Justices won’t hear case on gun silencers

Court also rejects case of Guantanamo prisoner

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court refused Monday to decide if the Second Amendment protects gun silencers such as the one used in last month’s Virginia Beach shooting that killed 12 people.

Without comment or dissent, the justices turned away petitions from the operator of a Kansas army-surplus store and one of his customers who purchased an unregistered silencer in violation of federal law.

Two lower federal courts had ruled that gun silencers fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment because they are accessories not in common use by law-abiding citizens.

The Trump administration had urged the Supreme Court not to hear the challenge. Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear “arms,” and that restrictions on silencers don’t burden the ability to use a gun for selfdefense.

Francisco noted that the high court previously acknowledged that the Second Amendment permits banning “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

“Many courts have upheld restrictions on silencers on the alternative ground that silencers are dangerous and unusual,” he wrote.

Lawyers for Jeremy Kettler, who purchased a silencer from store owner Shane Cox, argued in court papers that silencers “are almost never used in crime” and that states “have increasingly recognized that suppressors are not dangerous.”

Also Monday, the high court refused to decide if prisoners detained since the start of the war in Afghanistan deserve a chance to win their freedom.

The justices turned down the case of Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi, a Yemeni national imprisoned at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, since 2002. He claimed the basis for holding him any longer had “unraveled.”

What made the case unique was the duration of the conflict in Afghanistan compared with traditional wars, which al-Alwi’s lawyers said could lead to “lifelong imprisonment.”

The court did agree to hear five new cases, including one brought by an African American media mogul who accused Comcast Corp. of racial discrimination.

That case was filed originally by Byron Allen a television host who owns Entertainment Studios Network, which bills itself as a “100% African-American owned” media company operating seven television channels.

Allen sued Comcast and Charter Communications. He claims that since 2008, the two companies have refused to distribute his stations while launching mostly white-owned networks.

Entertainment Studios lost in federal district court but won a reversal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Comcast’s appeal likely will be heard in the fall.

“Many courts have upheld restrictions on silencers on the alternative ground that silencers are dangerous and unusual.” Solicitor General Noel Francisco