Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-25-2019, 1:19 PM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,274
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default Kettler V. US - NFA case : Cert Denied 6-10-19

Super Short Case Facts: Kansas passed state pre-emption of federal gun laws by passing a law legalizing all NFA items produced in and kept in the State of Kansas. Thinking he was protected by the act, US veteran Jeremy Kettler bought a functional suppressor from an army surplus store owner and posted a video on FB, leading to ATF action. Both were charged and convicted with NFA felonies, but given no jail time (thankfully). Both used the Kansas pre-eminence law and the 2A as a defense unsuccessfully. Jeremy is appealing his conviction and attacking the NFA laws.

Questions posed by the case:
1.) State pre-eminence of federal laws. What power do states have against the feds?
2.) Both convictions also stemmed from a conclusion that accessories, such as suppressors, are not bearable. Thus, they are not 2A protected. Are accessories, such as NFA items, actually 2A protected?
3.) The case law and tax law supporting the NFA is no longer relevant today. Does modern tax law make the NFA invalid?

Case Status:
Certiorari filed in January. Response from feds due April 22, 2019.
Http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...%5C18-936.html

Random Thoughs:
The heavy handedness of the ATF in this case may have been the blessing for such a case to be heard. Would it have been easier and better for society to allow non-violent hobbyists to simply register and pay the tax? Sure! It surely would have been a positive boon to public relations with the ATF too. That being said, a case with a violent felon behind it would not have allowed the case to proceed on its merits.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.

Last edited by Solidsnake87; 03-25-2019 at 1:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-25-2019, 1:46 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The accessories are bearable, they are just not firearms is the more likely logic. Same as bump stocks.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-25-2019, 2:07 PM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,274
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The accessories are bearable, they are just not firearms is the more likely logic. Same as bump stocks.
Agreed. I merely summarized the courts logic used to defeat the 2a defense.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-25-2019, 2:30 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,079
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Wouldn’t agreeing with state preemption laws doom California?

I would think it would work both ways
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-25-2019, 2:43 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,199
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The accessories are bearable, they are just not firearms is the more likely logic. Same as bump stocks.
Suppressor, or bump-stocks in and of themselves, are not firearms.

Yet when attached to a "firearm" they both become an integral part of the firearm.

Same logic could be applied to "Sniper Scopes" that the media and leftist politicians love to espouse as "evil".

Now as always, "logic" is something the media and leftist politicos seem bereft of.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-25-2019, 2:47 PM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,274
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

What's funny is that NFA items are registered as "firearms", the lawful ownership of which depended on either grandfathering or a $200 tax. If these are classified as firearms, how could they not be considered bearable? The logic is ridiculous.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-25-2019, 3:01 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,801
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Wouldn’t agreeing with state preemption laws doom California?

I would think it would work both ways
That train left the station a while ago.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-25-2019, 3:03 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,199
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Wouldn’t agreeing with state preemption laws doom California?

I would think it would work both ways

The case involves 3 aspects of NFA. Not preemptive state laws.

C&P from the petition link.


Quote:
1. Whether the National Firearms Act of 1934,
upheld in Sonzinsky, continues to be a constitutional
exercise of Congress’s taxing power when the
justifications for that decision have significantly
eroded over the last 82 years.

2. Whether the Second Amendment protects firearm
accessories such as sound suppressors.

3. Whether the tax imposed by the National
Firearms Act, targeting the exercise of a Second
Amendment right, violates the rule of Murdock v.
Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) and Cox v. New
Hampshire, 312 U.S. 669 (1941).
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-25-2019, 3:06 PM
audiophil2 audiophil2 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surprise
Posts: 7,602
iTrader: 232 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
What's funny is that NFA items are registered as "firearms", the lawful ownership of which depended on either grandfathering or a $200 tax. If these are classified as firearms, how could they not be considered bearable? The logic is ridiculous.
That's the conundrum. Silencers are defined as firearms per NFA34/GCA68. Courts have to figure out one way or the other. Are they firearms per GCA and can be regulated as firearms or are they accessories and do not fall under GCA?

If GCA then they are 2A protected.
If accessories then bannable.
__________________

01FFL/03SOT AND 07FFL/02SOT
PHOENIX, AZ MIDDLEMAN TRANSFER DEALER SINCE 2010
10 round magazine conversion service
CA compliance service
Machine gun/suppressor rentals
Private 10 acre range rentals
Storage for your CA firearms/CA prohibited firearm purchases.

MY CALGUNS COMMERCIAL SALES SUBFORUM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...play.php?f=376
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-25-2019, 3:08 PM
audiophil2 audiophil2 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surprise
Posts: 7,602
iTrader: 232 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
The case involves 3 aspects of NFA. Not preemptive state laws.

C&P from the petition link.
I would like to see this addressed after IL foid falls at supreme court if it makes it there.
__________________

01FFL/03SOT AND 07FFL/02SOT
PHOENIX, AZ MIDDLEMAN TRANSFER DEALER SINCE 2010
10 round magazine conversion service
CA compliance service
Machine gun/suppressor rentals
Private 10 acre range rentals
Storage for your CA firearms/CA prohibited firearm purchases.

MY CALGUNS COMMERCIAL SALES SUBFORUM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...play.php?f=376
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-29-2019, 6:56 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 657
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Not good tea leaves...

I don't think anyone has posted this yet, and kind of unrelated to this case, but the SCOTUS just let the bump stock ban take effect.

Quote:
The Supreme Court will not stop the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks from going into effect, it was announced on Thursday.

The ban on bump stocks was announced by the Justice Department in December and took effect on Tuesday. On Monday, the Supreme Court was considering an emergency request from Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and the Virginia Citizens Defense League to stay the ban while cases challenging it were appealed.

(MORE: Gun advocates request for temporary emergency stay from Supreme Court denied as bump stock ban looms)
Chief Justice John Roberts denied a request to temporarily delay the ban on bump stocks on Tuesday, but another request to delay the ban was still pending with Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supr...ry?id=62008942

Temperature reading seems pretty cold in regards to the NFA. Hell we had a federal agency rewrite a law passed by congress and even that didn't move the needle for SCOTUS. And yes, I know, it's still "working" its way through the courts, they haven't decided yet, etc. But they have no problem letting thousands of gun owners get screwed through executive fiat in the meantime.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-10-2019, 7:08 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Petition Denied.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....%5C18-936.html
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-10-2019, 8:10 AM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,274
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Wtf? This was an excellent case on the merits. :/
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-10-2019, 8:40 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,909
iTrader: 161 / 100%
Default

But you can still buy and smoke weed in Cali
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-10-2019, 9:17 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,633
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Tyrants won’t give us the power to overthrow them. Smoke weed and kill your babies but you can’t buy and own standard military equipment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-10-2019, 3:03 PM
EBR Works's Avatar
EBR Works EBR Works is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 9,555
iTrader: 110 / 100%
Default Supreme Court rejects challenges to silencer laws

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/10/pol...urt/index.html
.
.
__________________


Check out our e-commerce site here:

www.ebrworks.com

Serving you from Prescott, AZ
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-10-2019, 3:24 PM
spfabrication's Avatar
spfabrication spfabrication is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: ID
Posts: 961
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Now they just need to reject the NFA and Hughes amendment.
__________________
GO NAVY
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-10-2019, 3:26 PM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 578
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spfabrication View Post
Now they just need to reject the NFA and Hughes amendment.
Reject does not mean overturned.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-10-2019, 3:59 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,826
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spfabrication View Post
Now they just need to reject the NFA and Hughes amendment.
The way to deal with the Hughes amend is the same way liberals have dealt with Trump's authority over immigration. They found one crazy, racist, extremist judge in Hawaii and got him to issue a ruling that applied nation-wide, for no reason. Of course it was overturned but it did its damage. We should find one crazy judge somewhere to suspend the Hughes Amendment. Even if only a week, a million valid MG registrations will occur during that time, which will render the Hughes Amendment meaningless and set it up for a proper challenge later.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-10-2019, 4:21 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 620
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

SCOTUS has been holding many cases due to the cert granting for the New York case. The other cases which were held are,

Pena
Mance
Rogers,

Today we had two more cases which could have been held, Gould, and this case.

They held Gould, and denied cert to Kettler. So what's interesting is that they seem to not believe that the New York case will have any effect of suppressors or the NFA. That's my read on it anyways. The next case up to get held is the New York knife case next week I think.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-11-2019, 6:59 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 657
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
The way to deal with the Hughes amend is the same way liberals have dealt with Trump's authority over immigration. They found one crazy, racist, extremist judge in Hawaii and got him to issue a ruling that applied nation-wide, for no reason. Of course it was overturned but it did its damage. We should find one crazy judge somewhere to suspend the Hughes Amendment. Even if only a week, a million valid MG registrations will occur during that time, which will render the Hughes Amendment meaningless and set it up for a proper challenge later.
This. Too many younger judges are concerned about climbing up the ladder. You get an old bull that DGAF to force the issue and SCOTUS will have to hear it.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-11-2019, 1:14 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Except they wouldn't. Because that one judges ruling would be overturned at the Circuit Court, including the stay. Just like what has and will happen with the Magazine ban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by selfshrevident View Post
This. Too many younger judges are concerned about climbing up the ladder. You get an old bull that DGAF to force the issue and SCOTUS will have to hear it.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-11-2019, 1:56 PM
MindBuilder MindBuilder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't get this argument that the NFA is only exercising the taxing power. Yea, part of it is a tax, but it also requires permission and denies some the right to possess even if they're willing to pay the tax. What is it, you have to get a background check and permission from the local LEO to pay a tax?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-11-2019, 2:45 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 877
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

It's pretty clear that there is a belief in SCOTUS' consensus that not every aspect of 2A requires a judicial fix. NFA/GCA is easily (enough) amended in the Legislative or regulated by the Executive, and there is where they believe the fix(es) lies. After NYSRPA we may have another opening to redefine parts of those two laws, but I would predict that the court is going to be an obstruction to breaking down those "long-standing" laws, more so than they will help remove them.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-11-2019, 2:57 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,826
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by selfshrevident View Post
This. Too many younger judges are concerned about climbing up the ladder. You get an old bull that DGAF to force the issue and SCOTUS will have to hear it.
Most of the challenges to the NFA that I'm aware of have been Leeroy Jenkins style criminal court challenges. Not good. That includes this Kettler case.

Someone needs to find the most sympathetic judges possible and file civil cases asking for an injunction forcing the BATF to register new MGs. It just takes one judge to do it... and there are plenty of people out there (including me), including some judges, who think the Hughes Amendment is a violation of the RKBA and the 10th amendment.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:58 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.