BREAKING: Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case Challenging Silencer Regulation

suppressor silencer

Jeremy S for TTAG

Bad news for those who want to see suppressors removed from NFA regulation.

From the Associated Press:

The Supreme Court is rejecting a challenge to federal regulation of gun silencers, just days after a gunman used one in a shooting rampage that killed 12 people in Virginia.

The justices did not comment Monday in turning away appeals from two Kansas men who were convicted of violating federal law regulating silencers. The men argued that the constitutional right “to keep and bear arms” includes silencers.

Kansas and seven other states joined in a court filing urging the justices hear the appeal. The states said the court should affirm that the Second Amendment protects “silencers and other firearms accessories.”

The other states joining Kansas in the court filing are: Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place.

Shane Cox, owner of a military surplus store, was convicted of making and transferring an unregistered silencer, and customer Jeremy Kettler was convicted of possessing one, all in violation of the 85-year-old National Firearms Act. Both men were sentenced to probation.

Meanwhile, police are trying to determine a motive for the deadly shootings in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Authorities have said that city employee DeWayne Craddock opened fire in a municipal building on May 31. Police say Craddock was armed with two semi-automatic handguns, a silencer and extended ammunition magazines.

Craddock later was killed in a shootout with police.

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Not surprising, but a bummer nonetheless.

    The whole CCW restrictions “game” (and its existence as well) seems more important to more people.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Not surprising, but a bummer nonetheless.”

      Yeah, I’m interested in the legal folks here speculating why it may have been denied cert…

      1. avatar PK says:

        Why? Simple! SCOTUS is a part of the government. The government wants us less able to harm their power. SCOTUS will not expand our access to effective means to resist that power.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “SCOTUS will not expand our access to effective means to resist that power.”

          Oh? If that were the case, why the hell did the Court declare in the Heller decision that we had a right to own a handgun in our homes, even if cities and states didn’t want them to?

          Well?

        2. avatar Biatec says:

          You know heller was not a win right? It basically said the government can infringe on your rights. The whole common use. Well How can the militia update it’s weapons and technology if that is how it works. If that ruling was made in 1865 we would only have civil war era guns. Maybe I don’t understand something but that’s how I see it.

        3. avatar PK says:

          And how well is the Heller opinion working to broaden access to arms? I seem to recall that it’s all but ignored entirely.

        4. avatar barnbwt says:

          Geoff, St. Scalia explicitly stated that handguns were only protected because they did not pose such a threat to the public (or, implicitly, the government), the way machineguns or ‘dangerous or unusual’ arms do.

          The ruling was heralded as a sweeping victory because we had had literally NOTHING supporting our cause from the judicial precedent side of things, but objectively, Heller was some breadcrumbs being tossed to us as the loaf was moved even further away.

          The text & arguments of the ruling were a wonderful gift that inspired generations of gun owners to strive to protect their rights, but as we know too well, text & arguments are secondary to pragmatic politics when it comes to the Supreme Court.

        5. avatar Really? says:

          Hit me up with your mailing address. Got some extra tinfoil for you to make your next hat out of.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Got some extra tinfoil for you to make your next hat out of.”

          Are you skeptical that SC is part of government?

        7. avatar FB says:

          Regardless if they like it or not. Theres nothing the can due to wipe it out.

        8. avatar CWS FAN says:

          Nonsense. SCOTUS as a unit mostly acts strictly in accord with the opinions of at least five of the sitting justices. They have lifetime appointments subject only to impeachment and conviction. Harder said than done.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        My thesis is that SCOTUS wants to build its jurisprudence about arms very slowly and deliberately.

        Remember, there are two camps in SCOTUS: liberal; and, conservative. Do they think alike?

        The liberal camp is inclined to move precipitously toward Progressive goals. If, in one fell swoop, they can take ground and plant the flag of Progressivism on any line of reasoning, there is little – ideologically – to hold them back.

        The conservative camp is inclined to move slowly, conservatively, to nudge jurisprudence on any issue back toward original construction. Judicial precedents are fragile things. Very little stands in the way of SCOTUS reversing a precedent. One measure to strengthen a precedent is to build a body of SCOTUS decisions that build upon one another; stitching-together a coat-of-mail with inter-locking links. To layer one case on top of another making them more resistant to penetration. (There are other techniques more applicable to other kinds of cases.)

        Heller, McDonald, Caetano were all little tiny wins building up 2A jurisprudence. Functional handgun in the home; fundamental right incorporated under 14A; not just for muskets anymore. See how small these steps were?

        This case promised to open the can-of-worms of defining the term “arms” in the 2A. Is a silencer an “arm”? Is it “not-an-arm”? Does it contribute to the efficiency of a “well regulated militia”? Is it important to personal self-defense? Are we convinced that 5 justices would all agree to a single line of reasoning about these questions?

        What if they agreed to throw-out the conviction but on different lines-of-reasoning? It’s called a “plurality decision” and it has no precedential value. What good would that do us?

        What if they agreed to take the case but the liberals and one squishy “conservative” upheld the conviction? What good would that do us?

        Our task is to figure out exactly what sorts of cases we need to feed into the lower level courts such that – as they float up the appellate path – they come to SCOTUS in the right SEQUENCE such that 5 justices WANT to hear each case next.

        As much as I too wanted to see SCOTUS take-up this case, I’m not surprised that they demurred.

        What is vastly more important than SCOTUS is turning the monstrous court of public opinion. We need to be thinking about building a strong majority – not 51% but 60% or 70% – of voters who support the right-to-arms, and their accessories.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I would like to see the court address a state level NFA ban case. Basically, a state banning items covered under the NFA. That would be a much smaller mountain to climb than trying to strike down the NFA in one fell swoop

        2. avatar Dude says:

          pwrserge,
          That makes sense. It’s unconstitutional, just like arbitrarily capping magazines at 10 rounds.

        3. avatar Cody says:

          We should be feeding challenges up the chain, based on the findings in this case.
          https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

        4. avatar Cody says:

          “What is vastly more important than SCOTUS is turning the monstrous court of public opinion. We need to be thinking about building a strong majority – not 51% but 60% or 70% – of voters who support the right-to-arms, and their accessories.”

          But the NRA and their puppet Trump are diametrically opposed to even having the discussion: “I don’t like ’em, so I’ll ban ’em,” and “Seize the guns first, due process later.”

        5. avatar Sensei says:

          The problem is with the precedent concept.
          Precedent gives power to the justices over the law.
          Rather than deciding the meaning and intent of the law as written, precedent gives authority to prior decisions.
          A whole series of wrong/bad decisions on a law gives much legal “weight” and therefore authority to bad law, and encourages rogue judges to keep misinterpreting/ misrepresenting our rights without recourse, except the arduous process of building up precedents in the opposite direction, which means entire generations could be denied rights until the right cases can be brought before the right judges at the right time, if the rights can be restored at all, because once a right can be infringed on, it ceases to be a right, and therefore precedent is set, possibly for eternity.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The Law Must Be Stable, But Should Never Stand Still…”
          – Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard Law, 1916-1936

          Ah, there’s the rub.

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        bad timing certainly played into it….

      4. avatar Steven says:

        I haven’t a care in the world of WHY. I know I am an American citizen and the Second Amendment says it: Shall not be infringed. I firmly believe it and have always refused to comply with Big Brother trying to tell me what to do. No, I refuse. Don’t like it? Here I am. Now what, fool?
        MAGA!
        TRUMP 2020!

    2. avatar Dwo888 says:

      CCW could be the keys to the kingdom, but you don’t realize. All this bleating about “Your Rights’, and “No Restrictions”. I hate to tell you this, but there are nearly three hundred and fifty MILLION people in America. You can’t have everyone and anyone walking around carrying any damn weapon they please in EVERY situation.

      So you go to a person who meet a standard, and has been background checked. The attempt for Federal recognition of CCW in every state opens the door. If it gets passed eventually NJ, or NYC, and Maryland are going to arrest an out of state carrier. With the proper paperwork for their home state. If say Trump appoints another Supreme Court Justice or two what do you think the result is going to be?

      With “Heller” as precedent how is state “A” going to justify it having essentially no guns carry and up to 40 or more OTHERS do? Didn’t work out so well for DC, or Chicago in McDonald. Then they bust someone is 10 round restricted state with a 12 round magazine? Piece by piece.

      There is no unlimited right to anything. If it’s a right covered specifically by the Constitution though, and the court has ruled on it in one state, it’s not going to let other states unduly restrict something elsewhere. Eventually the court will get a case and rule on it.

      Oh while this case was a stupid one, it did do one thing right. It didn’t happen with a lawsuit, where the loose rules of civil court and “Preponderance of the Evidence” is the standard. That is basically unless the judge puts something completely Unconstitutional in the ruling, higher courts will uphold it.

      At least they had two defendants that had no felonies on their records too. You need to get a non-felon charged with a STATE (Federal isn’t going to get overturned very easily.) gun crime, then try to get the Federal courts to rule on it.

      The NFA isn’t going to go anywhere right now. The next step that needed is National Reciprocity at the Federal level, then go after a state that arrests an out of state person claiming they have no right to carry a gun in their state. After the Federal courts rule somehow on concealed carry in another, lesser case first to build a little case law ideally.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “There is no unlimited right to anything.”

        And therein lies the problem.

        If “unalienable” rights are subject to restrictions, who decides which restrictions are valid? If “unalienable” rights are not absolute, then everything is a matter of majority opinion. That’s the way it should be, you say? Well, what happens when the majority decides to have a different opinion? If there is no unlimited right to anything, the 13th Amendment is at risk; currently it is inviolable, absolute. Under the “no absolutes” theory, there exist reasonable exceptions to the prohibition of slavery. The problem of having things every which way depending on the mood of the voters is the resulting chaos of the rule of the mob.

        Once you decide rights are not unlimited, might makes right.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “You can’t have everyone and anyone walking around carrying any damn weapon they please in EVERY situation. ”

        KMA, Redcoat.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I kinda, sorta agree with him, John. I’d have a hell of a time walking around carrying an M1 Abrams.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You can use it to carry the rest of your arms. I’m too lazy these days to walk. 😉

      3. avatar UpInArms says:

        ” You can’t have everyone and anyone walking around carrying any damn weapon they please in EVERY situation. ”

        And why not?

        Don’t go stupid on us and give me an argument about walking around with grenade launchers or driving down main street with a recoiless cannon. Keep it reasonable and tell me, within the boundaries of commonly owned rifles and pistols…

        why not?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…within the boundaries of commonly owned rifles and pistols…”

          Are you just testing, or thinking 2A doesn’t cover grenades and rocket launchers owned by private individuals, displayed whenever they want?

      4. avatar Someone says:

        So, calling to keep our rights, which are expressly protected by the Constitution is bleating now. Eric Holder was successful brainwashing this one.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yep.

          The stupid and the evil will both always be with us. That’s why shall not be infringed.

    3. avatar Arc says:

      Bummer? thats it?

      What justice is there in the world if the courts won’t hear the pleas of the people and strip Americans of their rights? None.

  2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Not surprising seeing that we still lack a originalist majority court.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      We could have eight Kavanaughs & still not see this case ruled on…Trump needs to appoint actual pro-gun originalists before anything can happen.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      No originalist would vote that state law can nullify federal law. That would be retarded.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        Would they really be an originalist if they didn’t then? lol

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          I don’t think anyone was arguing that states can nullify state law. They are arguing it’s not the federal governments place to outlaw such things to begin with.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that this wasn’t the brief presented to the SCotUS. In order to hear the case, the court would have to hold that state nullification is a legal argument that has enough merit to hear. No court will EVER hold that.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Bingo. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution was controlling on the issue presented, and thus there was no reason to review the case.

        1. avatar Cody says:

          But where does the Supremacy Clause make Federal regulations superior to the 2nd Amendment and Kansas Law?
          https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No originalist would vote that state law can nullify federal law. ”

          That would hold only so long as the federal law did not violate the restrictions established by (not for) the States, i.e. the constitution.

          Take a look at the 5th Amendment. A person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves (“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”). Think about that for a moment; “witness”.

          Today, we like to use the phrase “testify against themselves”, which is shorthand for being compelled to admit guilt without the government being required to bring proof. But, “witness” has larger implications. A witness is brought forth to report on knowledge related to the criminal event, persons in or near the event, circumstances, credibility of another witness, expert opinion, and other uses to establish elements of a crime. In short, “tell us what you know”.

          Now it gets interesting.

          A new weapon of prosecution developed over the last 50 (?) years (maybe shorter), and that is “transactual immunity” (“use” immunity covers only restricting the use of a witness testimony against that withess; “transcational” immunity makes the witness immune to prosecution for crimes the witness is admitting to ). Either one sounds pretty good, right?

          Well….

          Compelling someone to be be a witness against themselves is prohibited by the 5th Amendment. Like the 2A, there are no conditions, exemptions, exclusions, reasonable restrictions. The founders knew about immunity, but did not provide for it in the 5th Amendment. The prohibition against compelled adverse testimony does not even say that only the prohibition only applies when the witness could suffer direct legal consequence. So, how do these immunities violate the 5th?

          Because a criminal act may also be subject to civil action, a person is placed in such jeopardy for admission to a crime for which no conviction exists. Additionally, there are other, adjunct costs that may be exacted, without benefit of a criminal trial: personal insurance restrictions, job restrictions/denials, fraud claims related to, but different from the admitted crime. And the list can go on.

          Thus, “immunities” are federal law, and they violate the 5th Amendment. Federal immunity laws are de facto superior to state law, which may prohibit immunity deals. Yet, the federal immunity laws violate the 5th in spirit and fact. The fifth recognized no exceptions to the non-compelled provision. The 5th, like the 2D is absolute. Thus we have internal constitutional conflict. Why should we the people accept that the SC decided the supremacy clause overrides the entirety of the constitution when convenient for the government?

          The supremacy clause cannot be allowed to neutralize the constitution to the government’s benefit. The constitution was in no way designed to benefit government, but to detail the dimensions of the cage the States put it in.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Excellent post, Sam I am! Well done.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Excellent post, Sam I am! Well done.”

          Another blind squirrel moment, I assure you.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Bond is hardly on point. The statute here flies directly in the face of federal law.

  3. avatar anarchyst says:

    Maybe a different angle would work.
    The 8th amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual” sentences.
    It could be argued that imprisoning someone for ten years and imposing a $10,000 fine for failure to pay a $200 “tax” could be construed as “cruel and unusual” (disproportionate) punishment and is unconstitutional.
    In addition, the extremely lengthy time that it takes to gain approval after paying the “tax” could also be construed as unconstitutional, as well.
    Legal experts, what say you?

    1. avatar foobar says:

      My understanding was that they were arguing that a silencer made in state was not participating in interstate commerce. That’s commerce clause territory, no way that SCOTUS would go anywhere near that.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Yeah, the commerce clause it the magic glue that supports a most unconstitutional legislation. The Federal government would have drastically less power with out the very very broad interpretation of the commerce clause.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Yep, the Commerce clause case I remember from college.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

          Seriously, it’s the catch all “Do as we Say” clause, Constitution be damned.

      2. avatar Cody says:

        Not what they argued though…

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Both defendants received probation, IIRC; the book was not fully thrown at them, since they were following a state-passed refutation of federal law, ie attempting to comply with what they understood the rules to be. Willful compliance is far more valuable to the state than actual law-abiding behavior (see: bump stocks)

      Kansas’ should at the least be fully paying for these guys’ attorney fees, and the AG representing them, since it was the state government that baited these men into the situation they found themselves.

      1. avatar possum destroyer of arachnids says:

        Kansas should be paying. Kansas is so broke it can’t keep gravel on its dirt roads,

      2. avatar Cody says:

        The Kansas AG should have petitioned for dismissal. Maybe that’s coming.
        https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

  4. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Shocking lol

  5. avatar CLarson says:

    States should continue to deregulate firearms (including silencers/suppressors) and let the federal government flounder trying to regulate unconstitutional laws with no local support. Follow the trail blazed by the potheads. 😛

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      It’s kind of funny(not the humorous kind of funny) that when liberals want to bend or break federal law, it’s just hunky dory, but then they get on the soapbox when conservatives want to do the very same thing…

      To some extent I agree, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, BUT, federal law is federal law, regardless…

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Yes, but every position they take now is the MORALLY correct one (or so they tell us). There’s just no way to reason with a zealot. Nervous Nancy will pray for you.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Which is why we have sanctuary cities. And illegals being issued state drivers licenses.

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      The problem is that nullifying federal law is a discussion we settled back in 1865. Nobody should be interested in opening up that particular can of worms again.

      1. avatar Cody says:

        The Supremes seemed to have overturned the need for violence. Ever read this case?
        https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

      2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        Settled?

        Nah, just half-time.

        🙂

  6. avatar Biatec says:

    It’s a piece of metal. They will have a permanent criminal record over this for ever now.

  7. avatar CD says:

    So a high profile shooting happened WITH a silencer just days before a silencer case could be heard?? Tinfoil hat anyone?

    1. avatar StLPro2A says:

      You mention foil hat conspiracy theorists. But, nothing ever happens in government or political realm by accident. And, of course, never let a tragedy go to waste. Ever wonder if a marginally stable person could be “nudged” by a handler to perform these atrocities in a timely manner to support the anti-gun agenda. Naw, but then our government would never:
      -run guns into Mexico to demonize American gun laws and gun owners…..naw.
      -never weaponize the IRS against Conservative organizations….naw,
      -weaponize the FBI against a Presidential candidate campaign and administration…..naw,
      -weaponize the Congressional committees against a sitting Presidental administration….naw,
      -weaponize the FBI to protect illegal acts by a crooked, lying former Secretary of State and Presidential candidate….naw,
      -et el; et el; et el;
      Don’t be surprised if a shooting involving long range bolt action precision rifle doesn’t occur at the appropriate time…..just by coincidence, I’m sure.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        It’s not a conspiracy; our side simply farts around frustrated until something bad inevitably happens, which makes it *look* convenient. We had a good six months after Trump’s election to ram through HPA & everything else before Vegas or the Scalise shooting, but it was squandered until an excuse arrived to kill the effort.

        1. avatar Ruthless_Objectivity says:

          This, and the bump stock ban, are why President Trump will never receive another of my votes. He is not pro gun, nor has he been. Better to elect a dem and hurry up with CW2.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “hurry up with CW2.”

          Actually, CW3 when you think about it.

        3. avatar Sean says:

          How many shootings in the US involve silencers?

          Just so happens when the silencer case is going to be heard that this happens?

          Quite the coincidence, no?

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      All signs & timing suggest this decision was made weeks before that. Still, though.

      BTW, we still don’t know;
      -What guns were used
      -What silencer was used
      -Confirmation the silencer was legally compliant
      -Very much about the guy

      It’s already gone from the papers, too…well, except for The Donald making silencers “part of the conversation,” anyway

      1. avatar billrla says:

        BARNBWT: What happens in Virginia stays in Virginia. Worked like a charm in Las Vegas.

        1. avatar Barnbwt says:

          I think it’s just not in the media’s interest to keep a story going after they got what they wanted; Trump making an Anti-Gun declaration.

          More pessimistically, there’s no need to bang the drum if the decision is already made (see; Vegas). In fact, it’s better to let the issue fade into obscurity so opposition is less likely to form & grow.

  8. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    So Trump appoints 2 conservative justices to the court, which his supporters think is great and they will be all pro gun and give us great progun decisions, and then they deny cert to a great suppressor case that could have finally gotten suppressors out of the NFA because Trump asked them not to hear the case on deregulating suppressors, which he is talking about banning. Awesome. Just awesome.

    And before the Church or Orange starts up, no, I do not think Hillary would have been better, and clearly her court picks would have probably wanted to hear the case to further erode our rights. But saying “Well, what do you think Hillary would have done?” does not in any way ameliorate what Trump has done.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “… I do not think Hillary would have been better, and clearly her court picks would have probably wanted to hear the case to further erode our rights.”

      There’s no arguing that logic, unfortunately…

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        The problem wasn’t the general election it was the primary. Maybe he was the only one that could have won the general election, but that in itself is very troubling. I fear that defeating Hillary was a Pyrrhic victory.

        1. avatar Big E says:

          No doubt, but if it buys us time that is something. Trump is a d-bag (imo) but infinitely better than the alternative. I dislike him personally, and some of his politics (guns) but when an overt socialist gets elected (2020, 2024, whenever) we’ll pine for the good ol days of DJT.

          Unlike some keyboard warriors I don’t relish some fantasy of Civil War. I have a family, business, property and a good life. I want the same for my kids. If the culture war goes hot the US will never recover to any degree. I don’t want that- and neither should anyone else. It may be unavoidable, but it will be ugly and have devastating effects on the entire world. There won’t be any lessons learned or vindication for Liberty and justice, just wholesale misery and death. Come quickly Lord Jesus.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Hey, Big E…

          “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
          ― Samuel Adams

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Unfortunately none of the other ‘perfect’ candidates could beat trump in the primaries. Which means that they sure as hell couldn’t face hildabeast in the real event.

      At the time our only real option was the lesser of 2 evils. Cause the greater of the 2 was the greatest evil in generations.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        Neither numbers nor logic support that argument…but that’s never stopped you guys, so carry on.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Somebody beat trump in the primary? Who was this magic candidate?

          You’re helping the left destroy the NRA and you’re attempting to help the left win in 2020.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Somebody beat trump in the primary?”

          When there were 16 Republicrat candidates, all the media was fond of claiming that more people voted against Trump than for Trump. That is, the combined total of the other 15 candidates was larger than Trump’s total vote count. Such an obvious condition was proclaimed to be proof that Trump was opposed by the majority.

          But…..

          That claim applied to every individual primary candidate. Pick any candidate, calculate the vote count, then combine the vote counts for all the other candidates, and the majority are opposed; always, no exception.

          A 23 Dimwitocrat candidate pool will be really exciting, and present media with a dilemma: pointing out that the front runner has the minority of votes.

      2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        He was the best and most prolific bullshitter, it is terrible that that is what it takes to win elections. An honest candidate that makes only achievable promises has no chance.

      3. avatar Cody says:

        It was “the choice between the evil of two lessers.”

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It was “the choice between the evil of two lessers.””

          Nice capture; thanx.

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      This case was not argued on NFA constitutionality grounds. It was argued on state nullification grounds. That’s the argument least likely to hold water with a conservative court.

      1. avatar Cody says:

        You got that backwards. Kettler’s attorneys skipped the Federalism arguments.

        1. avatar Sabrina M Gray says:

          Nope, it argued Federalism, not the 2A.

  9. avatar Mad says:

    Guns will be outlawed in the future as more brain washed and braindead continue to suck up the sewage served to them by their handlers

    1. The Shot Heard Round the World:

      The Battles of Lexington and Concord
      “Concord Hymn” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

      Shot heard round the world – Concord Hymn
      Ralph Waldo Emerson
      By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
      Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
      Here once the embattled farmers stood,
      And fired the shot heard round the world.
      The foe long since in silence slept;
      Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
      And Time the ruined bridge has swept
      Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.
      On this green bank, by this soft stream,
      We set to-day a votive stone;
      That memory may their deed redeem,
      When, like our sires, our sons are gone.
      Spirit, that made those heroes dare
      To die, and leave their children free,
      Bid Time and Nature gently spare
      The shaft we raise to them and thee.

      1. avatar Mad says:

        That era is gone now we have homos telling us what to do and laws being passed to enforce them our nation is sick.one day Christ Jesus will put a stop to man’s wickedness and destroy them in hell

        1. avatar Cody says:

          Maybe, but long after we’re dead.

  10. avatar 24and7 says:

    I hope a lot of people (with common sense) knew this was always ” Fool’s Gold”.. it was never going to happen ever.. I wonder how many people donated money to this cause..

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      I agree that it was extremely unlikely that they would hear the case. How ever I think it’s good to keep throwing things at the wall until it sticks. That’s what they do with gun control and we should do that with the constitution back at them.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      What, to the Trump campaign, or RKBA advocacy groups?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        This case was a federal primacy case, not a NFA constitutionality case. Arguing that states can cleverly negate federal law is brief suicide.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          The question was whether the RKBA extends to silencers, since neither state nor federal have authority to declare them contraband if so.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…since neither state nor federal have authority to declare them contraband if so.”

          Thanks for providing the opening.

          In the beginning, the States were superior to the federal government. It was the States who dictated which powers they would trust to the central government (and for the time the States decided was appropriate, as States could remove power from the federals).

          In the beginning, the States did not surrender themselves to total federal control. That is, each State retained the right/powers to govern themselves as they saw fit (exceptions being made for federal supremacy strictly delegated). That meant each State could have commerce laws that met the needs of the State.

          The intent of the “commerce clause” was to prevent an unworkable network of independent nations, at economic war with each other. Thus one State could declare that no commerce could take place at certain times and places, so long as such law did not prohibit the transport of materials and goods from bordering States, passing through to another bordering State, where the transported items were not meant to remain in the State with time and place restrictions.

          In another example, federal criminal charges prohibited the central government from compelling a defendant to testify against himself. The individual States, were not so prohibited (although such protections already existed in State constitutions).

          In short, the federal constitution did not displace State constitutions (and laws) entirely. Regardless of our modern, current opinion, the Second Amendment restricted only the federal government. The constitution was designed to rule the federal government (the agent of the States). One will look long and hard to find any then-contemporary writings declaring that the States would become subordinate to the federal government the States created and intended to control.

          Constraint of federal power to interfere with the States was the entire purpose of the federal constitution. If the founders had intended the States be bound by every federal constraint, such intent would have been clearly stated, either in the constitution itself, or an amendment. Such a condition would not have been left to “assumption” on the part of the States, or citizens of the independent States.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          That wasn’t the brief. If it was, it might have been heard.

  11. “Shhhh! Hush! Authoritarianism, Yo!”

  12. avatar NightFox says:

    So my tin foil may be a bit tight, but this is the third time where there has been a highly publicized mass shooting just when there’s been a possibility of lesser restrictions on cans. The HPA was in committee and then the republican baseball shooting happened. HPA got folded into the sportsman’s bill which was in committee when the Vegas shooting happened. Now a suppressor law was about to be challenged in court and there’s another shooting.

    Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. Especially with all of the unanswered questions for the Vegas and Va Beach shootings.

  13. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    This comes as no surprise to me. Its what I have been warning about for years. The Corrupt Supreme Court realizes that to hang on to their unlimited dictatorial powers and life time jobs an armed populous is just as much a threat to Conservative Judges as it is to Liberal Ones and they all damn well know it. Their sorry history on dodging the Second Amendment is legendary. Their solution is to ignore it as if it does not exist. If you think these charlatans will hear any court cased of consequence when the Dems take over in 2020 you are living in a fantasy world and are not aware of their past sordid history.

    The lust for absolute power is so great that many a dictator including Adolf chose death over life when it came to losing his power, for to people like him and the Supreme Court Power is life and without it they want no life and that means eliminating any one or any instrument such as firearms because they are both a threat to their absolute power. Its called human nature which is the lowest form of life on the planet.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Thanks to people like you and miner49er the dems aren’t ‘coming to power’ in 2020. I will keep pointing that out and I will thank you for your effort when trump gets re elected. Just as I did when you were posting as ‘patrioticamerican, etc.’ and your foolishness helped elect trump the first time.

      Fortunately you guys are just to stupid to learn.

    2. avatar Someone says:

      “Its called human nature which is the lowest form of life on the planet.”

      Speak for yourself, impaler. You shouldn’t project your own inadequacies on all of us.

  14. avatar possum destroyer of arachnids says:

    By golly our President is quite the guy. Hopefully he can change the length of presidency to life like SCOTUs judges. Wouldn’t it be great . A Democratic Republic Dictatorship

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    The Court won’t hear a silencer case — does anybody else get the subtle irony in that headline?

    1. avatar possum destroyer of arachnids says:

      Lol, , ,

    2. avatar Dude says:

      They won’t hear it or can’t hear it?

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Shhhhhhhhhh… 😉

        1. avatar BD says:

          well played.

  16. avatar WI Patriot says:

    It’s really quite interesting, the last few days, on one hand, people are screaming that “silencers” don’t make the gun “silent”, spouting the dB numbers, and how they really don’t reduce the sound signature, on the other hand, they’re talking about that “silencers” save hearing by lowering the dB’s to acceptable #’s…can’t have it both ways, pick a side…personally, IDGAF, have one, don’t have one, makes no nevermind to me…
    It’s always been my philosophy, if you heard the shot, it wasn’t meant for you…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Actually, you can. A jackhammer won’t instantly damage your hearing. It is, however, easily audible from over a mile away. There’s a lot of room between “makes your ears bleed” and “quiet enough to make detection difficult”.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        A supersonic bullet will sound about the same, with or without a suppressor, once you’re about 50 yards+ removed from the shot.

  17. avatar TFred says:

    No way to see this far into the future, but a LOT could change after the NYSRPA case is decided.

    Patience is hard when you are the offended ones.

  18. avatar Sam I Am says:

    So, we don’t have a reliable 2A majority on the court, even now?

    Why is it that between 2011 and 2015 the SC ruled three times on the issue of union dues, yet cannot find a way to take on 2A cases?

    The numbers on the SC tell us the future of 2A; losing.

    Thomas is right behind Ginsburg in age. The best Trump might be able to accomplish is replace one of them in the next 18mos. Maybe both, which would maybe tilt the table firmly. Without the certainty of a second Trump term, nor the certainty if any SC justice will need to be replaces, the whole thing is a crap shoot, with the “house” seriously advantaged.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      This wasn’t, strictly speaking, a 2A case. This was a federal primacy case. Challenging the primacy of federal law over state law is a great way to get your brief thrown in the circular filing cabinet.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “This wasn’t, strictly speaking, a 2A case. This was a federal primacy case. Challenging the primacy of federal law over state law is a great way to get your brief thrown in the circular filing cabinet.”

        You are correct. Interestingly, the court still avoided the constitutional question (which is always the preference) regarding 2A: strict scrutiny on any question regarding arms. SC could have settled the case by simply pointing out that suppressors/silencers are part of “arms”, thus both federal and state government are prohibited from infringing. No, SC once again went to the process, rather than the principle.

        I am suspicious that if the SC actually started at the constitution in their review and reasoning, there would be fewer cases for them to review. All branches of government look first to preserve territory. A favorite means is to generate work to be done, not solutions to be implemented.

        1. avatar Cody says:

          Read the appellate brief. It wasn’t a Federal Primacy case. It was an infringement case.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Read the appellate brief. It wasn’t a Federal Primacy case. It was an infringement case.”

          Ok; not seeing that interpretation. Doesn’t mean it cannot be reasoned that way.

          Point is, regardless of my clumsy commentary, the federal courts do not begin at the constitution, but at the process. Reasoning down, it should be clear whether a matter violates the constitution (and amendments), or not. If not, further analysis and reason could then be applied. Reasoning from the issue up to the constitution provides many off ramps to avoid the constitutional question altogether.

        3. avatar BD says:

          So SC decides that the Feds have the far superior right to not infringe, while States have the lesser right to not infringe, but they left out the “not infringe” part?

          Reminds me of the Quenton Crisp quote, “When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, ‘Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don’t believe?”

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “So SC decides that the Feds have the far superior right to not infringe, while States have the lesser right to not infringe, but they left out the “not infringe” part?”

          The structure of the sentence is odd. Feds have no “right” to not infringe. They have the strongest restriction concerning infringement.

          This is something that requires abandoning all public understanding of the constitution since about 1965 (actually, 1868). The original compact between the states that we know as “the constitution”, was not created by Moses on a mountain. This is critically important to understanding the beginning, and the now.

          After the defeat of the British at Yorktown, the former colonies were left only with a Continental Congress as an organizing mechanism to sort out relationships between the former colonies (and provide for common defense of the independent colonies, which became States).

          The US Constitution we refer to today was unique is so many ways. Most important, the document was a contract creating an agent of the independent States to act as coordinator between the States. The only conclusion one can legitimately draw is that the sovereign, individual, independent States possessed sovereign power over their own affairs. Without that power, the States could not delegate any power to a federal/central government. Think about that. The independent States did not create a central power to supplant the State governments and laws entirely. That would be illogical: sovereign States creating a new version of Parliament to rule over the states.

          Thus, the States dictated to the federal government that which the federal government was permitted to do, and that which it is not. Beyond the specific terms of the compact between the States, the federal government was powerless. Although the Constitution declares that laws passed by Congress and signed by the President is “the law of the land” (note: the SC was not permitted to initiate or promulgate laws of its own). This condition was predicated solely on the proposition that laws of Congress could not exceed the boundaries of power set for the central government.

          In Federalist 51, Madison writes: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Madison is noting that government’s natural state is to control everything around it (including the States). This concern tell us that the States must control the federal government, not the other way round.

          The federal government’s authority to “infringe” is subject to the will of the States, thus the central government remains servant to the States.

          Things were completely inverted with the passage of the 14th Amendment, and incorporation of all the provisions of the US Constitution incorporated against the states.

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam:

          Yes, this is a fairly concise history of the original reasoning that we’ve gotten away from.

          The root question however is if you really want to go back to the original way things were done given current circumstances. Yes, doing so would remove some federal infringements but it would also unincorporate the entire BoR and take it back to where it was: a check on federal power while having zero pertinence to the various States.

          That would mean that all the gun controls in the world, imposed at the State level, would be nice and legal from a Federal point of view. And since state constitutions are easier to change than the Federal Constitution, as California and NY spread their populations around, more and more states would remove their version of the 2A (where applicable, not all states have such a clause) and strict gun control would follow in those states. In 10 years more than half the country would be lost. In 50 years the 2A would be a relic on parchment with the Feds held unable to infringe but also unable to prevent the States from infringing and the vast majority of the country, save perhaps a state or two, would be “gun free” by law and we would have zero legal recourse to change that.

          So, what’s the point of a Federal 2A protecting you against infringement of a right your state already took away? There is none.

          Really, the 14A isn’t going anywhere so it’s all academic, but the view that getting rid of the 14A Incorporation Doctrine would be some massive victory is probably in error. In reality it would probably be out of the frying pan and into a much hotter fire.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Agree with what you wrote. Point of the explanation was to focus attention on the original principles of the founding, in order to understand the magnitude of difference between now and then. If we want to be “originalists” we must know what the original was/is. Conflating then with now, and extrapolating backward, we end up with indefensible inconsistency in our theories, and defense of those theories. We lose credibility among ourselves, and certainly with our opponents and the fence unicorns.

          You read the same comments I do. You see the blatant misrepresentation of the past, and the confusion of trying to cobble together a patchwork of slogans and defend then with “history”.

          Of great importance is knowing that the nation as founded was designed to be a much messier place. SC Justice Brandeis gave us the phrase, “laboratories of democracy”, a throwback to the conditions of the founding: States remaining sovereign from federal interference, free to chart their course within the structure of the limits States placed on themselves through specific delegated powers in the Constitution (which were quite few).

          When we clamor for “national reciprocity”, or “constitutional carry” we must be fully aware that our thinking is not originalist, and we cannot legitimately claim it is such when attempting to justify our goal. Even “the Second Amendment” is all the permission I need” is not originalist, and violates the 9th and 10th Amendments.

          Hoping to get people interested in understanding their history, the path to today, and realize when they are inconsistent in their beliefs. Not saying inconsistency is a fatal flaw, or a flaw at all; just know when you are standing on inconsistent beliefs to support your position. I am mindful that people are opposing the potential candidacy of the president of FOP because he supported SC Justice Sotomayor’s originalist rendering of firearms regulation when she noted that only the federal government is prohibited from disarming the populace, but not the states. Kinda uncomfortable, isn’t it?

        7. avatar BD says:

          Yes Mr Sam, my comment was intended to be twisted and confusing to highlight some of the illogic, and some of the irony inherent in the modern SC: the fact that SC decisions seem to be giving themselves rights, as well as the irony of promoting the ascendancy of the Federal Government over the States while they are infringing on a Civil Right.

          As usual, you summarize our original history well: States were Sovereign and the Constitution was between those Sovereign states. I can see the legacy of that today in that the States with the most egregious infringing on the inalienable right to keep and bear arms given by God for self defense, are those without State Constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms.

          And Sotomayor’s disingenuous conversion to support State’s Rights to infringe on gun ownership is a left-handed way of handling this Civil Right differently from the handling of all other Civil Rights by the court today. I fear that she would temporarily convert to an Originalist if it would suit her feelings-based agenda.

          And for where we are today regarding Federal and State, we must study the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And for where we are today regarding Federal and State, we must study the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.”

          Indeed. We didn’t get here in just the last 50 years. The 15yrs leading up to the Second American Revolution are instructive, and there are striking similarities in the politics of power today.

        9. avatar John in Ohio says:

          That’s a very good discussion by all of you. This is something that needs to be done nationally in the focus of the people. However, that will never be these days. IMHO, a physical correction is the only thing that will truly save the republic now.

          “Indeed. We didn’t get here in just the last 50 years. The 15yrs leading up to the Second American Revolution are instructive, and there are striking similarities in the politics of power today.”

          How very correct you are, sir.

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      Stephen Breyer is older than Thomas by at least 10 years. Ginsburg and Breyer are both in their 80’s.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Stephen Breyer is older than Thomas by at least 10 years. Ginsburg and Breyer are both in their 80’s.”

        You are correct. The actuary tables have turned decidedly against all three. Do we risk the Thomas replacement when the likelihood is a Democrat president?, or encourage him to go now? A 50yr old replacement would be there another 30yrs.

        If Trump gets a second term, and the scales are heavily against Bryer and Ginsburg, we have a chance to pick up two if Trump elected. If he loses, we lose all three seats. We need all three because Roberts is completely unreliable (recusing at best).

  19. avatar Cody says:

    IMHO Kettler’s brief missed a core argument. The NFA violates our principles of Federalism. Kansas law legalizes all guns and parts manufactured and sold within Kansas, thereby nullifying the NFA within Kansas; further blocking ATF’s jurisdiction.

    That point wasn’t argued at all by Kettler’s attorneys. Moreover, there is a 2010 Supreme Court case affirming Federalist principles in favor of citizens and against Federal laws and regulations. The link to the case follows. So, check out this unanimous finding by the Supremes.

    “The principles of limited national powers and statesovereignty are intertwined. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the National Government’s enumerated powers, and action exceeding the National Government’s enumeratedpowers undermines the States’ sovereign interests.”
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

    Therefore, as an “operation of law,” Kettler’s arrest and prosecution is a Federal over-reach. But in the Trump era, it seems that we better get used to being bent for them to make us reach our toes.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The NFA violates our principles of Federalism.”

      Inrastate operations are not just a federalism issue; it is a commerce issue. If any item used in the manufacture of any other item travels across state lines, commerce clause prevails. Thus, even the smallest item (tool or material) used for production of another item involved interstate commerce.

      SC long ago ruled that the federal government can, by extension, regulate activities that appear on the surface to be conducted solely within the borders of an individual state. It is this sort of reasoning that made the “commerce clause” of the US constitution so contentious during debates in the creation of the federal constitution. Even then, it was known that the “commerce clause” could be exploited to allow federal control over anything it so chose

      1. avatar Cody says:

        Cite your authority, sir. It would seem that a Federally prohibited item would not be in interstate commerce, unless and until that item was transported across state lines for the purpose of being sold.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Cite your authority, sir. It would seem that a Federally prohibited item would not be in interstate commerce, unless and until that item was transported across state lines for the purpose of being sold.”

          Note that I cited “any item” used in production that was transported interstate. Think about what “any item” means: tools, lathes vices, 3-D printers, metal, pens, pencils, paper, raw materials, etc. “Any item”. To avoid the “commerce clause” everything involved in production must be made entirely within state boundaries (and I can see that the manufacture of all the items listed above would need to be manufactured without transport of any materials across state lines).

          The case you are looking for is a seminal civil rights case, one everybody should know. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). Wherein the SC ruled:

          “The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its authority under the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964…Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel’s clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. ”
          (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States)

          From the above, interstate movement of part of the business activity (a sole proprietor) via interstate travel constituted “commerce” under the “commerce clause”. How far is it, actually, to the logic that anything involving interstate travel is subject to the “commerce clause”?

        2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Also this, although not quite the same, it shows how powerful the Commerce Clause is when applied.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yes, the famous “Not putting your produce into the market is a violation of the commerce clause, and you can be compelled to engage in interstate commerce, like it or not.” case.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          Wickard has kinda been the standard since 1942 and the SCOTUS has ruled that the fedgov has exceeded that authority twice since Wickard.

          Realistically, until Wickard is basically overturned the CC is an excuse for anything. Even if you could find something which was produced from materials and using tools (also made using intrastate supplies) and labor solely sourced within the state the government would still argue that this affects the market for one of those things outside that state and the Commerce Clause camel’s nose would be under the tent.

          Under the finding in Wickard (which I have laid out the politics of before numerous times) there is no action or inaction which is not regulatable under the CC. It’s that simple. Get used to it. Wickard is the keystone here.

          This is why I have argued that POTG need to get their shit together and stop arguing everything solely on “shall not be infringed” grounds because when it comes to a lot of this kind of shit, if we were to put the CC back in it’s pre-1942 box, we wouldn’t be having the 2A argument in the first place because the authority to create the law or regulation in the first place would disappear.

          This is why judges and elected officials with a more restrictive view of the CC are vitally important to the 2A. Especially since it’s rather unlikely that the Empire of Japan will screw us the way they did with Wickard.

          You want to cut the antis off at the pass? Here’s a huge part of that solution. Unfortunately not too many POTG want to hear that because that “politics, not guns” or they’re more interested in virtue signalling about how much they’d love CW2.0.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Realistically, until Wickard is basically overturned the CC is an excuse for anything.”

          Yep, we gotta know what’s what before we shout about “muh rights”.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I don’t disagree but when fedzilla refuses to cede their CC power grab… Then what? What’s the recourse?

          IMHO, massive civil disobedience backed by the force of arms is really strongest and most likely to succeed option at this stage. Again IMHO, the federal government is never, never, never going to give up on CC. Too much of its unconstitutional power is hung on that hook.

        7. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

          @John in Ohio: Win the culture war and win elections, and decisions like that won’t impact the right to keep and bear arms as much.

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Johannes Paulsen:

          The long game favors tyranny. I’ve beat this drum many times in comments because it’s true. You won’t win the culture war. All you will do is let the frog boil some more. Each generation allows more tyranny to be normalized.

  20. avatar George from Alaska says:

    The cases that were not heard were weird examples of silencer ownership. The ones I know about involved states in which people sold and bought silencers that were not NFA compliant, they were not in the Registry. While states can make gun laws that are more strict and onerous that existing Federal Laws they May NOT make laws that diminish strong regulatory laws regulated by ATF and the NFA. Never mind that a bunch of states have legalized marijuana in total defiance of existing Federal law… Go figure why POTUS or SCOTUS has not jumped on this..
    If you all want to really get pissed look up video from the 1986 FOPA hearings in which the Hughes Amendment was added – Recorded Vote 74 was the Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. … The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.
    Now watch the actual videos and you will see the amendment was passed with a very controversial voice and show of hands vote as opposed to using their buttons to show the vote on the big board. Count the numbers of hands voting and you will see that the Hughes amendment did NOT pass. It was called passed and approved by the Democrat leading the Recorded Vote. Don’t take my word for it, look the fucking thing up…. I watched it live on TV and have been living with the disappointment ever since.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Count the numbers of hands voting and you will see that the Hughes amendment did NOT pass.”

      OK, has it ever been challenged on those grounds?

      Because if that was just fine, there’s no limit to what a Congress could pass using that “One weird trick” and have it pass SCOTUS Constitutional muster…

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “SCOTUS Constitutional muster”

        Judicial Review is, itself, unconstitutional. Trying to correct unconstitutional laws with unconstitutional doctrine is akin to trying to put out a fire with gasoline and then being surprised when the fire grows. The root of federal government breaking free of constitutional constraints is Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, the federal government has been able to claim that constitutional is what the federal government says it is.

  21. avatar Ace says:

    I am disappointed but not surprised. I’ve read every brief in this case. The DoJ brief could have been written by Obama’s DoJ – and yet, the Solicitor General is a ‘conservative’ appointed by Trump, so there was no excuse. Explain to me why the allegedly conservative DoJ is opposing views held by conservative states?

    When Obama didn’t want to defend the ban on gay marraige, he told the DoJ not to defend it in front of SCOTUS and it went down in flames quickly. Why couldn’t Trump and the Second Amendment Coalition use the same playbook here? Very frustrating.

    And Pwrserge, you are wrong about this being solely related to the primacy of state law (Kansas) vs federal law (NFA). There were multiple issues raised, including the most obvious one – the District Court claimed silencers are not protected by the 2A – the DoJ agreed they are not. Add to that the obvious issues with a ‘tax’ that is not administered by the IRS and is clearly a tax on an enumerated right.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The problem is that federal primacy was intrinsically linked to the case. No federal court would touch such a case with a 10 foot pole.

      1. avatar Cody says:

        Except the Supreme Court did in the case I posted. You need to read it, carefully.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You can keep citing it, it doesn’t make it any more on point.

      2. avatar Cody says:

        I guess you just love being on the willingly ignorant end of the stupid spectrum…
        ” Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powersbetween the States and National Government, federalism “ ‘secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181. It enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that law enactedin excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458. Federal-ism’s limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States.”

        You’d have to be obtuse to say Bond has no relevance. You won’t even read it. Or maybe you’re simply happy resting on an outdated mythos.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I did read Bond. The reason Bond is not on point is that it infringes on traditionally state level offenses. (Simple poisoning.) This case was based on traditionally federal offenses, federal excise taxes on suppressors. Read your own case histories bro.

  22. avatar Larry B. says:

    This is a BIG opening for Trumps enemies to step in and employ the ages old “divide and Conquer” tactic by [rightfully] harping on Trumps insincerity when stand on the stage with NRA leaders and blowing a lot of [now obvious] hot air about his support for the Second Amendment. No longer will he be able to make the claim about his support being so deep that he could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and not lose any rating points. His best friend is now Piers Morgan.

    1. avatar Cody says:

      IDK what you call Trump’s actions, if not dividing and conquering.

    2. avatar User1 says:

      Trump not supporting the U.S. Constitution divides and conquers. Those that support him destroying America from within take an active part in that.

      The NRA is also a divide and conquer group. They have no principles and give away rights. They do it for the money and political influence. They don’t mind destroying the NRA and the U.S.

  23. avatar M_F says:

    I’m not surprised and fully expected it, our boy Kavanaugh has publicly stated that he supports the unconstitutional machine gun ban which implies that the full NFA is kosher. The “tradition” and “common use” language used in heller was a hidden trojan horse to keep infringing on the 2A. Our win was only a temporary delay to never ending gun bans/arbitrary regulations at the federal and state levels.

    1. avatar Cody says:

      Kavanaugh is a weak reed.

  24. avatar Joe says:

    American gun owners are damned dumb if they are looking to the Supreme Court to save their gun rights, validate them, or extend them in any way. These nine people answer to no one, and they do not give a damned if there are actually three branches of government. They think their word is the final say on everything, and stupid Americans go along with it, even when these nine people are blatantly wrong. Who is going to oust them when they release an unconstitutional ruling? Who will remind these nine persons who think that “I-am-a-god-on-bench”, that they are not there to sh** all over the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Apparently no one.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Not even joe.

  25. avatar Mad Max says:

    It may be wishful thinking but if the court’s plan is to apply strict scrutiny to the NYC case, they don’t have to hear any other firearms cases until after their decision in that case.

  26. avatar Hannibal says:

    SCOTUS isn’t interested in a 2nd Amendment case where no one else in government wants a change. They’ll stick to maybe swatting down state overreach but the GOP held Congress and the White House yet did absolutely nothing on silencers. The court isn’t going to touch it.

  27. avatar 2A is also a tool says:

    Govt: we investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong.

  28. avatar Dennis Holloway says:

    Key Sentence: “President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place.”

    He has already said he doens’t like suppressors and said he would look into banning them. The thing to remember is a suppressor is an accessory, just like magazines, scopes, night vision, flashlights, etc.

    I don’t like what this is opening the door for if Trump attempts to ban suppressors.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      He didn’t want the suppressor bill nor the concealed carry licensing bill. He is doing what he said he would do when he was a NY Democrat. Yet the man gets full support from the NRA and most of its members.

      1. avatar #43 says:

        Like I asked here: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/06/ttag-contributor/policies-anti-gunners-hate-concealed-carry-and-guns-on-campus/

        Are there any billionaires who are openly pro-gun (or should I say pro-freedom)? The response that I got was pretty lackluster and, no, I don’t mean to be facetious nor ask rhetorically for asking again. The fact that someone suggested DJT was an open supporter of the 2nd Amendment and civilian arms ownership was either greatly misguided (this more likely) or willfully ignorant as this both shows his willingness to flip-flop and his past history doesn’t support such a claim that DJT is, in fact, for civilian arms ownership.

        Additionally, like I stated before in the previous thread, you cannot, I repeat CANNOT, put your trust in someone in a seat of power (and has a lot of financial assets and corporate influence to boot) to decide policies that is so divisive but fundamentally pointless to argue. Guns (and any weapon, tool, item, etc. for that matter) are a manmade devices that have no mind of their own (well maybe sooner they might actually have a mind… but still initially programmed by a person). Why does it matter what I do with my items/tools as long as I’m not causing harm to another person or their property? Assault isn’t a term used without an agent. Though….I guess you can have an assault milkshake… BAN ASSAULT MILKSHAKES!!!

        They (both left and right… and now that I think of, doesn’t really matter where in the political spectrum) ignore that this is a much deeper issue than simple tools. It’s a fundamental societal issue that they don’t want to address because they, as individuals, cannot address. (And no, I’m not for UBC as it still doesn’t focus on the actual issue)

        To me, it seems this for-profit mindset and exploitation of our fellow man (yea, women included… not sexist as I mean man in the definition of a member of the species of homo sapiens regardless of sex) is one of the primary issues that is either missed or just completely disregarded. And no, I don’t have a solution. I’m smart enough (okay, that’s probably debatable) to see that there is an issue but not intelligent (or maybe not well-spoken and influential) enough to come up with a viable solution.

  29. avatar God says:

    Great Plan Banning or making Hearing Safety and Politeness devices hard to get with 200 dollar stamp having fo ask 4 Gov Permission on a right plus in depth background checks with more than 20% of Americans suffering hearing damage including children!! Impeach them all start over!

    Nobody in Government understands this or simply ignores the #2nd Amendment and safety!

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Your comment falls on deaf ears.

  30. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Anyone actually seen a picture of the suppressor that was supposedly used????

  31. avatar John in Ohio says:

    So much for redress of grievances, eh patriots?

    Tick-tock.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Isn’t this the case where an ex military man wanted to exercise his civil rights to own whatever the fuck he wants and state law said he could, but the federal government came a stoppin’ in to enforce the law? Did that veteran think the U.S. Constitution is still alive and well? Did he think the American people wouldn’t find him guilty and the U.S. Supreme Court would hear his case if they did?

      You all need to check yourself before you wreck yourself thinking you still have liberty in America. You will be punk’d by the corporation’s government. You no longer have a government by the people for the people. You are owned and must behave as property. Now get…

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Aye. ‘Tis the state of the declining republic.

  32. avatar DAVID GRAY says:

    Damn it, stop using the word “Silencer.”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Damn it, stop using the word “Silencer.” ”

      Why?

      The inventor identified it as a “silencer”. If we wish to trash anti-gunners for failure to use proper nomenclature, are we not obliged to be accurate when we speak/write?

      1. avatar User1 says:

        The guy that was trying to make a bunch of money off a product said his product is a silencer? His product must be amazing if it silences a car and a gun! Oh, wait… It doesn’t silence a gun, it only suppresses the explosion that causes more noise? Damn marketing got us again!

        I guess that is why car guys call it a muffler… They sure don’t silence the Ferraris and Lamborghinis that go pass my house nor those American V8s. A turbo or two does do a lot more in quieting those cars. That’s probably why car makers are shifting to turbo all their cars (besides emission laws).

        So quieter cars and louder guns is what Republicans and Democrats want. Thanks to them one of my ears is messed up and both ring when there is no background noise.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The guy that was trying to make a bunch of money off a product said his product is a silencer?”

          His product, his nomenclature. Whether the item meets the name is irrelevant. Might not be able to give the device the same identification if invented today, but way back it wasn’t a problem.

          To be snipp about it, looking at the date, the device doesn’t really “suppress” the sound either (in common terms). Even “muffle” might be a stretch. “Reducer” might be most accurate.

          Original Maxim patent:
          https://patents.google.com/patent/US1482805A/en

          Contemporary patent:
          https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160018178A1/en

          Maxim Silencer Company:
          https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=3274

          So, we square on this one? Silencer.

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      I bought a SilencerCo Sparrow from Silencer Shop. I had to pay a $200 tax on a Form 4 that had “SILENCER” in box 4b. Try putting “SUPPRESSOR”, “SOUND MODERATOR,” or whatever other PC language you want, and ATF will reject the form, and you’ll never be able to get your silencer.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        It’s not PC language. It’s smart ass language.

        Under law, in some places, an AR-15 is considered an assault rifle or an assault weapon. You have to use that language for lawful purposes, but we don’t use it in public discourse because it isn’t helpful and it isn’t accurate.

        So you can be propaganda correct (and legally correct) using the world “silencer” if you want. It’s not like we finally have the media using a term that is more accurate to what the item actually does for guns. We should also start calling rails/forends/hand-guards barrel shrouds.

  33. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    “President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place.”

    Going to be fun listening to all you cucks try and explain this one…. “but but but he appointed judges! Waaaaaaaaaa!”

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Sorry kiddo, it’s 33D chess! You just don’t understand.

      (*sarcasm*, BTW)

  34. avatar Longhaired Redneck says:

    What a coincidence that only days before SCOTUS will decide on whether or not to take a case involving suppressors/silencers, that a hideous crime is committed using a silencer. I believe this is only the second ‘malum in se’ crime ever recorded, most silencer crimes involve illegal manufacture and/or possession (malum in prohibitum). And why is this or any other administration pressuring SCOTUS on this or any other case? Ever.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Trump has nominated a few anti 2nd Amendment pro police state people into his administration.

      Obama did the same but his people weren’t nearly as happy to use the police state. And Obama was a very good salesman for guns and ammo.

      Once “patriots” wake back up they will get back to work. Hopefully before it’s too late. Although Christians in America would love for America to turn to shit because it will bring back Jesus.

  35. avatar Anymouse says:

    The SCOTUS only hears a few dozen cases a year. The case needs to be special to be heard, such as a split where different circuits have opposite rulings. There wasn’t a circuit that said it’s ok. There’s also not a ruling that says you don’t have to pay taxes on 2A items. There are also rulings, like Wickard, that say items don’t have to cross state lines to be part of interstate commerce. Finally, SCOTUS doesn’t hear evidence or new arguments. The defendants would have had to bring up their challenges to interstate commerce or not having to pay taxes on firearms in their original trials and had those arguments rejected. 4 Justices would need to be interested enough in those rejected arguments to decide to hear the case. Not granting cert on a case doesn’t mean the SCOTUS agrees with the decision. It does stand in the original circuit, but it isn’t precedence for other circuits.

  36. avatar FB says:

    BREAKING: All appointed justices are all liberals including the Tumps pick.

  37. avatar Ronald West says:

    Someone needs to go get Jesus for America in drying in sin, because of lying people who believes that guns and suppressor are the cause of violates, just take away the ungodly fearing people, the none believers, crime will drop 75/80% punishment for criminals are far to light, if someone murdered one or more persons,was found guilty death should be within 24 hours, I said murdered, not killed, there is a different between the two, have to and a want to, .

  38. avatar Robert says:

    The fact that why would anyone want to pay the price of a silencer and then pay the certification fee yearly is beyond me. Where I grew up in the USA even a child knew how to make a silencer for their guns, why would they want all that noise to scare away the other game. Most cast about $5 in parts and about an hour to construct and I could stand within 10 feet of you and you would not hear my 30 Caliber fire, and have even used them on a 45 70 with the same results.

  39. avatar Brian says:

    Now, perhaps somebody has already came to this conclusion.

    Yesterday, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts ruling that a “Silencer” is not a firearm, but a firearm accessory, which isn’t protected under the 2nd Amendment. There is hole in the National Firearms Act.

    If I am incorrect, please forgive me, but the Government under the National Firearms Act included a silencer under the definition of a firearm. If the courts have ruled that a “silencer” is not a firearm, then the National Firearms Act can be challenged and possibly voided.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email