The general media's news article is the typical caliber of nothing-burger coverage of a potential Supreme Court case. Nevertheless, the AP article cited ended with the prominent mention of the Virgina Beach shooter's use of a silencer.
Before criticizing the Supreme Court for refusing to take a case, it is usually better to read the
ruling under appeal and then decide on specific reasons for criticism.
Some thoughts from my reading of the 10th Circuit's ruling, which make it abundantly clear to me why the Supreme Court did not take the case:
- The NFA is based on Congress' taxing power and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
- The defendants argued 2A covers a SBR without bothering to argue against Miller, which is still a valid SCOTUS precedent that says 2A does not cover a short-barrelled shotgun (a close enough analogy to an SBR for the court).
- Silencers are accessories rather than "bearable arms" as discussed in Heller and are not covered by the 2A.
- Regulating the commercial activity of making and selling firearms and accessories is based on the commerce clause and the Supreme Court was not going to rule that specifically-enumerated power is unconstitutional.
The 10 Circuit's ruling had an extremely interesting concurring opinion, which is quoted in whole below (emphasis added):