|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 10, 2019, 02:40 PM | #1 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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.
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 |
June 10, 2019, 03:08 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
June 10, 2019, 03:43 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
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.)
|
June 10, 2019, 04:08 PM | #4 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 11, 2019, 08:54 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,804
|
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? |
June 11, 2019, 09:06 AM | #6 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; June 11, 2019 at 09:14 AM. |
||
June 11, 2019, 11:36 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,804
|
Trump a typical NYC moderate is throwing gun owners under the bus.
|
June 13, 2019, 05:59 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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 |
|
|