SC Rejects Hearing Appeal on Suppressors

[GlockSpock]

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.

[GlockSpock]

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/06/supreme-court-to-rule-on-us-army-vets-unconstitutional-gun-suppressor-this-week-after-national-controversy/

[GlockSpock]

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

[DaveTN]

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 June 4, 2019 by DaveTN

[GlockSpock]

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 June 4, 2019 by GlockSpock

[DaveTN]

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.

[Omega]

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..

[DaveTN]

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.

 

 

[Omega]

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. 

[GlockSpock]

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.

[E4 No More]

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?

[Capbyrd]

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. 

 

[Chucktshoes]

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. 

[DaveTN]

The SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns/supreme-court-rebuffs-bid-to-expand-legal-protections-for-gun-silencers-idUSKCN1TB1PD

 

[GlockSpock]

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

42 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

The SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns/supreme-court-rebuffs-bid-to-expand-legal-protections-for-gun-silencers-idUSKCN1TB1PD

 

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.

[E4 No More]

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.

[GlockSpock]

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.

[E4 No More]

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  to bed but they don't.

[GlockSpock]

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  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.

[1gewehr]

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!