18 replies to this topic

[kevinmcc]

Kansas gun law no defense to federal firearm charges.



https://www.ca10.usc.../17/17-3034.pdf

So this NFA and commerce case is likely heading to the Supreme Court.

[Euler]

Just some background...

Two Kansans, Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler, engaged in the purchase and sale of a silencer in October 2015, believing they were exempt from the 1934 National Firearms Act's requirements to register it and pay a $200 tax. They relied on the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) which holds:
 

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is null, void, and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.

This issue would never have been raised had not Kettler decided to post to his Facebook page a video of himself. Agents from the ATF noted the video, investigated, and brought charges against Kettler (the purchaser) and Cox (the supplier) of the silencer.

I'm pretty sure the Kansas state legislature doesn't have the legal authority to rule on the constitutionality of federal law. Even if this case makes it to the US Supreme Court, that's the issue it'll decide, not whether people have a right to supressors.

Edited by Euler, 19 October 2018 - 12:41 AM.

[kevinmcc]

My opinion.

#1 NFA is unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds, taxes and prohibitions are infringements.

#2 NFA is unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds, 2nd Amendment is the right of the people and not the Federal government (not State or Local government either).

And if the federal law itself is unconstitutional, state law should supersede, but if both are unconstitutional then both should be struck.

To rule strictly on the whether or not a state law can supersede an unconstitutional federal without taking the constitutionality of the federal into consideration does seem silly. But I guess if they have to go to court dozens of times, maybe they will eventually the right ruling will be made.

[Raw Power]

My opinion.

#1 NFA is unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds, taxes and prohibitions are infringements.

#2 NFA is unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds, 2nd Amendment is the right of the people and not the Federal government (not State or Local government either).

And if the federal law itself is unconstitutional, state law should supersede, but if both are unconstitutional then both should be struck.

To rule strictly on the whether or not a state law can supersede an unconstitutional federal without taking the constitutionality of the federal into consideration does seem silly. But I guess if they have to go to court dozens of times, maybe they will eventually the right ruling will be made.

 

While I agree with you, unfortunately, that's not what's going before the SCOTUS.

[Tango7]

Are they addressing interstate commerce?

[ealcala31]

Kansas gun law no defense to federal firearm charges.



https://www.ca10.usc.../17/17-3034.pdf

So this NFA and commerce case is likely heading to the Supreme Court.

The federal government and the courts are allowing the legalization of marijuana state by state against federal law. What hypocrisy by the justice department and the courts...

[Raw Power]

 

Kansas gun law no defense to federal firearm charges.



https://www.ca10.usc.../17/17-3034.pdf

So this NFA and commerce case is likely heading to the Supreme Court.

The federal government and the courts are allowing the legalization of marijuana state by state against federal law. What hypocrisy by the justice department and the courts...

 

 

Marijuana activists are organized and motivated.

 

Our folks (by and large) are not. This administration promised a national law on silencers and instead we get stuff like this, and no one holds the elected officials who promised that we'd see expanded gun rights accountable.

 

 

We're getting exactly what we deserve.

Edited by Raw Power, 19 October 2018 - 10:54 PM.

[ealcala31]

Correct Raw Power "our" politicians, for the most part, have held off the gun control wolves but we have gained nothing. Every election we seem to actually lose something and I am getting tired of it. Politicians need to be called out on gun rights and voted out of office...

[TRJ]

I think the bills for reciprocity and silencers were moving forward until Las Vegas happened. Then they became toxic, much to the delight of a number of Republican side who didn't want to lose a carrot to dangle.

[Raw Power]

I think the bills for reciprocity and silencers were moving forward until Las Vegas happened. Then they became toxic, much to the delight of a number of Republican side who didn't want to lose a carrot to dangle.

 

It's one thing to not pass the law you promised you would during campaigning. It's another thing to send in the ATF to violate states rights over that same campaign promise.

[InterestedBystander]

full story at link

https://www.dailyher...news/306109948/

Court rejects challenge to regulation of gun silencers

..."WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is rejecting a challenge to federal regulation of gun silencers, just days after a gunman used one in a shooting rampage that killed 12 people in Virginia.

The justices did not comment Monday in turning away appeals from two Kansas men who were convicted of violating federal law regulating silencers. The men argued that the constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" includes silencers.


Kansas and seven other states joined in a court filing urging the justices hear the appeal. The states said the court should affirm that the Second Amendment protects "silencers and other firearms accessories."

The other states joining Kansas in the court filing are: Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

President Donald Trump's administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place.

Shane Cox, owner of a military surplus store, was convicted of making and transferring an unregistered silencer, and customer Jeremy Kettler was convicted of possessing one, all in violation of the 85-year-old National Firearms Act. Both men were sentenced to probation."...

Edited by InterestedBystander, 10 June 2019 - 11:28 AM.

[Euler]

FYI showtopic=70214

IN ?

[Euler]

Supreme Court rejects challenges to gun silencer law

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a pair of cases challenging a federal law requiring the registration of gun silencers.

The justices, in an unsigned order, said they won't take up the cases of two men who challenged the National Firearms Act of 1934 after they were convicted for failing to register their gun silencers.

The two Kansas men - Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler - had separately appealed their convictions to the justices and asked the court to consider if the gun silencers are protected under the Second Amendment.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld both of their convictions last year, and the justices' order leaves them in place.

Monday's order also means the high court is skipping out on a chance to rule on the scope of gun laws and protections: The federal law being challenged also requires the registration of some firearms.

President Trump earlier this month also indicated that he would be open to banning silencers for firearms.

This decision comes shortly after the mass shooting in Virginia Beach that left 12 people dead. The gunman in that shooting used a gun with a silencer.

[Bubbacs]

B4

[ChicagoRonin70]

Supreme Court rejects challenges to gun silencer law

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a pair of cases challenging a federal law requiring the registration of gun silencers.

The justices, in an unsigned order, said they won't take up the cases of two men who challenged the National Firearms Act of 1934 after they were convicted for failing to register their gun silencers.

The two Kansas men - Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler - had separately appealed their convictions to the justices and asked the court to consider if the gun silencers are protected under the Second Amendment.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld both of their convictions last year, and the justices' order leaves them in place.

Monday's order also means the high court is skipping out on a chance to rule on the scope of gun laws and protections: The federal law being challenged also requires the registration of some firearms.

President Trump earlier this month also indicated that he would be open to banning silencers for firearms.

This decision comes shortly after the mass shooting in Virginia Beach that left 12 people dead. The gunman in that shooting used a gun with a silencer.

 

 

In instances such as this, it would be extremely important to have some sort of comment by the justices as to why they refused to take up the case. That way, there is at least some explanation and guidance, even if it is, "We're supporting the longstanding nature of the NFA, even if it does run counter to the plain definition of the Second Amendment."

[Euler]

Docket for Kettler, the customer
Docket for Cox, the manufacturer and vendor

Kettler was represented by a private attorney. His case questioned the legitimacy of the 1934 NFA making the ATF a taxing authority.
Cox was represented by a public defender. His case questioned whether his right to present the case he wanted had been denied and whether suppressors and SBRs were covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Both cases relied, at least in part, on the Kansas law shielding them from Federal law. I think the Supreme Court just decided it was settled law that state laws couldn't override Federal law. It didn't even rise to the level of a "2A" case.

In instances such as this, it would be extremely important to have some sort of comment by the justices as to why they refused to take up the case. That way, there is at least some explanation and guidance, even if it is, "We're supporting the longstanding nature of the NFA, even if it does run counter to the plain definition of the Second Amendment."[/font]

I doubt a reason is ever recorded or even stated when they vote on certiorari. ("Up next is Docket 18-XXX petition for certiorari. All Ayes? All Nays? Okay, the Nays have it.")

[mauserme]

FYI showtopic=70214

IN ?

 

B4

In before the merge.

[Flynn]

 I think the Supreme Court just decided it was settled law that state laws couldn't override Federal law. It didn't even rise to the level of a "2A" case.

 

[chislinger]

Also you don't just jump to overturning the NFA right away. Far better to build some case law first, like the NY case being decided.