the article however it isn't as bad as it first seemed. The SC declined without explanation to hear a case in which someone challenged the NFA's regulation of suppressors. IOW they simply left the status quo in place, without establishing any new precedents.

While I wish we didn't have the NFA at all, I have to concede that constitutionally it's (barely) within the proper authority of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

This was a bad case in my humble opinion for the court to take.

bstrawse wrote:This was a bad case in my humble opinion for the court to take.

Agreed that this isn't the hill to die on.