User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:01:29 PM EDT
ICYMI, the Dept of Justice filed their delayed brief in Kettler vs US. This is the case from Kansas where they passed the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act saying locally made NFA items were OK. Kettler (a retired veteran) bought a locally made suppressor from a gun store based on that assurance, and then the ATF dropped a ton of felony charges on Kettler.
The Feds ended up dropping most of the charges but Kettler got stuck with a felony and probation, so he appealed to SCOTUS. He challenged the entire NFA tax structure as unconstitutional and not an actual tax but just a mechanism of control. It's probably one of the best NFA cases in a long time. Specifically, the DoJ is arguing at taxpayer expense: 1. Suppressors are not covered by the Second Amendment. This is the big one that got my attention. 
As the court of appeals correctly determined, a silencer is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions on silencers “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.” First, the court of appeals held that petitioner was not exercising his Second Amendment rights when he bought and possessed an unregistered silencer. “Silencers” “are even more dangerous and unusual than machine guns *** and are less common than either short-barreled shotguns or machine guns.”)
Second, the court of appeals expressly declined to consider the limits of the government’s authority to tax the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Given the court’s “conclusion that the Second Amendment [does not cover] silencers,” the court determined that “this appeal isn’t the right vehicle to test that approach.” 4. The fact that the ATF and not the IRS administer the NFA 'tax' doesn't matter. 5. They throw the Hughes amendment under the bus as well, even though that is a related abuse of the NFA "tax". Fourth, petitioner observes (Pet. 16-17) that, since Sonzinsky, Congress has enacted a separate statutory provision (not challenged here) that limits the possession of some machineguns. This case, however, involves silencers, not machineguns. Petitioner fails to explain how Congress’s enactment of restrictions on the posses-sion of one item affectsthe constitutionality of a tax on the transfer of a different item. See United States v. Copus, 93F.3d 269, 276 (7th Cir. 1996) (rejecting the
10argument that the enactment of the machinegun restrictions “has undermined the constitutional basis of the taxation and registration requirements” applicable to silencers). Finally, petitioner complains(Pet. 12)that the National Firearms Act imposes “onerous” registration requirements. The Constitution, however, grants Congress broad authority to enact laws that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its enumerated powers, includingthe power to tax. U.S. Const.Art. I, § 8, Cl. 18. And this Court has held that the Act’s “registration provisions” “are obviously supportable as in aid of” the tax provisions. 
Why the f are they even trying to block cert? Kettler should get to argue this at SCOTUS. Remind me again why Trump got the gun vote when people under his command are making statements like this?! You can read the whole DoJ brief here, try not to gag: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-936/98723/20190506173902642_18-936%20Kettler.pdf Also there is an amazing amicus brief by a pro 2A non-profit which spells out exactly why the NFA tax is wrong. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-936/88832/20190219144956757_18-936%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf More case docs at https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C18-936.html IANAL so I don't know when we will find out if Kettler gets cert or just gets screwed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:03:25 PM EDT
[#1]
If suppressors aren’t weapons, then in what fucking universe are they more dangerous than a weapon?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:08:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If suppressors aren't weapons, then in what fucking universe are they more dangerous than a weapon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:11:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe they're weapons by definition here in the US. Why else would I have to fill out a 4473 every time I buy one?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:12:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If suppressors aren’t weapons, then in what fucking universe are they more dangerous than a weapon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:13:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe they're weapons by definition here in the US. Why else would I have to fill out a 4473 every time I buy one? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If suppressors aren't weapons, then in what fucking universe are they more dangerous than a weapon? As the court of appeals correctly determined, a silencer is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions on silencers “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:15:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Suppressors are less common than either SBS or machineguns? That doesn't sound right to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:17:24 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Suppressors are less common than either SBS or machineguns? That doesn't sound right to me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:17:49 PM EDT
[#8]
If he can direct the ATF to legislate by regulation, he can direct the DOJ in the same manner....
It's pretty clear where he stands on this deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:18:06 PM EDT
[#9]
Tag for more info. I know a guy who knows these guys. It would be nice if they win but might take a couple more new supremes to have a chance.
Not enough of the court “conservatives” are really conservative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:18:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Suppressors are less common than either SBS or machineguns? That doesn't sound right to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:20:23 PM EDT
[#11]
a magazine is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions ... “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.”
a barrel is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions ... “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.” a trigger is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions ... “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.” a bolt is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions ... “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.” With this logic, you could effectively ban guns by banning every part a gun is made up of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:20:29 PM EDT
[#12]
There's a lot of wanting to have it both ways in that POS brief.
Claiming a suppressor is less common than a SBS or machinegun though? LOL. I know 5 people with at least one suppressor for every one I know with an MG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:22:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If suppressors aren’t weapons, then in what fucking universe are they more dangerous than a weapon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:24:34 PM EDT
[#14]
Did whomever authored that brief even read the law they're trying to defend?
18 U.S. Code §?921 (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:25:22 PM EDT
[#15]
I'm tired of MAGA
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:26:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Suppressors aren't common? What a crock. Got a brief tour of Silencer Shop a few years ago and at that time they were transferring about 100 every day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:28:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did whomever authored that brief even read the law they're trying to defend? 18 U.S. Code §?921 (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:28:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did whomever authored that brief even read the law they're trying to defend? 18 U.S. Code §?921 (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. What the fuck are they doing here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:31:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Suppressors aren't common? What a crock. Got a brief tour of Silencer Shop a few years ago and at that time they were transferring about 100 every day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:32:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If suppressors aren’t weapons, then in what fucking universe are they more dangerous than a weapon? Someone please tell me how a tube with crap inside is dangerous in and of itself? Last I recall there were something like 250k transferable MG's. How many Form 4 and Form1 cans are there. Maybe I am crazy but I would have to think it is more than 250k. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:33:39 PM EDT
[#21]
Justice Thomas would love that case.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:33:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When its a leftist gov't official wanting something, the previous laws they've written don't matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Francisco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Benczkowski Pretty damn infuriating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:34:17 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was my immediate thought. How can it be both. Someone please tell me how a tube with crap inside is dangerous in and of itself? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:34:26 PM EDT
[#24]
News flash, the federal government sucks. Story at 11.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:35:36 PM EDT
[#25]
Wow, that's a lot of lies and contradictions in one document.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:36:47 PM EDT
[#26]
The government is arguing both sides of the fence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:38:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
News flash, the federal government sucks. Story at 11. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:39:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If suppressors aren’t weapons, then in what fucking universe are they more dangerous than a weapon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:40:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Suppressors are less common than either SBS or machineguns? That doesn't sound right to me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 5:42:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
a magazine is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions ... “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.” a barrel is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions ... “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.” a trigger is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions ... “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.” a bolt is neither a weapon nor an “armour of defence,” and restrictions ... “don’t materially burden” one’s ability to use a gun for “self-defense.” With this logic, you could effectively ban guns by banning every part a gun is made up of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 6:17:48 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The government is arguing both sides of the fence. State AG's for Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah actually filed a brief in support of Kettler, as previously noted in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:00:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Also there is an amazing amicus brief by a pro 2A non-profit which spells out exactly why the NFA tax is wrong. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-936/88832/20190219144956757_18-936%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:08:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Doesn't matter what logic you use.
Federal government wants to restrict the liberties and capabilities of the people. Republican or Democrat they will keep advancing this agenda. The State wants to win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:17:26 PM EDT
[#34]
The war on the second amendment is “over...”
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:17:34 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't matter what logic you use. Federal government wants to restrict the liberties and capabilities of the people. Republican or Democrat they will keep advancing this agenda. The State wants to win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:18:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Accessories to firearms by rights should be COMPLETELY unregulated and out of the scope of all firearms laws.
The only exception should be that the usage of an accessory, attached to a firearm, in the commission of a crime, should be a compounding factor for calculating the punishment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:25:15 PM EDT
[#37]
I wish a handicapped, gay, female, mixed race person was suing to make it legal. Mine is a paperweight with a hole through it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:27:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Suppressors aren't a weapon(firearm) according to law?
SBSs and MGs are more common and less-deadly than suppressors? Lol Fuck the DoJ and the rest of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:27:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If suppressors aren’t weapons, then in what fucking universe are they more dangerous than a weapon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:29:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe they're weapons by definition here in the US. Why else would I have to fill out a 4473 every time I buy one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:30:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Suppressors are less common than either SBS or machineguns? That doesn't sound right to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:31:10 PM EDT
[#42]
They may be including .gov owned machine guns when they say there are more machine guns and SBR's than silencers.
I imagine if you add up all of the fed gov machine guns, there are a ton of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:31:27 PM EDT
[#43]
this is why I fucking HATE the motherfucking cunt government. FUCKING HATE. Those dick licking ass fucking dribbling nose nutless fucking assholes. FUCK!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:32:20 PM EDT
[#44]
President Trump will make this right, he supports the second amendment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:32:25 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
this is why I fucking HATE the motherfucking cunt government. FUCKING HATE. Those dick licking ass fucking dribbling nose nutless fucking assholes. FUCK! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:32:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did whomever authored that brief even read the law they're trying to defend? 18 U.S. Code §?921 (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:34:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Tagged.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:38:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
President Trump will make this right, he supports the second amendment. November 3, 2016 - January 20, 2017 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:39:22 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did whomever authored that brief even read the law they're trying to defend? 18 U.S. Code §?921 (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2019 7:41:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
this is why I fucking HATE the motherfucking cunt government. FUCKING HATE. Those dick licking ass fucking dribbling nose nutless fucking assholes. FUCK! These are just legal arguments. The fact that these are the best arguments they can make....is good. It means they don't have a stronger argument or they don't understand the law they are dealing with well enough to know that a suppressor, due to the law itself, is a firearm. That's just one example. So yeah, this is just a lawyer's arguments. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
