GOA Files for Supreme Court Cert in Case Challenging the National Firearms Act

Gun Owners of America kansas 2a protection act appeal supreme court

courtesy GOA

In 2013, the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act became law in the Sunflower State. The law states that any firearm-related item that is made, sold and used within the state of Kansas isn’t subject to National Firearms Act regulation.

As you might imagine, our friends at the ATF disagreed. And to demonstrate their supremacy, they prosecuted two Kansas men — Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler — in federal district court for violating the NFA by making, selling and owning “illegal” suppressors and short barrel rifles. Products that never crossed a state line. Both were found guilty of eight felony counts.

The good news is that a judge only sentenced them both to supervised probation. The convictions, however, still stand and both have lost their rights to own firearms.

An appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was unsuccessful. The court let the lower court convictions stand. Now, however, with help from Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation, Kettler has asked the US Supreme Court to hear his appeal.

Here’s the GOA’s press release:

(January 14, 2019) — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its litigating arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), today continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, against a conviction for violating the National Firearms Act.

Read GOA’s petition for certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Click here to contribute to this case.

The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Jeremy for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor under the authority of the Kansas “Second Amendment Protection Act.”

The Kansas statute declares that any suppressor manufactured, possessed, and used within the borders of Kansas is exempt from federal law. Relying on that Kansas law, in 2014 Jeremy purchased a suppressor from a local military surplus store, but did not register it with ATF pursuant to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Believing he was following the law, Jeremy posted a video about his new suppressor on Facebook, and ATF swooped in. Rather than simply requiring Jeremy to register his suppressor, the feds instead chose felony prosecution — to make an example of Jeremy, and to intimidate all who resist federal power over guns. Jeremy was indicted, and convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer, and now this veteran is a federal felon.

GOA and GOF have stood with Jeremy, both in his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and now in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today GOA and GOF lawyers, representing Jeremy, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Jeremy’s case. The petition challenges the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which rejected Jeremy’s appeal from the district court.

Jeremy’s petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called “tax.”

In fact, each of the reasons the Supreme Court gave in 1937, finding it to be a tax, no longer apply today, 82 years later. Rather, the NFA has become what Justice Frankfurter once described as regulation “wrapped … in the verbal cellophane of a revenue measure” — an unabashed gun control regulatory scheme, designed not to raise revenue for the federal government, but instead to keep NFA items out of the hands of Americans.

Next, Jeremy’s petition challenges the Tenth Circuit’s absurd holding that the Second Amendment applies only to “bearable arms” — but not firearm accessories, such as suppressors. The petition points out that the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment extends beyond actual firearms to ammunition, magazines, the ability to purchase firearms in gun stores, and the right to practice at shooting ranges.

Finally, Jeremy’s petition argues that, if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the NFA as a “tax,” then it is allowing Congress to impose a tax on a constitutionally protected right — “a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution” — something which the Supreme Court has long said to be unconstitutional.

Prior to the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh in October of last year, the Supreme Court had refused to hear numerous firearms cases, leading some members of the Court to comment on the “distressing trend” — “the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

While some do not seem to mind ATF’s regulation of weapons covered by the National Firearms Act, GOA and GOF have stood for the right to own “bearable arms” of all types, and firearms accessories as well — including suppressors and machineguns.

GOA and GOF truly hope that this trend in the Supreme Court, to allow the lower courts to disregard the Heller and McDonald decisions, will begin to change, now that the Court has another solidly conservative member — who, as a judge on the D.C. Circuit, was unafraid to apply the Second Amendment text and the Heller decision to uphold gun rights.

Jeremy Kettler’s petition presents solid, well-argued questions important to all gun owners, and we hope the Court will grant certiorari to decide them.

Read GOA’s petition for certiorari here — and the Appendices here.

comments

  1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Good luck with the case. States rights started to be violated with the civil war and have slowly been violated by the feds since.

    1. avatar anarchyst says:

      Maybe a “cruel and unusual punishment” tactic would work. Imprisoning someone for failure to pay a $200.00 “tax” along with a $10,000.00 fine seems to be “cruel and unusual” and unconstitutional on its face…

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      As.soon as US Senators were directly elected the feds no longer had to care what states had to say. States get to ratify amendments and how often does that happen.

    3. avatar Kyle says:

      so very very true

    4. avatar UsedtobePun says:

      Bingo Ed. We should all want States’ rights. But unfortunately most ‘muricans are edumacated in the gulag fed training camps known as public schools so they are taught that states’ rights are bad and fedgov rights are good. They are taught that states’ rights are what gave us the evils of slavery and fractured the sacred and holy “union”.

      Nothing could be further from the truth. States do what other states do, naturally, with the exception of holdouts. Take gay marriage. Many states were already passing “marriage equality” laws. The holdouts were of states where the people, who are supposed to be sovereign…as in “we the people” that had very strong views and opinions on it. But no no…that wasn’t good enough. Other people had to go run to big daddy fedgov to get a federal act on the books to define marriage for eeeeveryone. That’s called tyranny.

      Same goes for concealed carry and/or constitutional carry. Once states started passing ccw laws most other states got on board, with the exception of the strong holdouts. But no no…that’s not good enough for 2a folks, cuz hot dang, every ‘murican should have their rights no matter what. So let’s get big daddy fedgov to shove it down everyone’s throats.

      See…that’s not how liberty works.

      Nobody can see the forest for the trees. It is much better to have states’ have their rights. State citizens can much more easily change a state law. As we’ve seen with fed acts like NFA, GCA, etc. they are almost impossible to do away with once enacted.

      I applaud the GOA for their work. I sincerely hope they make headway…but let’s be realistic. You really think the feds are just gonna up and change their minds and let the NFA go? Not a chance. We already ceded states’ rights at the tip of Lincoln’s tyrannical guns.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Lincoln supposedly saved the nation but at the cost of the Constitution ,Freedom and Liberty.

        1. avatar Gadsden says:

          Lincoln had to “burn the union to save it”.

      2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        Some difference in that laws prohibiting homosexual marriage were essentially the tyranny of the state majority telling an unpopular minority what they could not do, rather than the state inringing on their own rights. It’s much like those who don’t like “assault weapons” going beyond simply not owning one themselves and insisting that no one else be allowed to own one.

    5. avatar Vitsaus says:

      Yeah, those unlawful infringements on the ability to buy and sell other human beings.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Yeah, those unlawful infringements on the ability to buy and sell other human beings.”

        Of specifically which unlawful infringements do you speak? And at what time?

    6. avatar possum says:

      Good luck with the case,/\ …M<÷+urfckd= maybe this n maybe that, can't , can't ,can't but they do..=.. Money…. Good luck with the case.

  2. avatar Yarbles says:

    Lincoln Federalist BS.

    Good luck, Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler and thanks to GOA.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Wait for it…

    “Tradition and history”, “Precedent”, Longstanding prohibitions are presumptively lawful”.

    The US and state governments insist on controlling firearms despite clear wording in the Constitution. The USSC is not deaf and blind (it is also part of “government”). Tenth Amendment applies only when the central committee deems it convenient.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      Literally the legalese of “Roger has always beaten his wife therefore he should continue to beat his wife.”
      The hurdles and hoops tyrants jump through to maim and kill liberty are endless.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Because like a retired couple sailing the Caribbean they seem to enjoy the journey more than the destination. Liberty or death is too simple for evil, they prefer the constant struggle to take one and deal the other. They wouldn’t know what to do if they finally disarmed us besides just find new things to take.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Literally the legalese of “Roger has always beaten his wife therefore he should continue to beat his wife.” ”

        Correct. If an unconstitutional law (or series of laws) have been allowed to stand of a length of time, then the violation(s) is/are considered lawful/constitutionally acceptable.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I’ve argued this point for decades. Delaying in matters of infringement only harms the exercise. The long game, aka incrementalism, is a loser for the individual with respect to rights. One only gets back privilege in its place. In the eyes of government it creates a sort of estoppel. When the squatter lives openly on the land of another for enough time, the squatter owns that land. Government now believes it has full privilege over the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms because it was not forcefully ejected from the territory it open squatted for so long. Fight for it. Don’t delay. Only belligerents have rights per the court and that challenge must be timely.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Keep in mind, there never was a “prohibition”, and there is not one, now. I *DO* own an SBR, and a suppressor, and if I wanted to pony up the bucks I could own a machinegun, as well. It’s also good to remember *WHY* these items weren’t outlawed, because that would have been unquestionably unconstitutional in 1934, and the “tax” is the only reason people have assumed for 84 years that these items are prohibited. But SCOTUS does not believe they are prohibited, they know better! GOA has my $250. Go get ’em!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Keep in mind, there never was a “prohibition”, and there is not one, now.”

        Would you not agree that all gun regulations are “prohibitions” of one sort or another? Would you not agree that a tax on gun ownership prohibits one from freely exercising Second Amendment protected right to own firearms that are equivalent to the standing army? Would you not agree that you are prohibited from owning a machine gun manufactured after 1986?

        My point is whatever gun regulations exist will be permitted under the “long standing” theory of denying the people their natural, human and civil rights.

  4. avatar Scott says:

    Sounds like a strong case to me. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the lawyers will see it like that. I doubt if even one of them would qualify as a firearms expert.

  5. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Good luck!

  6. avatar UpInArms says:

    I’m guessing on the first point they lose. Federal law trumps state law. The 10th amendment applies to any powers not specifically granted to the feds in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment puts gun legislation in the realm of the central gubmint.

    On the second and third points they’ve at least an even chance, especially the third.

    That’s my take on it, anyway. Good luck to all concerned.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Federal law does not trump state law if the federal government wasn’t given that power by the states. This is why they create reinterpretations of taxation, interstate commerce, public good, general welfare, wages, etc. The current government makes up the “law” as they go and they ignore the actual law.

      The 2nd Amendment protects your right to form a militia and to carry and own weapons. The 2nd Amendment does not give the government power to infringe on those rights, it gives them power to protect those rights within the U.S.

      The federal government had no jurisdiction in that case. The items never crossed state lines and are protected by the 2nd Amendment of the federal constitution. But we live in a failed state, where the government can do whatever they want without resistance from its people and their enforces will happily do as ordered for some money.

      People do not realize they live under tyranny because it’s been normalized.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Hear hear!

        Well said CZJay!

      2. avatar CZ Rider says:

        Doesn’t the 2A explicitly prohibit the government from doing anything on the subject? I read “shall not be infringed” as “do not touch” but I suppose you could argue that it actually charges the feds with the responsibility of ensuring that nobody else infringes on it either.

        1. avatar burley says:

          If you read the ancillary writings of the Founders, that was indeed then intent of the Second Amendment; to PROTECT the untouchable status of firearms ownership.

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          The left often whines of what was the founders reasoning for the Constitution and bill of rights,if they were truly interested they might want to read the Federalist papers and really pop their circuits.

    2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      “The 2nd amendment puts gun legislation in the realm of the central gubmint.”

      That is actually blatantly false. All federal gun legislation is based either on a bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Taxing Clause. The 2nd Amendment was meant to protect the people from such gun legislation.

    3. avatar Gadsden says:

      Federal law doesn’t, and wasn’t meant to “trump” state law. It’s simply been abused so bad, for so long, that everyone believes that it does.

    4. avatar Chadwick says:

      The feds shall not infringe… That doesn’t trump state law in any way. The tax argument is pure bs. Try putting a tax on every written word and see how much sense that makes. Interstate commerce is a stretch, but nobody in the court system truly believes in liberty and they think that’s an open invitation to bohica us.

    5. avatar GS650G says:

      If anyone thinks the second empowered the feds over all then they are not paying attention.

    6. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “The 2nd amendment puts gun legislation in the realm of the central gubmint.”

      OMG, you did NOT say that! Not only does the central gubt have no authority to address firearms legislation in the Constitution (meaning that that authority resides with the States, or with the people), but they are specifically denied such authority by 2A. Turning that entirely on its head is an acrobatic maneuver worthy of a circus performance!

  7. avatar Yepnope says:

    GOA > NRA

    1. avatar Michael in AK says:

      yep, an organization fighting for our rights, not selling them out!

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Yes, GOA is greater than the NRA — and that is why I am going to send my money to GOA rather than the NRA.

      1. avatar 2a says:

        Yes Yes GOA

  8. avatar Truckman says:

    sounds like this is something that the supreme court needs to get straight with ATF is overstepping it authority

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      The atf doesn’t have any constitutional authority so they wake up every morning and piss overstepped authority.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        You mean SCOTUS, right?

  9. avatar Anymouse says:

    It would be stronger if it addressed machine guns. It still raises revenue from pre-86 machine guns, AOWs SBRs, SBSs, silencers, and destructive devices. The ATF won’t accept taxes on post-86 machine guns, so it’s hard to justify it as a tax.
    Regardless, I doubt it will be accepted for cert, but I would be pleasantly surprised if it does. National Review had an interesting article on federalism, so it might be get 4 votes on that basis, but Thomas is the only one who has expressed interest in pure 2A cases. Overturning Fulburn would be a great outcome.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Kettler didn’t HAVE a “machinegun”

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        Nobody said he did. I’m saying their case is weak. The ATF still accepts money on silencers, so it’s still a tax and millions in revenue, which undercuts their argument. ATF doesn’t accept money for post-86 machine guns, which leaves the argument open that it’s not a tax and therefore not enforceable.
        The only argument this case has is for intrastate commerce to be declared as independent of interstate commerce, which have been (wrongly) established to be linked for decades by Wickard v. Filburn.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          IANAL, but this case seems really strong, to me. First off, it is REAL, not contrived, a real vet purchasing a silencer under a state law which deliberately authorized him to purchase it. He did not hide the fact because it was LEGAL! Fedgov did not arrest the legislators who passed it, nor probable hundreds of other people who also did the same. I haven’t heard of anyone producing machineguns in the state for sale without ATF approval, perhaps we’ll get to that later. But I want this carried forward until we discover what stops it. I want to know the vote on cert. Do we get that, or is it secret?

  10. avatar Numbnuts says:

    This is the last best chance to correct all the unconstitutional laws. If this doesn’t work, the only way it will be corrected is by killing.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Nah. We wound up here by allowing our rights to be slowly chipped away.

      Heller and MacDonald were us slowly clawing away at these unconstitutional laws.

      We can just keep clawing our rights back by winning extreme scrutiny for the 2nd Amendment at the SCOTUS and then enforcing it with lawsuits while simultaneously educating others regarding the truth about guns, the 2nd Amendment, and history.

      There may be other events that occur that will fully restore our rights that have nothing directly to do with firearms laws such as a resurgence in reverence for the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution in a manner consistent with the intent of the Founders or some kind of surge in Libratarianism.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mad Max,

        Unless people who are extremely Libertarian/Conservative with respect to the Second Amendment start having 4+ children AND RAISING THEM TO BE EQUALLY LIBERTARIAN/CONSERVATIVE with the respect to the Second Amendment, there is no “clawing our way back” as you stated.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. There are other areas of the Bill of Rights that are also being infringed (freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the right to due process, etc.) and many of these rights have even more popular support than the 2nd Amendment and a lot of people are waking up to the need to secure these rights and national sovereignty.

          I think we are on the cusp of a sea change in thinking by the average citizen about government and rights. It is happening all over the West.

          Things could go horribly wrong (civil wars, world wars, etc.) but a rising tide lifts all boats.

          Remember, Trump winning the presidency was unthinkable to most people up until around 10 PM on election day.

          I’ll say what I said on the morning of election day; It ain’t over til the fat lady sings.

          In this case, it is going to be a very long opera.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      The government likes to deny hearing cases that will return power to the people. If they hear a case they want it to be one of those “the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but government has the authority to…” outcomes. So they will take a case about bearing arms if they can say you only have the right to open carry or the right to conceal carry, you don’t have the right to both. Or a case where they will acknowledge you have the right to own a gun as long as it’s not too crazy or different, thus the government will decide which is okay for you to own.

      If the Supreme Court wanted they could hear a certain 2A case and rule that all gun infringements in the U.S. are null and void. They will never do that. That’s like asking a rapist to go on TV and admit to being a rapist knowing he will be punished afterwards.

      Have you noticed — if you zoom all the way out — the direction of change has always been towards the negative? It’s not like a tennis match where the ball goes back and forth until someone scores then it repeats. It essentially flows in the direction of tyranny regardless of party; this is the natural course for government. Everyone acknowledges government is evil, but they rationalize by saying “government is a necessary evil.”

      I thought we humans are supposed to strive to eradicate evil from the face of the Earth not increase its power every year.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Wow CZJay! You are hitting them out of the park today!

        Again, well said.

        I agree wholeheartedly that we are, overall, sliding to tyranny. Sure, we slide faster toward tyranny when Democrats call the shots. And we slide slower toward tyranny when Republicans call the shots. In the end we are still sliding toward tyranny.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yup! How many times have we heard “I’m going to cut the size of government” throughout a campaign, followed by “I meant ‘cut the rate of increase in the size of government'” after elected. As if all 330 million of us are dumb as a post, don’t know when we are being lied to.

      2. avatar Gadsden says:

        On the positive side, as you noted, the government will say, “an individual has the right to own a gun BUT..” that’s actually a pretty big step in the right direction from about 20 years ago. Back then it was pretty common to hear liberals declare some bullshit like: “the second amendment was a collective right written for the militia, which today means the police and national guard”. They’ve seemingly given up on that argument. At least I haven’t heard or read them pushing that little trope in at least 10 years. I mean of the actual liberal politicians, not your random little opinionist at huffpo. Even the most fervent anti gun politicians to include Obama, have been forced to say (in public) they acknowledge the correct view of the individual right. Certainly they don’t believe it, but they have at least been forced into having accept that publicly.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Even when they acknowledge it’s an individual right rather than a collective right, they consider it a government given or controllable right. In Europe, they do not consider owning weapons a human right; they literally laugh at such a notion.

          America is returning to the ways of Europe faster than they ran from it. I’m starting to think this behavior is programmed into their DNA, like some kind of genetic memory.

          The general youth think like this:

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          They did not “give it up”. The Supreme Court clubbed them until they let go. It is now settled law, and STILL there are those who try that same tired bullshit, although not as often.

  11. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    GOA files for cert,while Negotiating Rights Away sine 1934,that signed off on the 1934 NFA is nowhere to be found.However they are willing to betray more of Americans and members natural civil second amendment right, ie red flag infringement of their 2 nd.,5 th. and 6 th. amendment rights.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Agree completely.

      I think this might be the proverbial “last nail in the coffin” for the NRA and the watershed event that catapults GOA to the forefront of firearms rights advocacy.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        They get even a partial win, NRA-ILA will shrivel up.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          That is the reason for the recent rash of pro NRAe writings,in defense of management and Ack Mac filling their pockets. Please send money the further infringements of your right depends on it.

          For those interested in where,how much of members money is spent by the current Negotiating Rights Away.

          https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/530116130

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      “60% of those filling petitions are family or household members, 44% are petitioned by law enforcement and so far only 1 health practitioner has requested a petition. 50% of the petitions are final, which means the firearms weren’t returned. Failure to comply with the court order carries 90 days to a year in jail.”

      Sounds like the disarming of America has begun yet the people aren’t noticing what is happening… Works like a charm.

    3. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      Glad to see my GoA donations are going to something useful. Nice.

  12. avatar possum says:

    I was hoping to see something thing like this this evening. If one was to really get nasty they should donate money to the New Black Panther Party( hint), if that organization had the money that the NRA processed, Wed all be rippin full auto,,, , Orange Man Bad

    1. avatar d3generation says:

      Their main premise (self defense), I agree with. Most everything else on their stated goals I do not. They sound like socialists/Marxist. Have you read their stated goals?

  13. avatar MAGA says:

    Nothing like the Jack booted Nazi fascist murdering bastards at the ATF to violate your 2nd and 10th amendment rights at the same time. I hope they all burn in hell and get perpetually sodomized by demons with large genitalia.

  14. avatar dwb says:

    Lol, good luck. It will be unceremoniously denied. How much money was wasted on this?

  15. avatar Mad Max says:

    Sounds like a “commerce clause” question. Might work in this case.

    Furthermore, the ATF only requires notification when a machine gun leaves a state, not SBRs or silencers. They might be able to to use that against the ATF in reverse to substantiate a commerce clause claim.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      Not quite. When I moved from Texas to VA I had to file a form 20, I think, begging my masters to be allowed to move my SBR here.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        That was for permanent move, not just visiting, correct?

        1. avatar Mike says:

          That is correct.

        2. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

          A Form 20 can either be permanent or temporary.

          A temporary “permit to cross state lines” is required for all SBRs, SBSs and MGs (suppressors are exempt). You need one for each state, it must be submitted in duplicate, AND it is only good for a maximum of 365 days. There are also only 3 lines per form (meaning you can only put 3 SBRs/SBSs/MGs on each form).

          It normally takes about 2-3 weeks for a Form 20 to be processed. The NFA Branch, however, is currently affected by the Government shutdown.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          So currently, the form 20 is not required, right?

  16. avatar blahpony says:

    This is why I’m a donating member of GOA.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      And this is why I will become a donating member to GOA for the first time in my life.

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        Been donating to GoA since the NRA was profoundly silent for too long several years ago after ‘the event’.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      That’s a case from 2014 with a completely different SCOTUS composition. SCOTUS rejected to hear firearms cases as recently as last year. With Justice Anthony Kennedy leaving and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining SCOTUS, the outcome now may actually be different.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        IIRC, SCOTUS extended the Commerce clause to virtually everything. I seem to remember arguing about this in college….although not about firearms, it IS about control IMO.

        The only way I think SCOTUS will hear this case and rule favorably is over suppressors themselves……but it’s around 10,000 to 1 against if I were to bet.

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

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          The Commerce Clause was not extended to ObamaCare, for example, which is the reason why the mandate with a 0% tax has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. Many firearms laws have never been tested for their constitutionality.

          Supreme Court Rejects Obama’s Commerce Clause Arguments, Upholds ObamaCare Anyway Under Tax and Spend Clause
          https://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/supreme-court-rejects-obamas-commerce-cl

          Thoughts on Today’s Federal Court Decision Against Obamacare
          https://reason.com/volokh/2018/12/14/thoughts-on-todays-federal-court-decisio

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “IIRC, SCOTUS extended the Commerce clause to virtually everything.”

          Including a Scalia endorsed (if not written) opinion that refusing to engage in interstate commerce adversely affects the marketplace, and is thus subject to regulation/punishment under the commerce clause.

          Manage your expectations.

  17. avatar Marcia Mason says:

    I would be interested in seeing the original paperwork authorizing the creation of Springfield Armory by George Washington hizzelf. Why? Because anti-gunners are saying that the 2A never intended for there to be guns like AR15’s and even common semi-auto shotguns or handguns. Did Pres. Washington charter SA to research and develop higher levels of technology than flintlocks? My understanding is that he was dissatisfied with existing firearms and wanted and encouraged advanced designs. This might reveal that he (and Jefferson) were well aware and hopeful of time’s ability to advance firearms, and therefore, did not intend for the 2A to limit people to flintlocks.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Well, they did use the word “arms” over any other. The definition is extremely broad and it includes body armor. They could have easily wrote “you have a right to the best firearms available.” They didn’t want to limit your human right to self preservation rather they wanted to acknowledge it and protect it to the fullest extent. They even wanted you to be able to legally form a militant group and train to overthrow the government.

  18. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    WE can only hope.
    Seems more like banging ones head on the wall.
    No more $$ to the NRA for me by the way.
    Giving up a 30 year long membership and my $$. Now go to the GOA only.
    They at least try. Even if it is head banging against the wall. They at least try.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      The only options we currently have are the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment. Therefore we attempt the peaceful way first via the government’s court system. We are likely to be stuck spinning our wheels as we use the 1st Amendment, we could remain in that position until the end. Once you start talking about the 2nd option you put yourself on a list for a gun confiscation order. So, are we doomed?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      SAF deserves a contribution now and then, as well. My last contribution to NRA was my reimbursement for a $30 million effort to defeat some evil witch who was trying to drink my blood, I don’t regret it, and as a Benefactor Life member it’s too late to quit.

  19. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

    So, will this be considered for the next SCOTUS term, or this term?

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Hopefully after RGB is replaced with Barrett or Sykes.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Either is preferable to Ruth Badgirl Commieberg,hec even to Roberts and Kavanaugh.

  20. avatar No_Ones_Home says:

    I’ve never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed but how has what Kansas (and previously Montana) done with regards to firearms any different than what Colorado, Nevada, Washington, and California have done with ‘legalizing’* marijuana?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      You still can’t smoke if you want to buy a gun. You will go on the no buy list. Far as I remember, they passed the Fix NICS bill, which adds more names to the list.

      If the government wants to enforce the federal law they can. When it comes to guns, they love to enforce all the laws. Trump is for enforcing all the gun laws and not for enforcing the pot laws.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “You still can’t smoke if you want to buy a gun. You will go on the no buy list.”

        That’s if you get a medical card. If you go into a weed shop in Colorado as a regular person off the street and pay cash there is no record way the feds would know you bought weed.

        The whole thing is stupid anyway because tons of people smoke pot in states where it’s not legal and unless they get busted NICS never knows.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          *recorded

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          No shit, just like they’ve been smoking since I was in high school in the early ’60s. This is a good question, though, sounds like selective prosecutions. Enforce totally unconstitutional firearms laws, while ignoring other laws (drug laws) which are simply none of your business.

      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        “When it comes to guns, they love to enforce all the laws.”

        The Government needs to love some gun law enforcement in Chicago.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Chitcago has plenty of gun laws they enforce what they don’t enforce is criminal control.

    2. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      Marijuana is not a god given constitutional right, while the Right to keep and bear arms is.

      So in my worthless opinion, the Kansas and other state governments should be standing on much firmer legal ground than sanctuary cities and marijuana. But they’re not, because tyranny in the swamp.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        God didn’t give me a group of men to privilege me with a document of rights. People of God claim he gave me free will.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Unless I misremember my superstitions, didn’t god theoretically give man dominion over all plants and animals of the Earth? That doesn’t include Mary J?

      2. avatar John in IN says:

        Actually, if you read the 10th ammendment, EVERYTHING is a god given right. The governmenet is only granted power to act in those areas specifically mentioned in the constitution. Every other endeavor is hands-off to the feds.

        How far we have fallen now that the commerce clase is interpreted to cover nearly everything, even property that has never entered commerce, let alone interstate commerce.

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

        If they rely on the commerce clause, they have a long row to hoe.

    3. avatar luigi says:

      It isn’t, federal drug laws violate the 10th Amendment and the NFA violates the 2A. Every state should’ve just nullfified all drug and gun laws right out the gate

  21. avatar Enkidu says:

    Self-defense itself is secured by the Second Amendment and is the right to be vindicated as a result of the unconstitutional tax on self-defense. In Heller, the Supreme Court observed that self-defense is a dead letter without arms. There must be a common nexus between the arm desired and self-defense.

    For example, an individual must assert that they need a suppressor in order to enable them to exercise self-defense, and that individual must establish a reasonable basis to support that assertion. (I need to be able to hear the movements of an intruder while I am exercising self-defense against him, and a suppressor serves that purpose, otherwise, I do not feel comfortable exercising self-defense at all, and I will likely be killed by the intruder)

    Self-defense must be, and is, the fundamental right being taxed, not suppressors. The core argument is that self-defense and arms are indistinguishable from each other. (self-defense is one ingredient/component that makes up a whole; and an individual must demonstrate that if any ingredient, such as suppressors, is absent, self-defense no longer exists for that individual) Can a baked cake exist without eggs? No! Can a car drive without a motor? No!

    Of course, this requires further explaining, given that only one federal district court has recognized that self-defense itself is secured by the Second Amendment. Read on if you like:

    Heller Holds that Self-defense is Secured by the Second Amendment:

    In a recent case, I (pro se) attempted to vindicate self-defense using the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which placed the federal government in a position of advocating for the Second Amendment. (the government had to prove that Hellers holding secures Self-defense) The conclusion was that the governments Rule 12(b)(6) motion was granted on grounds that “self-defense constitutes a core right secured by the Second Amendment” and that “only the Second Amendment may be relied upon to vindicate self-defense.” The more specific amendment rule laid out in Albright v. Oliver requires that the Second Amendment, rather than the Fifth Amendment, be used to vindicate self-defense.

    I was going to appeal the case so as to establish for the first time in a federal court of appeals that the Second Amendment secures the right to self-defense, but an unrelated unfortunate happening took place that fouled the appeal up. Here is the the argument:

    The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) stated that “the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a ‘novel principle’ but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors’”. Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2801-02 (internal brackets omitted, quoting Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897)).
    In Heller, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment right constitutes an individual right to keep and bear arms in case of confrontation, Id. at 2798, and it further held that individual self-defense constitutes the “central component” of the Second Amendment right. Id. at 2801. (original emphasis).

    In coming to that reality, drawing on history immediately surrounding codification of the Second Amendment right, the Supreme Court in Heller found that the right codified was based on the arms provision of the English Bill of Rights. Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2798 (the arms provision of the English Bill of Rights “has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment.”) According to William Blackstone, the arms provision was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen”, and consisted of “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,’ and ‘the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,’” Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2798-99 (quoting Malcolm’s Blackstone 139-140 (1765)). The right was understood by the founding generation to be “an individual right protecting against both public and private violence”, and that such arms “enable[d] individuals to defend themselves”. Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2798-99.

    Additionally, St. George Tucker indicated that the Second Amendment “‘may be considered as the true palladium of liberty’”. Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2799 (quoting St. George Tucker’s edition of Blackstone at n. D) “‘The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.’”

    Id. The inherent rights of resistance, self-preservation, and the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense, were respectively understood by Americans and W. Blackstone as belonging to free individual American citizens, and free individual English subjects.

    Although the Supreme Court in Heller found that the founding generations’ primary reason for codifying the “ancient right” to keep and bear arms into the written constitution was “to preserve the [citizens’] militia, Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2801, the court further stated that it was beyond doubt that most of the founding generation “thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.” Id.

    In McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the Supreme Court stated that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3036, n.15, and reiterated its previous holding in Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2801. (in Heller, “we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense,” to wit, “self-defense was ‘the central component of the right itself.’”) McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3048. (original emphasis, quoting Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2801, 2802); see also Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1029 (2016) (Thomas J. and Alito J. concurring) (stating that the keeping and bearing arms “right vindicates the ‘basic right’ of ‘individual self-defense.’” quoting McDonald, 130 S.Ct. 3020 at 3036 and Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2801-2802)

    The Supreme Court in McDonald held that the “Second Amendment right recognized in Heller” is “fundamental from an American perspective” and thus applies to the States too. McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3050.

    Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller holds that the Second Amendment codified the following fundamental individual rights: resistance to tyranny and oppression; self-preservation; self-defense; and having and using arms to vindicate life, liberty, and property when those rights come under unlawful attack by private, public, or foreign actors.

    Among those previously mentioned ingredients that make up the whole of the Second Amendment right, individual self-defense is its core constituent/ingredient/component.

    In the United States of America, firearms are instruments that enable individual self-defense.

    The Second Amendment right, at a minimum, belongs to natural born American citizens who are currently responsible, and are currently living a law-abiding life in society, and is a right to be enjoyed by the same in its entirety under those circumstances.

    When those fundamental rights secured by the Second Amendment are denied to the previously mentioned class of citizens under the pretext of public safety, gun-safety, or to assist law-enforcement in their fight against crime and violence, individual liberty is presumed to be annihilated, or is on the precipice of being so.

    Accordingly, the NFA is not taxing suppressors, (which would be constitutional if it were), its taxing self-defense itself — but only if the individual reasonably believes that he cannot exercise self-defense without a given NFA arm.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I didn’t know I had to ask permission to be taxed…

      All of those “arguments” are a bunch of lawyers’ words meant to confuse the populace into believing what the government is doing is lawful, moral and just. They make it unnecessarily long winded and complex for that end. Their “logic” stems from ancient oppression and government being the master to the end of time. They get some kind of perverted gratification as they go through that legal process of enslavement. They have no honor nor justice. It would be nice if they continued to wear fake hair, that way the public wouldn’t take them seriously.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Nailed it again.

  22. avatar anarchyst says:

    There is another avenue to explore regarding the $200.00 “tax” on NFA items. It would be considered “cruel and unusual punishment” to imprison a person for ten years and impose a $10,000.00 fine for failure to pay a $200.00 “tax”.
    It would seem that a defense could be mustered utilizing the “cruel and unusual” aspect of the Constitution. The punishment is way out of proportion to the amount of “tax” involved.
    GOA, are you listening…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      It’s “cruel and unusual” not “cruel or unusual.” In other words, it’s a very common and “reasonable” punishment that is carried out throughout the world. If the punishment was to feed you to an alligator at the zoo. that would be cruel and unusual.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “If the punishment was to feed you to an alligator at the zoo. that would be cruel and unusual.”

        Currently the SC is considering a case about whether asset confiscation in excess of the maximum assessable fine violates the 8th Amendment. If the court eventually rules that asset forfeiture is permissible up to and including the maximum fine, that would be precedent for attacking the punishment for failure to pay the $200 tax on controlled weapons.

  23. avatar strych9 says:

    Meh, mixed feelings. On the one hand I hope he wins. On the other hand I hope he gets testicular cancer and loses his nuts before reproducing because he is one dumb motherfucker.

    Stupid NFA, stupid state law and a stupid person means a case that probably won’t get cert but, interestingly, stupid+stupid+stupid may equal a rational argument in this case, which is rare.

    [Insert blathering about history of how we got to this point thanks to a court packing scheme and the myth that the SCOTUS is above politics. Point out SCOTUS isn’t bound by precendent yadda yadda.]

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      No mixed feelings here. Did you read the Kansas law, or the press release they sent out? They make it very clear that this is the law of the land. They make a good case, and provide no warnings that the individual would still be in violation of the federal law. In fact, they do just the opposite.
      What’s a citizen supposed to do? The plaintiff is young, not an attorney, and he is acting in accordance with what the state law says. He’s not an idiot for believing what the law in front of him clearly states, and he can’t be expected to know, or understand, whatever federal laws may be in place that contradicts it. The bad actor here is the State of Kansas.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Ignorance is not an excuse to break the law.

        “They make a good case, and provide no warnings that the individual would still be in violation of the federal law. In fact, they do just the opposite.”

        Sometimes, when you follow bad advice because you didn’t bother doing your homework you get burned. When you do that you deserve it. He could have spent two minutes whipping out his phone and Googling this to find out that he was gonna get fucked if he did this. He didn’t bother to check and he got fucked. This is no different than all the people who erroneously believe that marijuana is legal in Alaska. When they get busted are you gonna leap to their defense as well? Or are you going to think it’s a tough world out there and even tougher when you’re stupid?

        Sorry, the NFA is really stupid but anyone past 5th grade should know that federal law applies to all territory the U.S. government has jurisdiction over and that your state is part of that territory. If he was smart enough for the Army he should know this kind of ultra basic shit.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          No, this is very different than just ignorance of the law, and just Googling wouldn’t have fixed the problem. Again, he had a state Government, with a state Attorney General, publicly telling him what he was doing was legal. The state has no right to go through extraordinary lengths to trick him into disobeying the law, which is exactly what happened. Since the federal court never even filed an injunction against the law, his case should have been dismissed.

  24. avatar raimius says:

    If we valued the 10th and 2nd Amendments, this would be a good case…but in today’s world, this is asking SCOTUS to spend the basis of modern federal legislation while also upending the origin of federal gun laws.
    To judges this sounds like “Can you throw the entire US legal system into chaos so this guy can have a suppressor?”

    He should win, but won’t, because he is fighting 90 years of lawmaking that judges will be hesitant to destroy.

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    We need to swap out RBG on the court for a conservative if we expect any 2A to move things . That might happen, might not. Meanwhile states are whittling away and daring anyone to challenge them.

    1. avatar Bman says:

      She’s done….
      Qmap.pub

      1. avatar 22winmag says:

        Q-tards have no reason to live.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Her,Roberts and Kavanaugh and replace them with judges who first and only duty is to the Constitution as written,not precedence.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Sorry, too many millions of situations are not addressed in the Constitution.

  26. avatar Hannibal says:

    Kansas should have filed suit on his behalf and to protect its own interests

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Agreed. And in the meantime the state should have told the feds to GTFO of the state until they could behave.

  27. avatar JMR says:

    Meanwhile the NRA is sending out shills to convince people that red flag laws are a good thing and a strategic step to prevent further loss of rights.

    You know like the last strategic step to prevent further loss of rights.

    Or the last one

    Or the last one.

    Look it’ll work one of these days because the right will be gone.

  28. avatar D Y says:

    “a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution”

    I was under the impression that rights were god given and inalienable. Is that not the case?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I was under the impression that rights were god given and inalienable. Is that not the case?”

      Where did you go to school?

      Government has an inalienable right to impose reasonable restrictions on all the works of God. So do individuals. Been that way since forever, hasn’t it?.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        At least since a few kings declared themselves to also be the pope and executed anybody who objected.

  29. avatar Sora says:

    DONATE DONATE DONATE
    I DID.
    Don’t forget to SHARE at FB and Twitter posts of NRA

  30. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    They should attack the NFA on the grounds that Miller actually supported the ownership of weapons commonly used by the military. Military uses silencers, short-barrelled rifles, full auto, etc on a regular basis.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      That ruling should simply be vacated as a mistrial; probably the most kangaroo court thing our nation has ever done.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        I don’t know, this one gives it a run for the money.
        A citizen acts upon direct advisement from the state government, the federal government doesn’t receive an injunction against it, and yet the citizen is found guilty of violating federal law that the state said did not apply, while the state is held harmless.
        WTF?

    2. avatar matt says:

      Doesn’t Miller also explicitly talk about applying only to interstate transport of regulated firearms as well? Am I misremembering that?

  31. avatar 22winmag says:

    Trumps boy Kavanaugh sided with Planned Parenthood against several states in his very first decision.

    If you believe Trump or the SCOTUS is pro-2A, just keep drinking yourself to death.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Trumps boy Kavanaugh sided with Planned Parenthood against several states in his very first decision.”

      Actually Kavanaugh didn’t “side” with PP. He applied the law as written. The alternative was not a ruling to eliminate PP, or eliminate funding. The alternative was give the president authority to overturn legislation (or parts) whenever the president desires.

      Applying the law is not “siding” with anyone.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        And Kavanaugh was Kennedy’s boy, not Trump’s.

  32. avatar 556SBR says:

    NRA, blah blah no more dollars, NRA blah blah sold out, NRA blah blah ad infinitum.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Are you a certified NRA instructor?

  33. avatar Oliver says:

    Im not a legal scholar but it also seems that to me that the Federal government’s case is further weakened when they have chosen to ignore Federal drug laws and turn a blind eye to states circumventing Federal laws to jump on the hemp and marijuana state legalization bandwagon. So there is that precedent. I truly wish them the best of luck. Based on everything I have read, they and the state of Kansas seem to have a strong legal case. Of course, the precedent also stands that traditionally our legal structure is capriciously, immorally and illegally administered. So I guess the Feds could claim precedence for that too.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      A bunch of nice thoughts, but….

      The central committee permits states to act independently when it suits the goals of the central committee.

  34. avatar LKB says:

    The constitutional arguments in this case are well thought out, but absent RGB leaving the court I don’t see a prayer of cert being granted here.

    Yes, I agree that Wickard and its progeny (holding that essentially everything is “interstate commerce” that Congress can regulate) is awful and needs to be overturned, and I recognize that the Court has made some tentative steps in this direction.

    Yes, I agree that most of the NFA (and especially the Hughes Amendment) are inconsistent with Miller and probably should not withstand a strict scrutiny challenge under Heller.

    Yes, I agree that it’s the Supreme Court’s job to deal with such tough questions.

    But the reality is that the Supreme Court (and especially the conservative wing, which does not celebrate judicial activism) typically moves incrementally on the law. Especially with Roberts as the swing vote, there’s just no way they are going to take a case that would upset so many potential applecarts. Overturning Wickard would be huge. Overturning or weakening the NFA would be huge. Doing both in the same case (which would have knock-on effects all over the place [e.g., what of state legalization of locally-produced and consumed drugs?]) is just too big a bite.

    I’d love to be proven wrong, but as a serious student of constitutional law for almost 40 years and admitted to practice in various federal courts for over 30, I just do not see this one being granted.

    1. avatar Freebird says:

      Gun Owners of America is doing what NRA should have done long ago…. CHALLENGE their total lack of authority to regulate. The ATF came out of prohibition, and is operating under ‘ color of law. ‘

      NO JURISDICTION

      ” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, has no venue or jurisdiction within the borders of any of the 50 States of the united States of America, except in pursuit of an importer of contraband alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, who failed to pay the TAX on those items. As proof, refer to the July 30, 1993 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1 F.3d 1511; 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 19747, where the court ruled in United States v. D.J. Vollmer & Co. that “the B.A.T.F. has jurisdiction over the first sale of a firearm imported to the country, but they don’t have jurisdiction over subsequent sales.”

      B.A.T.F = I.R.S.

      Treasury Order 120-01 assigned to the new B.A.T.F. CHAPTERS 51, 52, 53 OF THE Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and sections 7652 and 7653 of such code, chapters 61 through 80 inclusive of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 USC Chapter 8)[which, in 1935 the SUPREME COURT HAD DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL WITHIN THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION,] 18 USC Chapter 44, Title VII Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 USC Appendix, sections 1201 – 1203, 18 USC 1262 – 1265, 1952 and 3615. etc. Mr Walker then makes a statement within TO 120-01 that is very revealing, “The terms ‘Director, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Division’ and ‘Commissioner of Internal Revenue’ wherever used in regulations, rules, and instructions, and forms, issued or adopted for the administration and enforcement of the laws specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which are in effect or in use on the effective date of this Order, shall be held to mean ‘the Director'”. Walker seemed to branch the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), creating the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.), and then with that statement joined them back together into one. In the Federal Register, Volume 41, Number 180, of Wednesday, September 15, 1976 we find, “The term Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division ‘ has been replaced by the term ‘ Internal Revenue Service.”We found this pattern of deception and obfuscation everywhere we looked during our investigation.
      For further evidence of the fact that the I.R.S. and the B.A.T.F. are one in the same organization, check 27 U.S.C.A. Section 201.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Well, I think in the past few years the ATF has been moved from IRS to DOJ, but that used to be correct, and that move should have made clear that the mission of ATF was unconstitutional, their mission is not about taxes.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      I’m not a lawyer, and I know no more on this case than what I can search with Google. I’ve spent a minute doing just that.
      The State of Kansas created a law. In the very beginning of the statute the law created, the legislature lays out their state authority, as well as their federal constitutional authority. The bill was signed into law, recorded in code, and (and this is important) widely promulgated by the state itself. The state makes it clear that this is the law of the land, and the statue itself makes it clear that if you are obeying that statue, you are not violating federal law. Nowhere in the statute, the register, or the state’s press release about the law does it say that anyone obeying the state law would be violating the federal law. In fact, they say the opposite.
      As far as I can tell, even though they had ample opportunity, the federal government did not receive any kind of injunction, temporary or permanent, against the state barring the execution of this statue. And yet the plaintiff was found guilty while obeying the state law.
      Did the judge expect the plaintiff to simply disbelieve the state? If the state was deceiving the plaintiff, why didn’t the judge take them to task for it?
      The State of Kansas went through great lengths to convince the plaintiff that he was obeying the law, with the full authority of the state. How on earth was the plaintiff found guilty, and how was the judgment not simply vacated. The plaintiff was acting in accordance to the direct guidance from the state government.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        The way the “justice” system works: the judge instructs the jury as to what the law is, from which perspective they must see the case, what evidence they get provided to them and how they must apply it.

        Essentially, you will be found guilty by the jury most of the time because the court system wants you to be guilty even though they know you’re not. Their strategy works so well because the jury has no clue of the law and does not have an understanding of what morality/justice is. The jury will follow instructions because they don’t want to get in trouble themselves and they dare not learn about jury nullification.

        I don’t understand why people want to rely on the justice system to free them from government oppression when it’s now designed to oppress you. The U.S. has the greatest prison population in the world by design.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Did the judge expect the plaintiff to simply disbelieve the state?”

        Only police get away with acting in ignorance of the law. The individual is required to understand local, state and federal law. No intervening authority is responsible for failure of the individual to sort out the several jurisdictions and statutes. In the instant case, following a state law that is in conflict with federal law, is equivalent of pleading ignorance of the law.

        So, the answer to your question is and unmistakable “Yes”.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          But this wasn’t just ignorance of the law. In fact, the Kansas law cites federal law and shows how it does not apply. The state government intentionally told the plaintiff that he was not breaking the law. That’s a very different thing than simply not knowing the law.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But this wasn’t just ignorance of the law.”

          The bottom line for government is the individual is completely responsible for failure to follow the law, regardless of circumstance. It is a nice little concept that is used at government convenience. Dual sovereignty is what it says. Under that construct, an individual is responsible to know that laws may be in conflict. Under that construct, an individual is at risk, not a state or local government.

          Looking to the state to keep the populace from violating federal law is a hopeless venture. It is no different than getting bad advice (how would the individual know until it is too late?) from a personal attorney; the individual is still not protected by ignorance of the law.

          The power hungry are just fine creating conditions where the individual can no longer know what is what regarding the laws. We are still waiting on a final resolution on the Californication SC ruling that a law that cannot be complied with (micro-stamping) is still a valid law, and individuals can be sanctioned for failure to comply.

          You can’t win, you can’t break even, maybe you can quit the game.

  35. avatar little horn says:

    GOA, do let us know when that dead horse you’re beating gets up and runs.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I’m still waiting for you to get of the couch…

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        it took some determination as well as a certain amount of dna/ material transfer, but it’s been worth it.
        i am now, truly, of the couch.

  36. avatar Ralph says:

    The Feds have been wallowing in Wickard v. Filburn like pigs in sh!t since 1942. SCOTUS came close to overruling Wickard in U.S. v. Lopez, but didn’t go there even though it should have.

    Thomas certainly wants to kick Wickard to the curb, but the leftist Justices love it and the right wing Justices are overly respectful of precedent.

    SCOTUS has been out of the 2A business since 2010. Sadly, I don’t expect the Court to turn back the clock to do justice in this case.

  37. avatar bud says:

    Good on them. They are doing exactly what the NRA would do if they weren’t controlled opposition.

  38. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Cert denied

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      ooh, i can almost feel the embossment from here.

  39. avatar possum says:

    Certs, File for Certs. I didn’t know one could file for Certs, I could use certs because being half 1/4 human my teeth do tend to decay without proper human hygiene making my breath a housefly attractant. It is hard for a being to carry on a conversation with someone when fly’s are buzzing about ones mouth. So goes the life of a possum.

  40. avatar GunDoc says:

    The HUGE thing everyone seems to be missing here (including the attorneys for the Defendants), is that the 10th Circuit ruling is a VICTORY.

    The 10th ruled that suppressors are a FIREARM ACCESSORY. They inadvertently just acquitted the accused (since they were charged with manufacturing FIREARMS, not ACCESSORIES), and achieved the goals of the now-dead SHUSH Act S.1505, which sought to reclassify suppressors as FIREARMS ACCESSORIES.

    The GOA needs to re-think their entire strategy, and simply let the ruling stand (while demanding the accused be completely acquitted, as there is no prohibition on the manufacture of FIREARMS ACCESSORIES.

    FIREARMS ACCESSORIES, not being FIREARMS, are outside the purview of the ATF, and by the explicit letter of the ruling, are no longer within their authority.

    Hopefully this will get to the GOA, and be spread like wildfire.

  41. avatar william chandler says:

    Whenever they nasally whine “You don’t NEED a “Weapon of WAR”” read this to them:
    WE pay for THEIR prepping….. as they attack Our RIGHT to keep a semi-automatic rifle
    I’d like to point out …. In order to “feel safe” the politicians “need” 7,000+ nuclear warheads ,,, at least 11 aircraft carrier battle groups and hundreds more ships , how many multiBillion$ F35s, how many Troops “under arms” and tanks, tanks beyond counting. The government is spending $700BILLION every year on GUNS. The Liars swear we are “imminent danger” of being overrun by Barbarian Hordes and that we should be terrified and give Them all the money they want, to buy every concievable weapon …..But we are “crazy” to want semiauto weapons to defend ourselves …….. then it surrounds it’s self with 24/7 ARMED bodyguards and WALLS, WALLS, WALLS for THEM, but you are a racist bigot for wanting a wall . …. and even THAT is not enough as they constantly tell they need MORE weapons and BIGGER weapons ….. then tells YOU that YOU are crazy for wanting semiauto weapons …… “they” have hidden bunkers, stocked with tons of food, medical supplies, equipment, all paid for by YOU, but you will not be welcome inside ….. but YOU are a NUT-CASE for prepping. …………… FTG.

  42. avatar william chandler says:

    There has never been a government that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
    Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
    Oppressive Governments are ALWAYS banning the People’S RIGHTS to arms.
    The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
    The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
    The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
    Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
    Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
    Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
    There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
    The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
    The 2nd Amendment clearly codifies the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
    Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
    Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”? Of course not. …………. That is assumed.

    the 2nd amendment,, specifies that the RIGHT to bear arms is the right of the people,, NOT the militia,,,, it is the people who will make up the militia,, but the right is not the right of a “well regulated militia” it is the right of the people, We the people were BORN WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS, meaning they come from GOD.

    Your Rights do not come from the Constitution. Your Rights come from Our Creator, and the Constitution was written to SUPERVISE, REGULATE, and CONTROL government actors. As it relates to firearms, the Heller “decision” was completely unnecessary, and likely a smokescreen to make it APPEAR that the USG retained some rights to regulate some firearms. Check out the relevant part of US v. Cruikshank:
    “[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;… This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
    than to restrict the powers of the national government,…”.
    U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
    Res adjudicata – “the thing has already been decided.”
    The 9th and 10th Amendments help make it ABUNDANTLY clear to even the DENSEST of intellects that we truly have NO “Constitutional rights.” What we have(at the risk of being redundant) is Constitutionally-SECURED rights, but these rights are ONLY as secure as:
    a) the honor and integrity of those taking the oath, and
    b) the ability of the People to COMPEL obedience on pain of perjury charges and removal from office.

    https://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/our-preexisting-irrevolkable-right-of-self-defense/

    The intention of the Founders and Framers was to keep our God-given rights secure by REQUIRING those who seek office to take the oath as an immutable predicate to taking office, meaning it is binding on THEM – not on US.

    Of course, most of the power brokers wish to keep us ignorant of our Rights and our Power. If possible, i highly recommend Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man,” which should help to educate Americans and illustrate to them the difference between Natural Rights, and what the 14th (never properly ratified, btw) wishes to change that to: “privileges and immunities.”

    It is implicit in the nature of all kinds of armies —- be they militia or regulars, volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary — to be armed.
    They are all “armed forces”.
    They all “bear arms”.
    They all carry guns.
    That is what they do.
    It certainly no more requires an amendment to the Constitution to state that “the Militia” has the RKBA , than a specific statement that the army Congress is empowered to raise may be manned by armed troops.

    Governments don’t have to document their “right” to bear arms, that is what governments ARE, they are naked force, George Washington said as much. Saying governments have a right to guns is like saying cars have a right to have wheels…

    “The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals … it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government … it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.” Ayn Rand

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “There has never been a government that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
      Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.”

      An observation I have not seen before. Interesting. Think I will freely use it, and claim I thought it up.

      Nicely done.

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