Federal court rules state firearm laws invalid

Matt Collins

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
47,707
Once again the feds trample individual rights and ignore the Constitution:


WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the firearms convictions against two Kansas men who mistakenly believed that a Kansas law can shield from federal prosecution anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state.


The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler’s challenges to their federal convictions under the National Firearms Act.


The three-judge panel did not address the constitutionality of the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act, which Kansas defended when intervening in the criminal case. The state gun law says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept within Kansas borders are exempt from federal gun control.


Cox was convicted of making and marketing unregistered firearms, and Kettler was convicted for possessing an unregistered gun silencer.


The men challenged the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, alleging it is an invalid exercise of congressional power and an invasion of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They also challenged the lower court’s ruling that their reliance on the state law provided no defense to the federal charges.


Separately, Kettler argued further that his prosecution resulted from the dispute between Kansas and the federal government over the Kansas law.


The appeals court panel rejected all the defense arguments in a 47-page decision. It concluded the federal gun law falls within Congress’ power to tax. The court also noted that the men’s reliance on the state mitigated their sentences, if not their guilt. It noted the district court took their mistaken reliance on the state law into consideration when it sentenced them to probation.


The appellate panel also rejected Kettler’s request for relief for what he described as being “ensnared in a constitutional dispute” between Kansas and the federal government.


When Cox began selling his homemade firearms and silencers out of his military surplus store, he stamped “Made in Kansas” on them to assure buyers that a Kansas law would prevent federal prosecution of anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state.


Cox, a Chanute resident, also gave customers copies of the Second Amendment Protection Act, which was passed by the Kansas Legislature in 2013 and signed by then-Gov. Sam Brownback. Cox even collected sales taxes. 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.



SOURCE:


https://www.apnews.com/91541e86b989...dlSVpVonHEol0PoA7XmLtFxA54EL3yDf0g-Z7N03qRq6Q
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cap
Unless state authorities protect their citizens through force of arms then this is what you get. These individuals are still being kept in the state. Wherever they are being detained the State Troopers, local Sheriff and as many as can be deputized should walk in and turn them free.
But, that won't happen. And we know it.
 
"It concluded the federal gun law falls within Congress' powe to tax."

Interesting. They did not decide on the issue of federalism vis a vis the commerce clause. I take that as tacit acknowledgement that the states right argument is correct.

I wonder what tortured logic they used to justify a tax as not being an infringement on the second amendment.
 
Well we are living in MAGA times.
Courts are often highly political institutions. And courts are finally in the mood to do something.



5gzk1ak057j01.jpg


Trump+on+gun+control_fc7229_6526507.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cap
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.”

Jeremy-Kettler.PNG


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/
 
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.”

Jeremy-Kettler.PNG


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/

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

The correct term is suppressor. Nothing makes a gun silent except 2nd Amendment violations.

If you lived where I do you would not feel this way. We are rural, but not spread out so much in our community. Most everyone here has guns and practice on our property. The sound carries. So much so that with about 80% accuracy I can tell which neighbor is shooting and which gun he is shooting with. Firearms fire scares livestock and pets.

There is nothing wrong with suppressors.
 
What?

There is no logical reason to oppose silencers.

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.
 
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.

Thus ever the call for more gun control laws of every statist that wishes to abridge the 2nd Amendment.
 
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.
You could make the same argument about guns as you make about silencers and there are many ways to silently murder someone, if you just don't like suppressors they we don't really have a problem but if you would ever under any circumstance want any level of government to outlaw them then we do.
 
The correct term is suppressor. Nothing makes a gun silent except 2nd Amendment violations.

If you lived where I do you would not feel this way. We are rural, but not spread out so much in our community. Most everyone here has guns and practice on our property. The sound carries. So much so that with about 80% accuracy I can tell which neighbor is shooting and which gun he is shooting with. Firearms fire scares livestock and pets.

There is nothing wrong with suppressors.

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.
 
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.

You only play at semantics without addressing my points.
 
Thus ever the call for more gun control laws of every statist that wishes to abridge the 2nd Amendment.

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.:frog:
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.
 
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.

I've found that the fight for gun owners rights has been a battle that is rooted in the semantics of words.

"Assault Weapon"
"High Capacity Magazines/Clips"
"Shoulder thingie that goes up"

Since the facts do not support the gun grabber case, they will choose emotional triggers, and prey on the uneducated. You and I are in agreement on the annoyance of such semantics, but its how they play the game. Infighting between folks who essentially agree on the same cause is just the cherry on top for the gun grabbers.

Call things what you wish - my only intention is to make humble mention of the company you may inadvertently be keeping by choosing certain words.

Its a dumb game, but its how they play.
 
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.:frog:
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.

Catch up on your history and get back to me on this.

Edit: And I do concede your point on the terminology. As I described it is how it was taught to me.
 
Last edited:
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.:frog:
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.
If they can ban suppressors they can ban anything else and they didn't used to be banned.
 
Back
Top