Fourth Circuit Rules Silencers Are Not Arms Protected by the Second Amendment.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in United States v. Saleem grapples with the Second Amendment’s protection of firearm silencers, ultimately concluding that these devices fall outside the scope of the constitutional right to bear arms. The court’s analysis hinges on the definition of "arms" as established by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Heller interpreted "arms" to encompass anything worn for defense, held in hand, or used offensively. Crucially, Heller extended this protection to encompass all "bearable arms," including weapons not in existence at the time of the Founding Fathers. The Saleem court, while acknowledging Heller‘s expansive interpretation, argues that a silencer does not qualify as a "bearable arm" capable of projecting a bullet.

The core of the Saleem court’s reasoning lies in the distinction between a firearm itself and its accessories. While conceding that a silencer is a firearm accessory, the court emphasizes that it is not a "bearable arm" in the sense of being a weapon independently capable of inflicting harm. A silencer, by definition, modifies the function of a firearm, primarily by suppressing the sound of discharge. It doesn’t, however, contribute to the fundamental operation of the firearm in projecting a projectile. This, the court argues, separates a silencer from the core definition of a "bearable arm" as understood in Heller. The firearm itself remains functional and capable of firing a bullet even without the silencer attached, unlike, for example, ammunition which is essential for the firearm’s operation.

Further reinforcing its position, the Saleem court distinguishes between accessories that are integral to a weapon’s function and those that merely enhance or modify certain aspects. The court concedes that silencers might offer safety benefits by reducing noise and protecting the hearing of users and bystanders. However, it argues that this safety aspect does not transform a silencer into a "bearable arm." This rationale hinges on the idea that the core purpose of a firearm remains unchanged with or without the silencer – to project a bullet. The silencer merely influences a peripheral aspect, the noise associated with its discharge, and not the essential purpose. This distinguishes it from essential components like bullets, or even cleaning materials which are necessary for maintaining the functionality of a “bearable arm” over time.

The court further develops its argument by analogizing to other firearm accessories. The court draws a contrast between silencers and items like cleaning supplies and ammunition, which are essential for the operation and maintenance of a firearm. Cleaning materials ensure the continued function of a "bearable arm," while ammunition is required for its primary purpose of projectile discharge. A silencer, on the other hand, is not necessary for the firearm to function as intended. This distinction, according to the court, underscores the non-essential nature of the silencer in relation to the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.

The Saleem decision also tacitly addresses the potential arguments in favor of silencer protection under the Second Amendment. While acknowledging the potential safety benefits of silencers, the court maintains that these benefits do not elevate silencers to the status of "bearable arms." This implicitly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment should extend to accessories that enhance the safe use of firearms. The court’s reasoning seems to prioritize the core functionality of a weapon – the ability to project a bullet – over ancillary benefits like noise reduction. While the safety aspect might be relevant in other contexts, the court establishes its role as secondary to the essential purpose of the "arm".

In conclusion, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Saleem rests on a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment’s scope as defined in Heller. By emphasizing the distinction between a "bearable arm" and its accessories, the court excludes silencers from constitutional protection. The court argues that while silencers modify a firearm’s operation by reducing noise, they are not essential to the core function of projecting a bullet. This, coupled with the distinction between essential components like ammunition and cleaning supplies, leads the court to conclude that silencers are not “bearable arms” and therefore not subject to Second Amendment protection. The decision, represented by Julia K. Wood on behalf of the government, leaves open the possibility of further legal challenges and interpretations of the Second Amendment’s applicability to firearm accessories.