Supreme Court 6-3 Decision Prevents Suppressor Purchase & Possession Bans! Defiance Continues!

In this video I give an important update in a challenge to bans on suppressors!
Check out Patriot Mobile: Go to patriotmobile.... or call 972-patriot
🎥 Follow Me On Other Social Media 🎥
Instagram: / armedscholaryt
Twitter: / armedscholaryt
Twitch: / armedscholar
📷 My KZbin Setup 📷
Camera: (Sony A7siii) amzn.to/36YIe96
Lens: (Tamron 17-28) amzn.to/3wSPn5H
Lighting: (GVM RGB) amzn.to/3zpDfdT
Microphone: (Rode Wireless) amzn.to/3iBgnkU
Camera Stand: (Broadcast Boom) amzn.to/2V7meWV
Legal Disclaimer: This content is not intended to provide any legal guidance or advice. Although I am a licensed attorney I am not providing any legal advice through this video. If you have any legal questions please contact a licensed professional in your area to address your specific issues.
DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. This helps support my channel and allows us to continue making awesome videos like this. Thank you for the support!

[@ArmedScholar]

Check out Patriot Mobile: Go to patriotmobile.com/scholar or call 972-patriot

[@patryn36]

all religion is the realm of the weak and stupid, all it produces is weakness and rot.

[@DeathwingReborn]

Please if you know who is the one running this case against Illinois. Tell them to argue that if Silencers are not bearable arms then they should have to allow integrally suppressed firearms (suppressor built into the actual barrel of a firearm and can not be removed) which are currently also illegal in Illinois. Given they would be a part of a firearm and can not be removed they would HAVE to be recognized as a bearable arm. At which point you can argue integral "suppressors" as defined by the NFA are then bearable arms by proxy normal suppressors are bearable arms as well as defined by the NFA. This would at least let us living in the Nazi state of Illinois to at least purchase integrally suppressed firearms at worst and win the case outright at best.

[@skydivingcomrade1648]

"The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people." -The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. - Tench Coxe

[@LoneRanger-g1m]

I am curious about the rifle issue...if an invading military has auto rifles and such, are we supposed to shoot once in return fire?

[@LJHibt710]

By their own definition and admission, suppressors are not bearable arms, so there is no inherent danger in their intended use or abuse. If one were to possess a suppressor absent a firearm, where is the harm or potential harm? Even if a suppressor were to be used and even misused, it does not increase lethality or inflict unnecessary harm, pain, or suffering. In fact I would venture to say (as I am far from being an expert) that suppressors in providing the reduction of decibels of a shot also unintentionally reduce muzzle velocity as the projectile exits the barrel but is still in the canister, allowing the expanding gasses go around the bullet itself. So there is an immediate drop in pressure where the bullet is now traveling on momentum but also being subject increased pressure in front of it coupled with a possibility of suction at the immediate rear of the bullet. If anything, a suppressor DECREASES velocity and force of the bullet. If they want to deny the self-defense aspects of suppressors, they also must deny the potential offensive uses and misuse of them. By itself, it is nothing more than an ill designed paperweight. It must be used in conjunction with a firearm to do what it is supposed to do as designed, and that is a reduction in harmful effects. It is a safety product. It is a performance governor like a limiter on acceleration on a car. It is an environmental and effect arrester in terms of gas and particles and also sound. The government painted themselves in a corner here by claiming the misuse of the accessory in concealing a crime in the moment is reason to justify the intentional and forced exposure to harmful sound levels. More law abiding will be affected in the negative than the unlawful will be stopped or even affected.

[@gera2396]

Wake me when I can go to any gun store and buy a suppressor without a tax or permission.

[@mehGyver]

hope you got a cozy pillow. You're gonna need it!

[@Landscapeofsolitude]

@@mehGyver Don’t give up. We must stand firm against tyranny and support deregulation of suppressors.

[@pwd1679]

"A" suppressor?

[@rogerover7885]

You can bet Armed Scholar will post 136 more SCOTUS videos about it happening before it happens.

[@TheBrookian]

@@pwd1679 Exactly what I though.

[@wreckinball11]

If a suppressor is not a firearm then the ATF has no right to enforce anything. No more than they should rule over paper clips.

[@792slayer]

​@@mrmines2000I think the point is more that they can't have it both ways.

[@wreckinball11]

@@mrmines2000 why would they regulate something that's not dangerous? Might as well regulate blenders.

[@willacewallace5905]

Wait a cotton picking minute. Where have you been!? A paperclip can become an NFA item with a few simple bends.

[@legendarycinematics3091]

@@mrmines2000this concept is what got bump stocks and pistol braces freed so it’s possible just praying it actually goes through 🙏

[@Landscapeofsolitude]

@@mrmines2000 Your arguing against our case. If suppressors are not firearms but are barrel attachments, they would still be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

[@AllAboutSurvival]

Suppressor bans have always been about control, not safety.

[@whoyakidding1301]

Tax, politicians will tax anything they can get away with. Worse yet, they have lists. That is ALL about control as you mentioned.

[@seant1821]

100%. Theyre completely absurd

[@garnetice1236]

They're a ban in safety.

[@garnetice1236]

on*

[@christopherkidwell9817]

@@garnetice1236 Ban on safety, correct. The only thing suppressors are good for is protecting your hearing when you are doing target shooting or engaging in self-defense by making your shots sub-sonic, not silent.

[@Deprived_Dolphin]

The Supreme Court just needs to finalize all weapon bans and say “any and all items, relating to firearms, are hereby legal to possess. Any and all regulations governing weapons, accessories and necessary items related to weapon function is hereby illegal. All possessions, sales and manufacturing of said items listed above are hereby legal to possess. Taxation is theft.”

[@MacDorsai]

The 2A protects the right to keep and bear "arms", not just firearms. Knives, tomahawks, clubs, etc. are also "arms", and are protected. I'd include swords, but they are no longer in common usage and not at all by the military except for ceremonial purposes. So it would be tough to say they are suitable for use by a militia...in this century anyway.

[@TacDyne]

@@MacDorsai Swords are in common use. The third largest militia in the world trains primarily on swords. And nowhere in the 2A does it stipulate common use anyway.

[@joearceneaux9854]

@@MacDorsaimachetes & cane knives are in very common use.

[@dheasley2]

Yeah even brass knuckles. A big ass stick I pick up. I could carry around my cast iron pan and not one cop would stop me, but if I carry around a bat or club all of a sudden I'm being interrogated. It's fucking stupid we've let the outlaw the length of knives and if they're assisted " switch blades". Why in the world have we let it go this far and now days with all these pansy ass snowflakes and the way they're molding the youth, it doesn't take a genius to see where it's going and fast. Just for example how many people voted for Biden and how many people are willing to openly admit they're voting for Kamal Toe should let us all know it's too late. All we can do is prepare because it's coming and it's coming fast.

[@hankevans8794]

@@MacDorsailmao swords are not in common use ? Wtf u saying

[@mikeperry5338]

If it is not an arm,, which is their argument, Then it should be 100% legal across the country

[@benc6690]

They argue both.. it is and simultaneously isn't a firearm.

[@johnpelszynski6646]

BRAVO

[@badboysfpv1724]

i would of never thought that a federal judge would say ban on machine guns is unconstitutional before suppressors

[@knightingale9833]

The 2020s are a weird time to be alive

[@yesiamarussianbot3076]

Well a machine gun is very obviously an arm, you can't possibly deny that, so banning them is obviously unconstitutional.

[@ollie1795]

@@mrmines2000 There's a wordplay joke in there somewhere

[@Robert_H_Diver]

Just let me know when I don’t have to pay a $200 extortion fee to get one.

[@johnpelszynski6646]

B R A V O

[@stubryant9145]

Success in repealing any statewide ban is a major step toward freedom. Success on the federal level to deregulate suppressors will be even bigger! Safer for users, safer for training, safer for in home self defense. It is sheer lunacy that these were ever regulated in the first place .

[@franklincone4636]

You can thank the 70s/80s action movies and ignorance in people who know nothing about firearms that's why I think every school should have a safty firearm class

[@freegeorgia4808]

​@franklincone4636 agreed. We all had guns in our trucks and cars in the 80s at school. Nobody cared. We all had our safety instruction growing up. Suppressors don't make anything really movie quiet except perhaps a .22lr.

[@stubryant9145]

@@franklincone4636 It would be really cool if there was a hunter safety/firearm safety class offered maybe on a Saturday where students could be instructed on a range with some actual live fire. Not sure if they did the live fire but the safety class is held from time to time at our local school. Entirely appropriate for our community. Sadly, urban folk have no clue about life outside the city. Worst part is the politicians with that mindset. Their ignorance does as much harm as their arrogance. And the mass media is no better.

[@garryhubbard5190]

I agree 100 percent

[@kentuckycatmanoutdooradven4643]

If they say that they are not firearms then they need to be removed immediately from the NFA

[@PaulGriffin-ox1gp]

The state of Illinois has just proved that suppressors are illegally on the NFA listing and therefore should be allowed for purchase without having the illegal taxes.

[@rustyshackelford5758]

I’m surprised you dont need a tax stamp to wear hearing protection

[@timothyholtzen6405]

How is the simple answer for this not "the ATF regulates them as ARMS which makes them protected "they literally made their own case void and unconstitutional

[@craigbitzer7211]

I keep hearing about military weapons. At the time of our founding, all civilian weapons were military weapons.

[@anomilumiimulimona2924]

And if you were joining up to help them, they demanded you brought the most advanced tools possible.

[@opforwarrior]

If its not an arm, why are they banning it as an unusual weapon?

[@jeffbroders9781]

In European countries it's considered rude shoot a firearm without a suppressor.

[@Borescoped]

Either it is a weapon, or it isn’t. The ATF can’t have it both ways. Edit: Hint, it isn’t a weapon, so they shouldn’t have any say regarding them.

[@seanberthiaume8240]

My 2 tax stamps say on the top of the page "Registration of firearm"............they're silencers.........

[@TheZigZiggy]

Some people need suppressors so that they won't violate noise ordinances 🙄

[@winterhorse290]

If it’s not an “arm” then what’s the problem with everybody owning one or two? I would own/build one if I didn’t have to jump thru me a$$ to get the “permit” to own one. IT,S JUST A MUFFLER!

[@mattkipper4653]

Silencers are armor for defense of your hearing.

[@brucecook502]

The ban on suppressors is really ridiculous and Petty if you asked me. A little more than a month ago I got to shoot some NFA stuff for the first time and that included suppressed rifles, and I thought to myself "why the hell are these things banned", because I didn't see what the big deal was. It's just pure nonsense to regulate things like suppressors.

[@zchris87v80]

Well they're used by criminals...in movies. The belief from the NPCs is that criminals are going out and applying for $200 tax stamps and waiting on the approval to legally possess them, since most criminals aren't existing felons (sarcasm, fyi)

[@peaceofmind1816]

And so if they are not “arms” and not under the 2nd Amendment then they cannot be under the NFA!!

[@Hawaiianbro10]

The way I hear people buying suppressors may as well be a normal item and can't be regulated anymore. Becoming a common item like pistol braces.

[@MrRee-kn4xd]

They're no more a weapon than the flashligdhts some people afix to their weapons. why would a non-weapon attachment be governed and restricted any differently.

[@whoabro6234]

Why have we let this go so far? We can't own a supressor that doesn't affect fire rate whatsoever just because some bureaucrats decided to push a rule we never voted on? Absurd.

[@bishopcorva]

If a suppressor isn't a "arm" or "firearm" why then does the Federal government consider them to be arms in writing and for taxation? Illinois is talking out both sides of their mouth: "It's not a arm or weapon!" " We have to ban these dangerous weapons!"

[@mohawkgunsmith7569]

Hopefully this makes it up to SCOTUS

[@ArmedScholar]

🇺🇸👍

[@fw1421]

I’ve never understood why suppressors sue on the NFA ban. Hollywood has not helped the issue,they don’t make guns silent,they just make the report less noisy. Supersonic bullets still make quite a crack. Suppressors are a noise reducer,no more.

[@frogsareop5623]

Their own argument will still come back to haunt them. If they're not arms or particularly firearms themselves, then the ATF has no right to regulate them, and if they're harmless on their own, then what reason does ANY jurisdiction have to regulate them? Exactly none.

[@TRUTHBYFACT-hd8rs]

Any idea how much money would be generated in addition to jobs in the gun industry once legalization goes into effect? Solid Gold !!!!!!

[@Sparky-wl6vi]

I feel we are being placated with these rulings. Nothing has changed.

[@miyu545]

As it is not by definition an arm, then the "F" In ATF itself confirms that they ONLY can try and regulate the A, the T, and the F. Not the "S" - Suppressor.

[@DaveandDebe]

BREAKING!!! BREAKING!!! BREAKING!!! Let's talk about this. After I flood you with all my ads😢

[@sprky777]

If the ATF thinks it requires registration then they think it is an arm.

[@bplotts1]

If it's not "arms" then why is it an ATF item. It's not alcohol or tobacco soooooo

[@timc_720s]

I will never understand regulating suppressors. Just shows how tyrannical our government is to control something as simple as a firearm attachment.

[@DeathwingReborn]

Please if you know who is the one running this case against Illinois. Tell them to argue that if Silencers are not bearable arms then they should have to allow integrally suppressed firearms (suppressor built into the actual barrel of a firearm and can not be removed) which are currently also illegal in Illinois. Given they would be a part of a firearm and can not be removed they would HAVE to be recognized as a bearable arm. At which point you can argue integral "suppressors" as defined by the NFA are then bearable arms by proxy normal suppressors are bearable arms as well as defined by the NFA. This would at least let us living in the Nazi state of Illinois to at least purchase integrally suppressed firearms at worst and win the case outright at best.

[@bradstucky4621]

Excellent point!!

[@stangtofastable]

So sick of them claiming there not arms then regulating them as arms

[@seanberthiaume8240]

I'd be shocked if it doesn't drag on for months/years.............

[@doughuntjr207]

As far as what I have seen over the years it doesn't matter what the USSC says a lower court yet again will block or make their own decisions along with the states. Lawfare for years! when will the final nail be drove? Just asking 🙏 ❤️

[@michaelpalus7929]

This really means very little. Sorry!

[@blindsquirrel7802]

Everyone who paid a tax on a right should get a refund.

[@Jeffreyrbrady]

Can't wait for an update on this! Thanks fellow Patriot...

[@MichaelSingleton-mp5hh]

Why 200 tax stamp? Atf can't decide if or not it's. A arm!

[@ZXLMaster]

The State of Illinois is attempting to maintain control over Arms. The NYSRPA v. Bruen case law has already gutted the ability of the State to maintain lost control. ❤

[@daltonisom6265]

It’s so disappointing and disgusting that Illinois is doing this! Tyrants!

[@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER]

if silencers are not arms, then they are not dangerous, and have no justifiable reason to be regulated. if silencers are indeed arms, then they are protected by the second amendment, and are not regulatable.

[@MrNikkoz]

Nonsense the silencer is used in defense of hearing loss during use.

[@steeltoad1680]

Make them define why they want to regulate them other than,,, there not bearable arms . Why do they need to be regulated?

[@macfilms9904]

I mean, the suppressor argument seems an odd argument from Illinois - if they aren't "arms" then they are just tubes of metal with some stuff that isn't illegal inside and what, then, is the basis for banning them? Like, if sepating them from any association with firearms, wouldn't that sever any reason to have legal control over them? Threaded pipe isn't illegal, nor are metal or rubber cups or screens etc. - if there is no association with firearms, anyone should be able to construct or purchase them - it becomes just a random metal tube you like the way your guns look with it on it...

[@robertkoonce8365]

They're right, there not so critical to the operation of a firearm. It's a safety device. If they don't believe you take em to an indoor range and let em find out how difficult it is to hear somebody asking questions after a gunfight in a living room.

[@dylanwalsh5105]

This is what I’ve been waiting for. I live in New Jersey and have never been able to own a suppressor. This is my dream.

[@chrisb8046]

They argue they ARE "arms" in order to allow the ATF to regulate and control them, and they argue they AREN'T "arms" when they want to ban them.

[@fredop3915]

Trump 2024

[@ArmedScholar]

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@Mike_Doing_Mike_Things]

For what? More bans and red flag gun laws? Im good. He's just another DC swamp rat

[@glyndawaters813]

It’s amazing they don’t go after the criminal as hard as they do law abiding citizens. Tell me it’s about control without actually saying it.

[@TacTicMint]

Suppressors are gun parts which are protected. Bearing arms is protected, not specific types or configurations of arms.

[@roberttailer1464]

The Courts recent activity in recognition of 2A rights seems indicative of the Courts awareness 2A rights in this time of being invaded CANNOT be infringed upon.

[@jasoncooper939]

By their logic, scopes, grips, and heat guards are "not weapons"

[@DuhYaThink]

CT is fd also. Permits,registration 🙄

[@steveshallenberger5277]

I enjoy watching your videos. Keep up the good work, I watch them regularly now to stay updated.

[@kd7fht]

I saw somewhere else that the BATF is approving silencers much faster than before, they were saying it looked like the BATF knew this was coming and were just collecting as much money as possible in advance of possible rulings.

[@josephtucciarone6878]

Thank you for this 2A update.

[@mikeh3084]

Arms=GEAR. In Iraq I would grab my GEAR not just my rifle. If it attaches to a weapon or GEAR, it's ARMS. Also, my weapon was my ARM and I still consider that to be so. It's a part of my body. An extension of myself. -Combat Vet

[@mikeh3084]

Liberty is a souls right to breath. Firearms are used defensively up to 2.5 million times per year per a hidden CDC study.

[@mikeh3084]

By disarming people your taking away their right to liberty if they are ever in a defensive situation.

[@knightingale9833]

Thank you for your service sir

[@raymundo5044]

A play on words....if a suppressor is not a firearm? Than why charge a tax to have one...

[@markmedina6611]

Defense of one's life and one's hearing.

[@SUMTlNGW0NG]

Put a muffler on your car or we will fine you, its the law. Dont even think of putting that muffler on your firearm, we'll throw you in prison, it's the law! 🤡🌎

[@clydesmith5530]

If silencers are not an arm then why are they in the NFA because the NFA covers arms.

[@marcofguzman3075]

Absolutely Correct this is very valuable and important to our rights and the protection of our Rights 😮

[@ericschreiber6214]

How can the any court side with the gov when a suppressor under the NFA is labeled literally as a FIREARM yet they want to claim that it’s not make it make sense!? If it’s not then why the hell is it in the NFA!!?

[@1320pass]

Anthony I appreciate what you do, especially for the 2A cause. 👌

[@michaelprovins9366]

They say a suppressor is not arms but a little piece of metal is a machine gun

[@rickyspanish24]

The Supreme Court ruled that the bump stock ban was unconstitutional. They themselves are not firearms either. So how would silencers not be treated the same way?

[@knightmaremerc1794]

If Illinois says suppressors are not firearms Why are they on the national FIREARMS act list of restricted weapons???

[@rrshier]

IF they "aren't critical to the usage of a firearm", then WHY are they spending so many taxpayer dollars fighting against them??????????

[@TOPTENTRAVEL01]

This afternoon I picked up a pistol permit application here in Good ol' New York State. My God... A SIXTEEN-HOUR classroom requirement. Four signatures of people who can vouch for your moral fitness... Hochul wants to make it too much of a pain in the ass to exercise Second Amendment rights. I'm not giving up, but EFFF.....

[@Brotherred1]

Re: Patriot Mobile, seblet wireless service is not at all uncommon, I've been with Faith wireless for almost ten years. Those owning most of the towers are the big carriers.

[@N2NDF]

I dont understand why the 1837 case Nunn v Georgia isn't used more often. Including banning firearms. Its getting ridiculous

[@elizabethcox555]

I thought "lawmakers" swore to UPHOLD the Constitution? They are not in these cases. What should their punishment be?

[@adrianotero6523]

If this is their rationale then a magazine that holds over ten projectiles should not be considered a firearm.

[@davidjoeytorres]

Thank you for the information.

[@gordonleblanc678]

Fuel for, you know, the thing!

[@js5665]

Where in Hell's Bells does it say in 2A that 2A is only for self defense? 2A says; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The security of a FREE STATE! The only way to keep the State free is for the common people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS! Someone threatens you with violence? You are part of the State and the State is a part of you. You defend yourself with means at your disposal to KEEP THE STATE FREE AND SECURE. Duh, seems pretty simple to me.

[@johnjohnsn7633]

IF suppressors are not "arms", WHY are they "regulated" as such under the federal National Firearms Act?

[@lee9399]

The only reason why we have these laws is b/c of Hollywood...for the most part. The original ban on suppressors was due to poaching. Hell, in England you can walk in and get suppressor if you're allowed to own a firearm. Why can't we do the same in the US?

[@johnpelszynski6646]

AND WHEN SHTF ALL PEOPLE AGAINST THE ARMED WILL BE CRYING FOR HELP.

[@chadthomas9678]

Excellent analysis

[@lincolnmattox6241]

They completely ignored the first half of the second amendment. “A well regulated militia”, this does not just mean firearms this means anything that will keep the government and foreign powers in check.

[@douglash9364]

Defund states that refuse to comply. Road funding tied to 2A compliance. Education funds tied to 2A compliance. Call your congress critter today. Time to use the bully pulpit. They want funding then it's time they follow the law of the land.

[@protectyour2a482]

The idea that suppressors are still considered NFA items should be entirely thrown out based on the ATF’s defense. They admit that they are not legally considered firearms and then pull the defense that not paying a tax stamp is a form of tax evasion- thus by that same logic the suppressors pose no actual threat to the general public and the ATF is just interested in making money

[@jongruen7854]

The 7th southern district with Judge McGlynn is scheduled for September 16th. We will see what games the 7th appeals court comes up with after the decision.

[@1ebola]

Always informative

[@steeltoad1680]

Other than a reason to tax us.

[@10thdiv]

Suppressors are covered under ITAR controls, therefore they are considered "arms".

[@hateca1]

The ATF own definition says that are firearms and are regulated as such. The must really think we are stupid.

[@Noteclip]

I'm surprised someone hasn't made the argument that customizing firearms is a case of freedom of expression/speech

[@robertarmitage4820]

My suppresor identifies as hearing protection.

[@hawaiiangunner]

A scope is not a arm. Neither are front and rear sights. What happens if they ban Scopes and sighting instruments? Following this logic where would it end?

[@knightingale9833]

Oh they will ban everything until the Supreme Court has said you can't ban it no doubt

[@narr0wm1nd49]

If Illinois is to define anything that isn't required for a gun to function an 'arm' then they can ban any number of things required to make guns operate as intended. For example grips and stocks are not required can those be banned? Sights are not required to function can those be banned? A magazine release isn't required for the gun to function. A recoil spring isn't required, you can get one shot. Gas blocks are not required. The point is this way lays madness. We need SCOTUS to say anything that someone uses in conjunction with a gun that can be used for lawful purposes is protected.

[@TheEyered]

Tell me you haven't fired a gun indoors without tell me you haven't fired a gun indoors.

[@jax408]

Thank you

[@Gtrehling]

Suppressors are important for defending yourself. The second amendment isn't just about defending yourself against the first attacker you still need to be able to hear and communicate after your first few shots to ensure the safety of your family. Regardless of which is a reason why special operators use suppressors because it allows them to attack and defend more effectively. Why should we be denied our god-given right to do the same?