Jump to content
GlockSpock

SC Rejects Hearing Appeal on Suppressors

Recommended Posts

Received an email from GOA regarding Jeremy and Kansas. Long story short, he purchased a suppressor from an unlicensed manufacturer. Why? Kansas has a law stating that all firearms, accessories and ammo manufactured and possessed inside the state are exempt from federal law.

GOA and several AG from other states are backing the appeals.

I guess if the Supreme Court actually makes a ruling, this will affect us and the country for years to come.

In wake of the recent shooting suppressors are already a hot topic, but theoretically if you took all the legal, taxed suppressors and developed a crime rate, I imagine it would be inexplicably low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, and while I fully admit that he did violate a federal law, where is the NRA in this process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the same law here in Tennessee. Its call the Tennessee Firearms Freedom act. License holders all got a letter from the ATF saying that these sales were illegal and they would prosecute them. I got a copy of the letter because I have a C&R. It was discussed on all the gun forums. Several states passed versions of it. Last I heard one of the Federal Districts had shot the idea down. So no manufacturers or licensed dealers will be selling under those circumstances; because the FEDS, not the state control them.

Looks like GOA is funding this suit, so I doubt the NRA will get involved. I wonder why our AG isn’t on that list..

I also wonder if the specific question they are going to answer will impact our TFFA....if they decide to hear the case.

Edited by DaveTN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally doubt that the courts will side with Kettler. I think it has generally been shown that federal law supersedes state law when more strict. Marijuana has been something that the feds have largely ignored in the "legalized" states. I doubt machine-guns and/or suppressors would/will be ignored if you started seeings large/any sales without tax stamps.

 

I agree with the spirit of these state laws, but I doubt they will be proven to carry any weight. At best they'll prevent local or state LEO's from making arrests for these federal crimes. I guess Kettler was either really optimistic or decided from the beginning that he wanted to be the test case.

Edited by GlockSpock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

His biggest-selling items were unregistered gun silencers, prosecutors have said. Kettler, who was one of Cox’s customers, was so enthusiastic about the silencer that he posted a video on Facebook.

Facebook......some people are slow to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

I personally doubt that the courts will side with Kettler. I think it has generally been shown that federal law supersedes state law when more strict. Marijuana has been something that the feds have largely ignored in the "legalized" states. I doubt machine-guns and/or suppressors would/will be ignored if you started seeings large/any sales without tax stamps.

 

I agree with the spirit of these state laws, but I doubt they will be proven to carry any weight. At best they'll prevent local or state LEO's from making arrests for these federal crimes. I guess Kettler was either really optimistic or decided from the beginning that he wanted to be the test case.

I don't know, didn't the feds bring this ACT under the commerce clause?  If there is no interstate commerce,  then why should the federal law apply?  It seems to me that now is a perfect time to start pushing good cases such as this to SCOTUS, before we have more SCOTUS judges die with a DEM POTUS and Senate ready to seat more lefty judges..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Omega said:

I don't know, didn't the feds bring this ACT under the commerce clause?  If there is no interstate commerce,  then why should the federal law apply?  It seems to me that now is a perfect time to start pushing good cases such as this to SCOTUS, before we have more SCOTUS judges die with a DEM POTUS and Senate ready to seat more lefty judges..

This is where I think it stands now.

Quote

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act

The Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally. A majority of the panel, over the dissent of Judge Bea, went further to hold that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act was preempted by the federal licensing law. Two petitions for a writ of certiorari sought to bring the matter before the United States Supreme Court, but the writ was denied in both instances.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

This is where I think it stands now.

 

The ninth you say, the hell I say.

https://verdict.justia.com/2014/12/01/mystery-case-assignment-ninth-circuit

These cases need SCOTUS attention, and Trump needs to sit more judges unto the appellate courts as well as two more for the SCOTUS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Omega said:

I don't know, didn't the feds bring this ACT under the commerce clause?  If there is no interstate commerce,  then why should the federal law apply?  It seems to me that now is a perfect time to start pushing good cases such as this to SCOTUS, before we have more SCOTUS judges die with a DEM POTUS and Senate ready to seat more lefty judges..

Maybe now is a better time, but I'm not very optimistic that the Supreme Court will essentially recognize state's rights on an issue that has been considered federal for so long.

I also expect that all of this anti-abortion stuff will be struck down as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rebuffs-bid-to-expand-legal-protections-for-gun-silencers/ar-AACFdm7?li=BBnbcA1

With the SC somewhat leaned to the right it's surprising they are rejecting 2A cases. But in this case what kind of idiot sells/buys a suppressor without going through the well-known procedures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, E4 No More said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rebuffs-bid-to-expand-legal-protections-for-gun-silencers/ar-AACFdm7?li=BBnbcA1

With the SC somewhat leaned to the right it's surprising they are rejecting 2A cases. But in this case what kind of idiot sells/buys a suppressor without going through the well-known procedures?

This is just a big guess on my part but I think that this is more than just what they said in the article.  I think that this is a Firearms Freedom Act case.  I think the purchase and sale was legal at the state level but still federally illegal.    Kansas passed their FFA in 2013 and this case dates to 2014 so I believe that they are related. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

This is just a big guess on my part but I think that this is more than just what they said in the article.  I think that this is a Firearms Freedom Act case.  I think the purchase and sale was legal at the state level but still federally illegal.    Kansas passed their FFA in 2013 and this case dates to 2014 so I believe that they are related. 

 

Bingo. SCOTUS just told the States with FFA laws to go fornicate with themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merged with my existing thread, @E4 No More. Kept your title and location.

42 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Yeah, disappointing but it really doesn't surprise me in the least. If they were going to give Kansas and thus all other states the right to nullify existing federal firearm laws, that would be one of the biggest gun wins the country has seen since the Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

Merged with my existing thread, @E4 No More. Kept your title and location.

Yeah, disappointing but it really doesn't surprise me in the least. If they were going to give Kansas and thus all other states the right to nullify existing federal firearm laws, that would be one of the biggest gun wins the country has seen since the Bill of Rights.

I'm not a suppressor guy, but what irks me is that a suppressor is not a gun nor does it make the gun more deadly. It still makes considerable noise and a knife is certainly more quiet and has killed far more people. It's movies that put the stigma on suppressors. Until recently I have never heard of a silencer being used by a run-of-the-mill criminal. 

I just hoped that a more conservative SC would take on more 2A issues. They still seem to stick with safe issues and I'm tired of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

I'm not a suppressor guy, but what irks me is that a suppressor is not a gun nor does it make the gun more deadly. It still makes considerable noise and a knife is certainly more quiet and has killed far more people. It's movies that put the stigma on suppressors. Until recently I have never heard of a silencer being used by a run-of-the-mill criminal. 

I just hoped that a more conservative SC would take on more 2A issues. They still seem to stick with safe issues and I'm tired of it.

At this point, only money and the threat of not being elected again would cause any political to take a Pro 2nd Amendment stance seriously. In my opinion, it's just a talking point for most of them. I too wish things could inch that direction instead of slide the other, but we have what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

At this point, only money and the threat of not being elected again would cause any political to take a Pro 2nd Amendment stance seriously. In my opinion, it's just a talking point for most of them. I too wish things could inch that direction instead of slide the other, but we have what we have.

But that's the rub: they aren't politicians; they're judges. They could easily put all of the anti-2A Bull :poop: to bed but they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

But that's the rub: they aren't politicians; they're judges. They could easily put all of the anti-2A Bull :poop: to bed but they don't.

True to that specific instance. I was referring to politicians as a whole, not judges or even Supreme Court Judges in particular. You're not wrong, but they aren't doing it so oh well. I think they are too afraid of rocking the boat or causing everyone to get in a tizzy fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until Ruth Vader Ginsburg leaves, nothing truly important will be likely for gun owners.  Let's face it, the 1934, NFA, 1968 GCA, and 1986 Hughes Amendment are ALL blatantly un-Constitutional!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Esko 270
      Would you turn yours in if they had not been stolen or lost in a boating accident?
      https://reason.com/2019/06/25/backers-of-a-federal-ban-on-gun-silencers-claim-only-criminals-use-them/
    • By taos
      I did a search before posting, but none of the topics presented quite matched up with my situation.
      My dad passed away a few months ago and we're trying to get his affairs wrapped up with as little drama as possible.  When he passed away, he had a few NFA items. I know that we can use form 5 to transfer the items to a lawful heir. The thing is after speaking with an attorney on just the estate in general,  she said it really wasn't worth going through probate to deal with settling debts and dispersing what's left over. Which I'm fine with. But that means we don't technically have an executor for the will. 
      Is it possible to fill out  form 5 and have my mom (as the surviving spouse serve as "executor / personal representative") either transfer them to herself or transfer them to me?  Or are we going to have to open probate just to deal with these items?
      Help?
    • By Chucktshoes
      In today’s entirely predictable outcomes, the ATF has begun arresting folks who bought Glock autosears off of Wish.com. How they didn’t see this coming from a mile away, I don’t know. If anyone reading this was dumb enough to make this mistake, I’d get on figuring out how to get rid of it in a way that the ATF might take mercy on you. At least do it for your dog’s sake  
       
      http://www.recoilweb.com/multiple-reports-of-wish-com-glock-sear-arrests-by-atf-149143.html

The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines