The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 10, 2019, 02:40 PM   #1
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,417
Silencer case: Kettler v. United States

The Supreme Court has declined to hear this case, and GOA is making noise about it.

In the 2010s, several states passed "firearms freedom laws," seeking to exempt their citizens from federal regulations if firearms were entirely manufactured within the borders of that state. The idea was that they wouldn't be subject to the Commerce Clause if they hadn't been involved in interstate commerce.

<cue skeptical growl>

Kansas passed their version in 2013. At some point, Shane Cox, owner of an Army surplus store, started making his own silencers, which were not registered under the NFA. He transferred one to Jeremy Kettler. Kettler was busted for possession of an unregistered silencer, and Cox was charged with unlawful manufacture in another case.

The way I see it, there are three facets to this.
  1. play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Is there anyone who doesn't know silencers are heavily regulated? Doubtful.
  2. there are underlying 10th Amendment issues, which these laws sought to highlight in theory
  3. in practice, these laws potentially mislead their citizens by letting them think they're immune from potential federal prosecution. This is very similar to the situation in states that have "legalized" marijuana in violation of federal law

In any case, GOA brought the case, lost, appealed to the 10th Circuit, lost, and requested cert from SCOTUS, which was denied. Kettler's sentence was a year of probation.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 03:08 PM   #2
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
in practice, these laws potentially mislead their citizens by letting them think they're immune from potential federal prosecution. This is very similar to the situation in states that have "legalized" marijuana in violation of federal law
On the nose.

The idea that items not in interstate commerce should not be subject to federal regulation as if they were in interstate commerce is one I endorse as coherent and faithful to the restriction stated in the COTUS. However, is it not the current state of our constitutional law.

Also, unless I misunderstand the case, one of these gentlemen had a short barrelled rifle that was not an exclusively intrastate item.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 03:43 PM   #3
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,934
Until SCOTUS decides to revise their Wickard v Filburn interpretation, basically anything is involved in interstate commerce. (Which is a ridiculously stretched interpretation, but so many of our laws/case law now rests on it, that I doubt they want to correct that mistake.)
raimius is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 04:08 PM   #4
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
The idea that items not in interstate commerce should not be subject to federal regulation as if they were in interstate commerce is one I endorse as coherent and faithful to the restriction stated in the COTUS. However, is it not the current state of our constitutional law.
Earlier today I quoted from Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass:

Quote:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
When the Supreme Court of the United States rules (as they have) that the Constitution granting the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce applies to items that have never been in interstate commerce because by having been made and sold locally they AFFECTED interstate commerce -- that's when you know that the government is really being run by the Red Queen.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 11, 2019, 08:54 AM   #5
P5 Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,754
I'm confused.
States make a drug legal to use recreationally which is in conflict with federal law and that does not get prosecuted?
Why restrict states from doing the very same thing with firearms and accessories?
P5 Guy is offline  
Old June 11, 2019, 09:06 AM   #6
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by P5 Guy
States make a drug legal to use recreationally which is in conflict with federal law and that does not get prosecuted?
They are subject to federal prosecution and federal seizure for structuring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Stevens
Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

Last edited by zukiphile; June 11, 2019 at 09:14 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 11, 2019, 11:36 AM   #7
P5 Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,754
Trump a typical NYC moderate is throwing gun owners under the bus.
P5 Guy is offline  
Old June 13, 2019, 05:59 PM   #8
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,066
Sessions wanted to go after the Federal marijuana violations but his career was cut short in a genius move, related to recusal.

As Frank has discussed, the state laws do not trump the Federal laws.

Thus, state laws are either PR moves or setting up cases to reach the Federal courts.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05682 seconds with 8 queries