Jump to content
Sniper

Still Think The Supreme Court is Going to Save You? Supreme Court won't take up gun silencer restrictions

Recommended Posts

The S.C. is punting on even arguing the case of allowing silencers/suppressors. Those of you who think the NEW conservative judges Trump nominated were going to undue all the unconstitutional Anti-2A crap, better think again... Nobody is going to save you!!  Time to wake up!

The Supreme Court said Monday that it will not take up a challenge to a federal law that restricts the ownership of gun silencers, attachments that muffle the sound of gunfire.

The court rejected an appeal brought by two Kansas men — Shane Cox, the owner of a military surplus store who sold a silencer, and Jeremy Kettler, the man who bought it. Kettler said he purchased the silencer to protect his ears because his hearing was damaged during military service. He also said the store owner told him that a silencer made and sold in the same state was not subject to the federal law that requires the devices to be registered.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-won-t-take-gun-silencer-restrictions-n1015766

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO this is close to the arguments regarding bump stocks. 

Should accessories be covered as part of 2nd Amendment arguments?  If so (or not), which ones?

If there are limitations on the guns themselves (like full-auto) then it would seem that certain accessories would face regulation as well.

The slippery slope is that the anti-gun groups would push to the limit and have everything except for the physical frame of a gun regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shane45 said:

One needs to dig a little deeper here. I dont think this case is an indication of the SC's sentiment on the 2nd.

You might want to revisit that... it seems to be...

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court on Monday left intact a federal law that requires the registration of some firearms, including silencers, and turned away a request to consider whether such firearm accessories are protected by the Second Amendment.

An appeals court had held that a silencer is not a "bearable" arm protected by the Constitution.

The order was issued without comment or recorded dissent.

(Wait, where are our new Conservative judges on a opinion or dissent??????)

Some believe the lower courts are thumbing their nose at the landmark Heller v. US decision in 2008 holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics/silencers-supreme-court/index.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shane45 said:

One needs to dig a little deeper here. I dont think this case is an indication of the SC's sentiment on the 2nd. This looks to me to be more a case of State Vs Fed. Thus probably making this NOT a good case to use to change NFA law.

First thing that came to mind was interstate commerce.... and while the case has a very valid point it wasnt going to effect the NFA.. maybe create a semi loophole for residents of states that make NFA items.

 

The gun free school zone act was knocked down using the same method of argument, and then it was re-written and in full effect again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BobA said:

So under that train of thought, various magazine sizes could be fought as an accessory.  

Mags have already been ruled “part of” a firearm. I think it was only in the 9th circus tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accessories and NFA items are pretty different. But I dont think thats the argument here. The greater argument is, do states get to pick which laws they will follow and which ones they dont. Montana tried this route with full auto. I dont recall it going well but it's been a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Trump asked the courts to stay out of this one. Have to imagine if NFA was overturned then Trump loses votes while the left would have something they would call a win.

it's a short term loss for 2a with a long term game in mind. 4D chess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 11:32 PM, Sevenshot said:

 Trump asked the courts to stay out of this one. Have to imagine if NFA was overturned then Trump loses votes while the left would have something they would call a win.

it's a short term loss for 2a with a long term game in mind. 4D chess.

I'm done with this whole '4D' chess... 

 

62204338_10217206248620602_318729681949949952_n (1).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the wrong case to take to SCOTUS  to get silencers off the the NFA.

Cox is making silencers in the back of his government surplus store and tells Kettler that a silencer made in Kansas is not subject to NFA.  Kettler's defense is his hearing was damaged in the military and that's why he needs one.

These go down as some of the most stupid defenses I've ever heard.  No wonder SCOTUS doesn't want to waste it's time with this case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GRIZ said:

This is the wrong case to take to SCOTUS  to get silencers off the the NFA.

Cox is making silencers in the back of his government surplus store and tells Kettler that a silencer made in Kansas is not subject to NFA.  Kettler's defense is his hearing was damaged in the military and that's why he needs one.

These go down as some of the most stupid defenses I've ever heard.  No wonder SCOTUS doesn't want to waste it's time with this case.

I dont find it a "stupid" defense. I do think its a save my own ass defense... In this case if there was no interstate commerce, the NFA should not apply. In fact, I believe Montana does exactly this very thing, and passed state laws outlining the federal governments lack of authority in intrastate commerce of NFA items. 

 

Here is Kansas own 2a protection act.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2014/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2199_00_0000.pdf

Add to the fact the feds gave them probation... no jail time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

I dont find it a "stupid" defense. I do think its a save my own ass defense... In this case if there was no interstate commerce, the NFA should not apply. In fact, I believe Montana does exactly this very thing, and passed state laws outlining the federal governments lack of authority in intrastate commerce of NFA items. 

 

Here is Kansas own 2a protection act.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2014/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2199_00_0000.pdf

Add to the fact the feds gave them probation... no jail time. 

And I think these complications are what catch us in the cross fire.  NFA rights vs states rights vs our 2A rights.  It's sometimes a gray area that in court turns into a fine thin line that causes compromises with the court's decisions that tend to get abused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

I dont find it a "stupid" defense. I do think its a save my own ass defense... In this case if there was no interstate commerce, the NFA should not apply. In fact, I believe Montana does exactly this very thing, and passed state laws outlining the federal governments lack of authority in intrastate commerce of NFA items. 

 

Here is Kansas own 2a protection act.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2014/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2199_00_0000.pdf

Add to the fact the feds gave them probation... no jail time. 

No interstate commerce?  Was the metal mined, refined, and formed into tubing all in Kansas?  Was the tap used to cut the threads made in Kansas?

These 2A Protection Acts passed in several states and counties are pretty much worthless until a decision by SCOTUS.  Read the rest of the COTUS.  Federal law trumps any state law.  The Federal government is not subject to any state or local jurisdiction.

They got probation because that's what the Federal Sentencing Guidelines say that's what they could get.  Most likely it was the minimum.  Sentencing is actually figured out by US Probation and Parole.  I've never seen a judge that went against their recommendation.

They still are convicted felons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about either to formulate an opinion for or against the argument... Just that was the argument being made. That it wasn't about the constitutionality of the NFA, but whether it applied to an instate manufacturered product and sale. 

 

If Scotus walked away from the case then they must have either agreed it was covered by the commerce clause or they want NFA regulated regardless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

I don't know enough about either to formulate an opinion for or against the argument... Just that was the argument being made. That it wasn't about the constitutionality of the NFA, but whether it applied to an instate manufacturered product and sale. 

 

If Scotus walked away from the case then they must have either agreed it was covered by the commerce clause or they want NFA regulated regardless.

 

There are a few decisions SCOTUS has made regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause of the COTUS.  Some I agree with, some I don't.   It's our system so once something goes through SCOTUS one has to live with it.

Until SCOTUS changes something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

There are a few decisions SCOTUS has made regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause of the COTUS.  Some I agree with, some I don't.   It's our system so once something goes through SCOTUS one has to live with it.

Until SCOTUS changes something.

Stare decisis is a double edged sword. Depends on your point of view, but some times old dogs should let lie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Stare decisis is a double edged sword. Depends on your point of view, but some times old dogs should let lie. 

SCOTUS has flipped on itself at times.  For example Brown vs Board of Education flipped their prior Plessy vs Ferguson decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are suppressors commonly owned for a defensive purpose?  I don't think so.  Under the Heller standard there is plenty of room to say they aren't arms subject to 2A protection.  We all need to understand that the "what don't you understand about 'shall not be infringed'" line of argument -- ie that any and all laws that impact gun ownership by definition violate the 2A -- is not and probably never will be the law of the land. 

The Supreme Court focuses on the big picture, and even the most 2A friendly court imaginable is not going to jump in and strike down every law that impedes our 2A wish-list.  I would not expect the Court to take a case on suppressors.  Or on bump stocks. 

I think magazine bans are probably different as they are an integral part of the firearm and extreme bans on types of magazines can effectively amount to a ban on the firearm itself.  That isn't the case with suppressors.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PDM said:

Are suppressors commonly owned for a defensive purpose?  I don't think so.  Under the Heller standard there is plenty of room to say they aren't arms subject to 2A protection. 

I forget where I read it.. Heller, HellerII, or a subsequent case...but there was wording in the ruling essentially stating that one cannot apply the circular reasoning you mention above. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PDM said:

Are suppressors commonly owned for a defensive purpose?  I don't think so.  Under the Heller standard there is plenty of room to say they aren't arms subject to 2A protection.  We all need to understand that the "what don't you understand about 'shall not be infringed'" line of argument -- ie that any and all laws that impact gun ownership by definition violate the 2A -- is not and probably never will be the law of the land. 

The Supreme Court focuses on the big picture, and even the most 2A friendly court imaginable is not going to jump in and strike down every law that impedes our 2A wish-list.  I would not expect the Court to take a case on suppressors.  Or on bump stocks. 

I think magazine bans are probably different as they are an integral part of the firearm and extreme bans on types of magazines can effectively amount to a ban on the firearm itself.  That isn't the case with suppressors.

All true.  The problem with this is it's proven time after time that any regulation or impedance leaves that door open for the opposing side to expand on.  This has historically been the case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BobA said:

All true.  The problem with this is it's proven time after time that any regulation or impedance leaves that door open for the opposing side to expand on.  This has historically been the case.  

I totally agree.  I think suppressors should definitely be legal. But we need to recognize the reality in which we live. I think we have a better chance of legislative action at the federal level than a court ruling protecting supressors.  And even then they will never be legal in NJ, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Friends Like These,
Who Needs Democrats?

smalline

Print Friendly and PDF

1911-we-people-564x230.jpg

By L. Neil Smith. June 15th, 2019. (lneil@netzero.com)
PATREON:https://www.patreon.com/lneilsmith
Attributed to L.Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Rodney William Ansell was a widely-respected Australian cattleman, hunter, and outbacker, most famous for his survival skills under harsh conditions, who served as the model for the movie character "Crocodile Dundee". His business and his family were destroyed by trendy environmentalist legislation. In 1999, resisting a series of new victim disarmament (gun control) laws and other statist incursions into his life, he was savagely murdered by the police, whereupon all sorts of transparently phony charges and accusations were heaped against him by the government and media to defame him when he could no longer defend himself.

Running for the highest office in the land, Donald Trump famously promised all of us "deplorables" out here in Flyover Country that he'd protect our rights under the Second Amendment. He mentioned it at every rally, to the enthusiastic cheers of tens of thousands.

The sad truth, however, is that the man is a golfer, not a shooter, even if he is rumored to carry a concealed weapon himself. The first time he encountered any political pressure on the issue at all, he folded like a filling-station roadmap. Following a suspiciously spectacular mass-shooting in Las Vegas that we have still not heard a single word of truth about, he single-handedly banned so-called "bump stocks" by Imperial presidential decree. Bump stocks are an aftermarket device that allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire rapidly as if it were fully automatic, and were said to have been used by the Las Vegas shooter.

Not that we have any reason to believe what we've been told.

Like many another lifelong weapons "expert" (I am a retired ballistician), I have no use for bump stocks, myself, which destroy accuracy and achieve no useful effect. For that reason, the bad-guys are counting on me and my kind not to defend their ownership and use. But --

(a) not only was this an "illegal taking" under the Fifth Amendment, costing manufacturers, retailers, and gun owners millions of dollars, without compensation,

(b) not only does it defeat the entire purpose for which the Second Amendment was written -- to defend liberty from the government, which has no lawful business knowing what weapons or accessories we possess, buy, sell, or trade, or telling Americans what is, or is not, acceptable in this context,

(c) not only does it it violate a tacit understanding (now null and void) in operation since the 1930s to the effect that, if "We The People" let the feds outlaw certain kinds of weapons, they will otherwise leave us the hell alone ...

(d) it makes me worry for the first time about this administration's real agenda with regard to the Bill of Rights.

Strike One, Mr. President.

Following that Las Vegas event and other pathetically contrived and staged outrages, a series of "red flag laws" began passing in the states, where, it is falsely claimed, the Bill of Rights somehow applies less than at the federal level. These laws allow the authorities to smash into your home and seize your guns, on nothing more than the unsubstantiated whining of some relative or neighbor. This is not only another violation of the Takings Clause (they claim you'll get your weapons back, good as new, in a few weeks, but this is entirely inconsistent with my experiences with cops, property rooms, and seized weapons), it is a blatant violation of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Sections 241 and 242, which forbid the contravention of your rights "under color of law" and set forth penalties for those officials found guilty of it.

The even worse news is that certain politicians, including the perfidious Lindsey Graham, are collaborating with Democrats to write more red flag laws at the federal level, and the Trump Administration has done nothing to discourage it. These laws are the very essence and definition of a police state, and they have already allowed one old man in Maryland, who made a stand, defending his rights, to be murdered, like Rod Ansell, the real Crocodile Dundee, by the cops.

Strike Two, Mr. President.

Lately there have been rumblings that Trump is contemplating a godlike prohibition against suppressors (what the ignorant and butt-stupid media call "silencers"), simply because the accused perpetrator of the most recent politically useful atrocity had one screwed onto the end of one of his pistols. If you remember nothing else from this essay, remember this: _the left always claims that the only way to deal with a crime is to severely punish everyone who didn't commit it. This is insanity; Trump clearly has enemies at his side, giving him very, very bad advice.

Lindsey Graham is a snake.

Strike Three, Mr. President.

Now contemplate, if you will, what comes next. These are not prescriptions; I don't want them to happen. I like Donald and his family; I think he's the best president we've had in over a century. Certainly in my lifetime. They are predictions of an inevitable, dismal future unless changes get made right away. It's what I do for a living and I'm very good at it.

Gun owners have always been used by Republicans exactly the same way that Democrats have always used blacks: they're pretty nice to have around during an election, otherwise, fuck 'em. I actually heard a famous Republican back in the 1970s ask, "Who else are they gonna vote for?", "they" being you and me.

The answer today, in the twenty-first century, is nobody. Gun people got Trump elected. If those people stay home, next time, if they "walk away" from the Republican Party, Trump will fail in 2020 and America will have lost its last chance to remain a free country. If you wake up, the morning after election day, and Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren, Kamala Harris who began her career humping Willy Brown's leg, Beta O'Rourke, or some other member of the Democrat Zoo Parade is defecating in the Oval Office, you can thank the anti-gun crowd, the Rinos, and other weak-kneed and treacherous Republicanoids.

What. if anything, can be done to fix this mess? Write to freedom-oriented politicians (yes, I know it sounds like an oxymoron). Paper letters work best, but anything helps. Do not be particularly respectful. They don't deserve it and Contempt of Congress, they tell us themselves, is the order of the day. Tell them that you're sick and tired tired of being used.

Tell them that they must rescind the bump-stock ban at once and indemnify former owners, using the funds, frozen under Title 18, of anti-Constitutional specimens like George Soros, Tom Steyr, Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Gates.They must use federal law as President Eisenhower did in Little Rock in the 1950s to abolish red flag laws wherever they have sprouted, and jail those politicians, bureaucrats, and cops who introduced, sponsored, voted for, passed, or enforced them.

As a token of good faith, they must fully legalize suppressors and fully-automatic weapons immediately.

They must eliminate gun-free (meaning Bill of Rights-free) zones, if only for the sake of public safety. Constitutional rights are not privileges or luxuries, to be brushed aside at political whim, but dire necessities, as the Second Amendment itself declares, for a free republic.

They must formally and thoroughly investigate infamous false flag shootings going back to Charles Whitman in 1966.

Further (but not very far) down the road, they must break up California by county and allow blue counties to determine their own fate.

Finally, they must separate New York City from the rest of that state, and demote it to territorial status with a Governor appointed by the President so it can't do any more harm.

And let the President know his administration is on probation.

************************

 

lneil-120.jpgAward-winning novelist and essayist L. Neil Smith is a retired gunsmith, Publisher and Senior Columnist of L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise and the author of over thirty books. Look him up on Google, Wikipedia, and Amazon.com. He is available, at professional rates, to write columns, articles, and speeches for your organization, event, or publication, fiercely defending your rights, as he has done since the mid-1960s. His writings (and e-mail address) may also be found at L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise, at JPFO.org or at https://www.patreon.com/lneilsmith, to which you can contribute, directly. His many books and those of other pro-gun libertarians may be found (and ordered) at L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE "Free Radical Book Store" The preceeding essay was originally prepared for and appeared in L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE. If you like what you've seen and want to see more, he says, "Don't applaud, throw money."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 10:31 AM, PDM said:

Are suppressors commonly owned for a defensive purpose?  I don't think so.  Under the Heller standard there is plenty of room to say they aren't arms subject to 2A protection.  We all need to understand that the "what don't you understand about 'shall not be infringed'" line of argument -- ie that any and all laws that impact gun ownership by definition violate the 2A -- is not and probably never will be the law of the land. 

 

The Heller decision does not draw a line between firearm use, just wether they are in common use. The decision is specific to firearms tho, i believe that is the term used... not 'ARMS"

There is no argument that they are not "arms", they are explicitly regulated through the NFA, which is by itself an admission they are Arms. The other problem is that they are not prohibited from owning or purchasing through the NFA....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 12:08 PM, PDM said:

I totally agree.  I think suppressors should definitely be legal. But we need to recognize the reality in which we live. I think we have a better chance of legislative action at the federal level than a court ruling protecting supressors.  And even then they will never be legal in NJ, unfortunately.

That makes zero sense... 

Suppressors are already legal at a federal level...  They have zero authority to tell a state to legalize something without a SCOTUS ruling. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

That makes zero sense... 

Suppressors are already legal at a federal level...  They have zero authority to tell a state to legalize something without a SCOTUS ruling. 

I agree.

So many "Constitutionalists" who spout the 2A forget about the 10A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 3:40 PM, JackDaWack said:

That makes zero sense... 

Suppressors are already legal at a federal level...  They have zero authority to tell a state to legalize something without a SCOTUS ruling. 

 

2 hours ago, njpilot said:

Unfortunately, the corrupt Federal government believes that, like the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment no longer applies.

This thing swings both ways though.

If you feel a state should be able to legalize NFA items made in their state then you also support restrictive state gun laws that mostly effect law abiding citizens.

While a state law cannot be contrary to Federal law it can be more restrictive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now in the category of "Are you fucking kidding"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gorsuch-sides-with-liberals-in-shooting-down-tougher-sentences-for-gun-crimes

Its unconstitutional to increase penalties for using a gun in a crime,  but its perfectly alright to increase penalties for NOT commiting a crime.

  • Haha 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...