Federal court rules state firearm laws invalid

[TheTexan]

Even if the weapons are made in Kansas and stay in Kansas, federal law still applies because deer that are shot with these weapons could still cross state lines.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I couldn't agree more. Silencers are weapons of war, designed for killing people, and therefore are not protected by the 2nd amendment's constitutional right to bear traditional deer hunting weapons.

Weapons of war, indeed.

Could you imagine a silencer on a thirty caliber clip? It'd be pure anarchy.

 

[jmdrake]

Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court

Written by Gun Owners of America Published: 15 January 2019

(January 14, 2019) — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its litigating arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), today continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, against a conviction for violating the National Firearms Act.

Read GOA’s petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Jeremy for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor under the authority of the Kansas “Second Amendment Protection Act.”

The Kansas statute declares that any suppressor manufactured, possessed, and used within the borders of Kansas is exempt from federal law. Relying on that Kansas law, in 2014 Jeremy purchased a suppressor from a local military surplus store, but did not register it with ATF pursuant to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Believing he was following the law, Jeremy posted a video about his new suppressor on Facebook, and ATF swooped in. Rather than simply requiring Jeremy to register his suppressor, the feds instead chose felony prosecution — to make an example of Jeremy, and to intimidate all who resist federal power over guns. Jeremy was indicted, and convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer, and now this veteran is a federal felon.

GOA and GOF have stood with Jeremy, both in his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and now in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today GOA and GOF lawyers, representing Jeremy, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Jeremy’s case. The petition challenges the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which rejected Jeremy’s appeal from the district court.

Jeremy’s petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called “tax.”

In fact, each of the reasons the Supreme Court gave in 1937, finding it to be a tax, no longer apply today, 82 years later. Rather, the NFA has become what Justice Frankfurter once described as regulation “wrapped … in the verbal cellophane of a revenue measure” — an unabashed gun control regulatory scheme, designed not to raise revenue for the federal government, but instead to keep NFA items out of the hands of Americans.

Next, Jeremy’s petition challenges the Tenth Circuit’s absurd holding that the Second Amendment applies only to “bearable arms” — but not firearm accessories, such as suppressors. The petition points out that the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment extends beyond actual firearms to ammunition, magazines, the ability to purchase firearms in gun stores, and the right to practice at shooting ranges.

Finally, Jeremy’s petition argues that, if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the NFA as a “tax,” then it is allowing Congress to impose a tax on a constitutionally-protected right — something which the Supreme Court has long said to be unconstitutional.

Prior to the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh in October of last year, the Supreme Court had refused to hear numerous firearms cases, leading some members of the Court to comment on the “distressing trend” — “the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

While some do not seem to mind ATF’s regulation of weapons covered by the National Firearms Act, GOA and GOF have stood for the right to own “bearable arms” of all types, and firearms accessories as well — including suppressors and machineguns.

Continues, you can read GOA’s petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court and donate to the case at https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of...o-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/

Interesting. The million dollar question is what will John Roberts do? He upheld the Obamacare mandate as a "tax" even though it wasn't. Will he do the same for the NFA?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Thank you for the correct 'term' the article used the term silencer, I fully understand what today's 'term' is,
and if you go back before 1990 or so you will see the term silencer, right or wrong today, that's
what they were called, semantics, revisionism, euphemisms.
I'm rural.

The article used the incorrect term.

Only faggy action movies and ignorant anti-gun zealots say, "silencers."

Suppressor is the correct term. Much like clip versus magazine, words have meaning. It is laughable that virtually all anti-2nd Amendment types have no idea what they are talking about.

Since you are familiar with suppressors and firearms... what do you think suppressors do?

(Hint: around -30dB wet or dry)

And what does 130dB sound like?

Well, 121 dB is the average chainsaw, and 130dB is a military jet take off at 50 ft.

Do you see why it is one, silly and emphatically incorrect to call it a silencer and two, why it is silly to concern yourself with silent killers? This isn't a James Bond movie. Suppressors simply dampen the noise. For instance, rather than an AR-15 (.223) sounding like an AR-15, with a suppressor it sounds like a .22LR (which if you're not familiar with what a .22LR sounds like, it is still loud... in fact, just a little louder than a jackhammer, or a chainsaw).

So, minus 30dB from whatever caliber you see above and compare it to this graphic below. Suppressors do not only not silence firearms, even with something as 'quiet' as a .22LR, it can still cause hearing damage and is as loud as a lawnmower.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The article used the incorrect term.

Only faggy action movies and ignorant anti-gun zealots say, "silencers."

Suppressor is the correct term. Much like clip versus magazine, words have meaning. It is laughable that virtually all anti-2nd Amendment types have no idea what they are talking about.

Since you are familiar with suppressors and firearms... what do you think suppressors do?

(Hint: around -30dB wet or dry)

And what does 130dB sound like?

Well, 121 dB is the average chainsaw, and 130dB is a military jet take off at 50 ft.

Do you see why it is one, silly and emphatically incorrect to call it a silencer and two, why it is silly to concern yourself with silent killers? This isn't a James Bond movie. Suppressors simply dampen the noise. For instance, rather than an AR-15 (.223) sounding like an AR-15, with a suppressor it sounds like a .22LR (which if you're not familiar with what a .22LR sounds like, it is still loud... in fact, just a little louder than a jackhammer, or a chainsaw).

So, minus 30dB from whatever caliber you see above and compare it to this graphic below. Suppressors do not only not silence firearms, even with something as 'quiet' as a .22LR, it can still cause hearing damage and is as loud as a lawnmower.

You must have subsonic rounds to be anywhere near "silent".

 

[TheTexan]

You must have subsonic rounds to be anywhere near "silent".

Good point. It doesn't make sense to ban silencers without also banning subsonic rounds.

I'll be writing my Congressman.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You must have subsonic rounds to be anywhere near "silent".

Indeed and it is still not silent.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Good point. It doesn't make sense to ban silencers without also banning subsonic rounds.

I'll be writing my Congressman.

Don't forget crossbows.

 

[Stratovarious]

The article used the incorrect term.

Only faggy ........ ignorant anti-gun zealots say, "silencers."

Suppressor is the correct term. Much like clip versus magazine, words have meaning. It is laughable that virtually all anti-2nd Amendment types have no idea what they are talking about.

Since you are familiar with suppressors and firearms... what do you think suppressors do?

(Hint: around -30dB wet or dry)

.....

And what does 130dB sound like?

Well, 121 dB is the average chainsaw, and 130dB is a military jet take off at 50 ft.

Do you see why it is one, silly and emphatically incorrect to call it a silencer and two, why it is silly to concern yourself with silent killers? This isn't a James Bond movie. Suppressors simply dampen the noise. For instance, rather than an AR-15 (.223) sounding like an AR-15, with a suppressor it sounds like a .22LR (which if you're not familiar with what a .22LR sounds like, it is still loud... in fact, just a little louder than a jackhammer, or a chainsaw).

So, minus 30dB from whatever caliber you see above and compare it to this graphic below. Suppressors do not only not silence firearms, even with something as 'quiet' as a .22LR, it can still cause hearing damage and is as loud as a lawnmower.

LMAO,

You parroted what I already stated; they are not
silent.

The article used the correct term and so did I , that is not my
argument , it is yours.

Beautiful cut n' paste work though........

Point 1
I'm not bent on being right about
everything, yet resent being corrected aggressively,
insultingly, and emphatically as you have just done,
particularly when I am right, and you are so
very wrong.
The term Silencer is the original term, the true term,
Silencer like millions of words is not to be taken literally it
is just a 'term' .
Revisionists and manufacturers prefer to use the euphemism, 'suppressor'
that's fine, its just semantics, and the bulk of your ridiculous
argument.
And as I have stated, who in the hell wouldn't want to own
a suppressor/silencer, we would all love to have them.


Point 2

Some of the people here including yourself give the appearance
of being in support of the 2nd amendment , yet almost come off
as being infiltrators attempting to obfuscate
the importance of the core issues, and fueling the left's
hatred of Guns in general by promoting silencers/suppressors.

If you are sincere about protecting the 2nd amendment
you will be or already be doing some or all of the following;

Marching for 2nd amendment
Boycotting Dick's Sporting Goods
Advocating Open Carry rights
Advocating Concealed Carry rights
Advocating Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Advocating Safety, and Concealed Carry Classes

I got my CCW in 2002 , when did you get yours?
========================

What is the 'real' name , what is the difference between a Silencer and a Suppressor;





Sound difference 9mm 0:31 to 0:38









.




.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

LMAO,

You parroted what I already stated; they are not
silent.

Then step outside and quit being afraid of the world. Your point is that you don't feel comfortable with people owning silencers, right?

The article used the correct term and so did I , that is not my
argument , it is yours.

Thank you for pointing this out. I was incorrect and concede that point.

Beautiful cut n' paste work though........

Thank you. As is yours.

Point 1
I'm not bent on being right about
everything, yet resent being corrected aggressively,
insultingly, and emphatically as you have just done,
particularly when I am right, and you are so
very wrong.
The term Silencer is the original term, the true term,
Silencer like millions of words is not to be taken literally it
is just a 'term' .
Revisionists and manufacturers prefer to use the euphemism, 'suppressor'
that's fine, its just semantics, and the bulk of your ridiculous
argument.
And as I have stated, who in the hell wouldn't want to own
a suppressor/silencer, we would all love to have them.

I concede this point. Silencer is the original term.

Point 2

Some of the people here including yourself give the appearance
of being in support of the 2nd amendment , yet almost come off
as being infiltrators attempting to obfuscate
the importance of the core issues, and fueling the left's
hatred of Guns in general by promoting silencers/suppressors.

I am pro property rights.

You are promoting drawing a line between what the 2nd Amendment covers and does not as it relates to firearms vs. firearms accessories. If they can tax stamp a silencer they can tax stamp a magazine.

If you are sincere about protecting the 2nd amendment
you will be or already be doing some or all of the following;

Marching for 2nd amendment
Boycotting Dick's Sporting Goods
Advocating Open Carry rights
Advocating Concealed Carry rights
Advocating Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Advocating Safety, and Concealed Carry Classes

I got my CCW in 2002 , when did you get yours?

I never asked.

========================

What is the 'real' name , what is the difference between a Silencer and a Suppressor;



Thank you.

Sound difference 9mm 0:31 to 0:38

.
Subsonic 9mm
XD(m) 3.8 Velocities
Min Unsuppressed = 844 fps
Max Unsuppressed = 885 fps
Avg Unsuppressed = 861 fps
Min Suppressed= 861 fps
Max Suppressed = 916 fps
Avg Suppressed = 892 fps

XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Unsupressed)
Min = 162.2 dB
Max = 163.4 dB
Avg = 162.81 dB
XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Suppressed using Ti-RANT 9)
Min = 123.8 dB
Max = 128.6 dB
Avg = 126.09 dB

 

[Stratovarious]

Then step outside and quit being afraid of the world. Your point is that you don't feel comfortable with people owning silencers, right?


Thank you for pointing this out. I was incorrect and concede that point.


Thank you. As is yours.


I concede this point. Silencer is the original term.


I am pro property rights.

You are promoting drawing a line between what the 2nd Amendment covers and does not as it relates to firearms vs. firearms accessories. If they can tax stamp a silencer they can tax stamp a magazine.




I never asked.

========================

What is the 'real' name , what is the difference between a Silencer and a Suppressor;



Thank you.

Sound difference 9mm 0:31 to 0:38

.
Subsonic 9mm
XD(m) 3.8 Velocities
Min Unsuppressed = 844 fps
Max Unsuppressed = 885 fps
Avg Unsuppressed = 861 fps
Min Suppressed= 861 fps
Max Suppressed = 916 fps
Avg Suppressed = 892 fps

XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Unsupressed)
Min = 162.2 dB
Max = 163.4 dB
Avg = 162.81 dB
XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Suppressed using Ti-RANT 9)
Min = 123.8 dB
Max = 128.6 dB
Avg = 126.09 dB

None of what I wrote is cut n' paste, nice try.

What have you written here or anywhere that is more that
a personal attack, or a feeble sentence or two, have you
every written a page, a paragraph , anything that was based on what
you know rather that what you just wikid' up and threw at the
wall to see if it might stick....
I'd love to see your best work . lmao

 

[Superfluous Man]

Subsonic 9mm
XD(m) 3.8 Velocities
Min Unsuppressed = 844 fps
Max Unsuppressed = 885 fps
Avg Unsuppressed = 861 fps
Min Suppressed= 861 fps
Max Suppressed = 916 fps
Avg Suppressed = 892 fps

XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Unsupressed)
Min = 162.2 dB
Max = 163.4 dB
Avg = 162.81 dB
XD(m) 3.8 Sound Levels (Suppressed using Ti-RANT 9)
Min = 123.8 dB
Max = 128.6 dB
Avg = 126.09 dB

I think that velocity data is deceptive. What I think is causing the increased velocities with the suppressor is the increase in effective barrel length, allowing pressure to continue to build up behind the bullet over a greater distance. But this only happens when the gun being used has a significantly shorter barrel than whatever the ideal length is for the ammunition being used. When the gun has a barrel that is either longer than that, or close enough to it that the addition of the suppressor would significantly exceed that ideal length, then the velocities will be slower with the suppressor, rather than faster, due to greater friction over a distance where the pressure is no longer building up. It's not that suppressors generally increase bullet velocity as a rule.

 

[Superfluous Man]

I oppose silencers 100% , but I resent the feds under 'color of law' pretending to have
jurisdiction or authority over State's rights.

I love weapons and I love silencers, but in the wrong hands , which
would be many and varied, they are licenses to anonymously murder.
When someone is killed with a firearm, I appreciate a loud noise,
I don't see it as a lot to ask.
There are ways of deadening the noise without a 'silencer' but most
thugs aren't that smart, if they could buy silencers the
intelligence barrier is broken.
Ear protection is one of the arguments proponents use for the justification
of silencers, I get it, but, well I've got ear plugs, a small price to pay.

Point two;
This imv has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and opponents will
use this 'effectively' to disarm us, that opens us up to a much more
important issue ; genocide , agenda 21, Globalism.

We are building a Trojan Horse here, much bigger fry to catch.

lol
I had a hunch you would use this against my argument when I wrote it but wasn't
convinced that you would go there.
The big picture hasn't sht to do with Silencers, it has to do with the right to bear arms , we have
never been allowed to have silencers, this is the red herring the gun grabbers have all
been waiting for , a huge distraction and tool they will use to round up our weapons.
And as for swordsmyth , yes I stated that there are ways to kill without noise.

I find it very disturbing that either of you would latch on to this micro issue and equate it with the
right to bear arms, as a key point in the 'Grave importance' of our right to keep rogue government
at bay, because my friends that is the big picture.

Are you saying that you support the government at any level, whether state, federal, or other, regulating suppressors (or silencers, or whatever you want to call them, which makes no difference to me)?

 

[oyarde]

My silencers have three feathers on one end and an archaic period stone point on the other . In between a shaft made from a plant that does not grow close by . Untraceable .

 

[kcchiefs6465]

None of what I wrote is cut n' paste, nice try.

What have you written here or anywhere that is more that
a personal attack, or a feeble sentence or two, have you
every written a page, a paragraph , anything that was based on what
you know rather that what you just wikid' up and threw at the
wall to see if it might stick....
I'd love to see your best work . lmao

I've cut down on posting as much on this forum. Now it is mostly sarcastic insults levied at the few glue sniffing statists that have yet, in three years, to figure out that this forum promotes private property rights as well as the 2nd Amendment.

But you are right. Your dyslexic ramblings are eerily similar to Mark Twain or Hemingway. The prose... I mean Goddamn you are brave!! Paving the way for milennial's lol textspeak one jumbled runaway sentence at a time.

It is truly a treat to be in the presence of such a free thinker.

In any case, have a great night.

 

[Stratovarious]

The article used the incorrect term.

lmao

Only faggy action movies and ignorant anti-gun zealots say, "silencers."

lmao

And what does 130dB sound like?
Well, 121 dB is the average chainsaw, and 130dB is a military jet take off at 50 ft.

lmao

Now it is mostly sarcastic insults levied at the few glue sniffing statists that have yet, in three years, to figure out that this forum promotes private property rights as well as the 2nd Amendment.

lmao

*

So far, in between your personal attacks and tos violations (I'm guessing f** and faggy are frowned upon since idiot and sht are)
you've been so very wrong about everything, yet like herpes, you just keep the insults rolling, gotta love it,
don't you just love it......



* The 9mm , with and without silencer/suppressor, gee, sounds the same right, lmao , your cut n' pastes
turned around and bit you right in the ash.

The kicker is that you completely ignored the big picture items that I wrote about , much bigger than this
tiny little, micro point of silencers vs the important items, saving our;
Bump Stocks , Semi Autos , so Called assault rifles, participating in Boycotts , all the stuff I talked about you ignored,
phony much ?
Yea , and the ccw, you never bothered to get, lol, I'd be shocked if you could trusted not to put your eye out with a slingshot.

9mm, the sound difference is incredible, but I guess you'd rather talk about jet db's and think
you are beating down a real patriot with personal attacks , Yea I see what you got there.....

 

[kcchiefs6465]

So far, in between your personal attacks and tos violations (I'm guessing f** and faggy are frowned upon since idiot and sht are)
you've been so very wrong about everything, yet like herpes, you just keep the insults rolling, gotta love it,
don't you just love it......



* The 9mm , with and without silencer/suppressor, gee, sounds the same right, lmao , your cut n' pastes
turned around and bit you right in the ash.

The kicker is that you completely ignored the big picture items that I wrote about , much bigger than this
tiny little, micro point of silencers vs the important items, saving our;
Bump Stocks , Semi Autos , so Called assault rifles, participating in Boycotts , all the stuff I talked about you ignored,
phony much ?
Yea , and the ccw, you never bothered to get, lol, I'd be shocked if you could trusted not to put your eye out with a slingshot.

9mm, the sound difference is incredible, but I guess you'd rather talk about jet db's and think
you are beating down a real patriot with personal attacks , Yea I see what you got there.....

To be honest it is difficult to get past your first absurd anti-2nd Amendment claim of silenced killers and wanting to hear the gunshot... in the interest of being reasonable.

Well it isn't reasonable, it is too much to ask and it is absurd.

Suppressor vs silencer.. You are correct. It seems the NRA, in its own attempts at being reasonable in crafting the NFA and helping to secure its passage, popularized the usage of silencer in an effort to show people how scary they were. Though as well, Maxim coined the term first some thirty years prior.

Your larger point of cutting losses on 2nd Amendment encroachments so as to prevent further encroachments is naive and was as such, summarily dismissed. One, that is going against what courts have already ruled with respect to what is and is not covered by the 2nd Amendment and for two, it is anti private property. Not even mentioning what a stupid and shortsighted plan that it is.

And because of what? You being a little bit uncomfortable?

I am sorry that no one cares about your feelings. I'm sure they mean a great deal to you. As it stands: Not an argument.

I feel uncomfortable having to explain basic property and self defense rights on a libertarian forum but alas, no one cares, do they?

It probably makes you uncomfortable too that I didn't need the King's permission to carry. But again, no one gives a fuck.

Take a .22LR shooting subsonic rounds and you are getting near the point of 'silence.' In as much as a bolt closing, or birds chirping, or a diesel train at 100ft is 'silent.'

My bigger point, which I'll admit should have been stressed earlier, is who gives a fuck if they are silent or not?

Hypothetically speaking, is using a laser for self defense allowed in your vision of America? Or would you needlessly wish for people to be inconvenienced by needing hearing protection to protect their life or property?

I can hear you now.. The Founding Father's could never have envisioned technology developing to the point where contained explosions weren't necessary to launch a projectile.

 

[Stratovarious]

To be honest it is difficult to get past your first absurd anti-2nd Amendment claim of silenced killers and wanting to hear the gunshot... in the interest of being reasonable.

Well it isn't reasonable, it is too much to ask and it is absurd.

Suppressor vs silencer.. You are correct. It seems the NRA, in its own attempts at being reasonable in crafting the NFA and helping to secure its passage, popularized the usage of silencer in an effort to show people how scary they were. Though as well, Maxim coined the term first some thirty years prior.

Your larger point of cutting losses on 2nd Amendment encroachments so as to prevent further encroachments is naive and was as such, summarily dismissed. One, that is going against what courts have already ruled with respect to what is and is not covered by the 2nd Amendment and for two, it is anti private property. Not even mentioning what a stupid and shortsighted plan that it is.

And because of what? You being a little bit uncomfortable?

I am sorry that no one cares about your feelings. I'm sure they mean a great deal to you. As it stands: Not an argument.

I feel uncomfortable having to explain basic property and self defense rights on a libertarian forum but alas, no one cares, do they?

It probably makes you uncomfortable too that I didn't need the King's permission to carry. But again, no one gives a $#@!.

Take a .22LR shooting subsonic rounds and you are getting near the point of 'silence.' In as much as a bolt closing, or birds chirping, or a diesel train at 100ft is 'silent.'

My bigger point, which I'll admit should have been stressed earlier, is who gives a $#@! if they are silent or not?

Hypothetically speaking, is using a laser for self defense allowed in your vision of America? Or would you needlessly wish for people to be inconvenienced by needing hearing protection to protect their life or property?

I can hear you now.. The Founding Father's could never have envisioned technology developing to the point where contained explosions weren't necessary to launch a projectile.

They said there was a cure for herpes, apparently not,
you are just Golden son , pure gold .........

 

[kcchiefs6465]

They said there was a cure for herpes, apparently not,
you are just Golden son , pure gold .........

Herpes makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps you and Dianne Feinstein could partner together to put some legislation in place so that my sensibilities aren't bothered.

You know, pragmatism and feelings and all that.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

[h=3]Trump appointed judge upheld his bumpfire stock ban[/h]