Ammo For Sale

« « The most busted name in news | Home | Gun Porn » »

But suppressors are just for turbomurder

Making the case for us: Spokane Police will add suppressors to rifles, citing concerns about hearing damage

Tell me about it.

7 Responses to “But suppressors are just for turbomurder”

  1. Free Range Oyster Says:

    Tell me about it.

    But loudly, so he can hear you over the tinnitus.

  2. Ken R Says:

    My feeling about the 2nd Amendment has always been that what is in common use by local law enforcement should be legal for the public. Suppressors should be purchased like guns. Background check and you take it with you today (in most places).

  3. Paul Koning Says:

    No, suppressors should be purchased like magazines, or holsters, or slings, or any other accessory.
    The 2nd amendment doesn’t authorize background checks. Nor is it relevant what local law enforcement uses or doesn’t use.

  4. Tirno Says:

    On the contrary, Paul, I think police usage establishes strongly any kind of weapon, accessory or whatnot in the ‘common use’ criteria from Heller (if you consider the police a citizen organization) or in the ‘suitable for militia purposes’ criteria from Miller (if you consider the police to be a select militia). Either way is good for us in dealing with the current state of jurisprudence (whether or not that jurisprudence is actually 2A compliant).

    This is a natural consequence of the change in WA state law that permitted the use of suppressors, while the ownership had not been restricted. Previous law did not have an exception for law enforcement use of suppressors, and oh, gosh, there were just a bunch of uses of suppressors by law enforcement. The law was changed because the state couldn’t enforce its ban on use without running head first into a equal protection wall.

  5. Kasper Says:

    Obviously the police dep’t want suppressors so they can shoot black people and no one will hear a sound…

  6. joe Says:

    Who are they going to assassinate with those assault rifles!

  7. Paul Koning Says:

    Tirno, I agree with you as far as the impact on current jurisprudence is concerned. My comments had to do with the plain English meaning of the Constitution, not the distorted interpretation given to it by the courts. As a matter of tactics, using current events like this as a way to chip away at the erroneous precedents makes perfectly good sense.