SAN FRANCISCO — No matter how bizarre or counterintuitive to common sense, in today’s justice system, courts can just declare things, and they become legally binding law, such as the case of a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which declared that suppressors are not bearable arms, but rather accoutrements.
On June 3, a three-judge panel of the court issued a decision in United States v. DeBorba addressing the prohibition on the possession of firearms or ammunition by noncitizens “illegally or unlawfully in the United States,” affirming a conviction against an individual who lied about his citizenship status in order to obtain firearms and a concealed carry permit.
The holding of the court that captures the attention of this publication is how it addressed the defendant’s facial Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) suppressor registration requirements and its characterization of “silencers” in particular.
Defendant DeBorba was charged and convicted for unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm silencer under the NFA (U.S.C. Sections 5861(d) and 5845(a)(7)). The court upheld this conviction.
Simultaneously, the court held that the challenge against the NFA’s silencer registration requirements “fails because (1) optional accessories to firearms are not ‘arms’ covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, and (2) the NFA is a shall-issue licensing regime.”
In other words, the court upheld a conviction for possession of an unregistered silencer, but then stated that silencers are “optional accessories” – not firearms – AND that the registration of them is constitutional, or in the court’s words:
As we have previously explained, “optional accessories” to firearms – such as gun slings, scopes, and, importantly, silencers – fall outside of the Second Amendment’s plain text because they are “accoutrements” and not arms. Id. DeBorba’s challenge thus fails at step one of the Bruen analysis.
Such twisted conclusions defy logic, common sense, and the law, evidencing extreme judicial activism. There are at least three major lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the NFA and its registration requirements, and even the Justice Department has amended a complaint that now challenges the constitutionality of one municipality’s ban on suppressors, making the topic of hardware bans ripe for consideration by the Supreme Court.
Body armor is armor of defense. Hearing protection is armor of defense. A suppressor is hearing protection, thus armor of defense.
I give no opinion on the core finding, an unregistered suppressor, but can not help but observe I have no registration requirement for my electric ear muffs.