Stephen P. Halbrook, holder of a Doctor of Law Degree from Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Florida State University looks at issues of criminality surrounding Sound Moderators in the United States. Although, as we all know, the world of firearm law is quite different in the United States when compared to Canada, his paper offers insight into the issue that is very much applicable to Canada.
The paper does a remarkable job of illustrating the history of the regulating of sound moderators in the US. This history drove many prohibitions world wide, and likely was a strong part of the inspiration for the prohibition of sound moderators in Canada. It explores criminal use of sound moderators and compares laws in other countries around the world. Halbrook makes a compelling argument to begin a discussion on need for regulating sound moderators so heavily in the United States.
“The more liberal approach to suppressor ownership in Europe suggests that it is not the crime problem it is perceived to be in the United States. At the very least, a scholarly dialogue on the subject is overdue. The criminal law should not be based on legislative sausage-making that had no basis to begin with and that thrives only in the fantasies of gangster films. If criminalization based on paperwork violations applicable to the general public is supposedly the only deterrent to a criminal onslaught, let the proponents come forward with facts and data.
If a design feature for a firearm that enhances the ability to exercise one’s right to keep and bear arms without injuring one’s hearing is not protected by the Second Amendment, a serious basis must be articulated for that position.”
Read the Full Paper Here: