Other State Kansas: Veteran charged as Felon over state ruling against NFA ruling.

[E4mafia]

Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court | GOA News - Published Jan 15 2019

https://gunowners.org/images/Kettler-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf - GOA's petition to the SCOTUS

https://gunowners.org/images//Kettler-Appendix-Final.pdf
From the article:

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."

Ok to get around federal law with weed but not with a suppressor.

Read More

 

[Lilhigbee]

Montana already went there, and lost.
Supreme Court declines to hear Montana gun case

 

[Geardo]

Poor stupid bastard. Don't post your backwoods NFA items on Zuckbook people! .gov helped fund Facebook. It is their to spy on you.

 

[CountryGent]

The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called "tax."

Indeed. NFA was illegitimate crap 85 years ago and it is even more absurd now. Alas, the accused is completely screwed.

 

[E4mafia]

Indeed. NFA was illegitimate crap 85 years ago and it is even more absurd now. Alas, the accused is completely screwed.

As a vet its pretty sad to see a fellow brother in arms go down because of uncertainty between state/fed laws. Truth be told I am certain others have fallen for this too not knowing any better for other reasons. What a shame, especially sad that someone can use a gun in a crime and walk the next day on bail knowingly committing a felony with intent or is a repeat felon but a guy acting under a state law is immediately made an example of.

 

[Mooseman]

The Civil War was fought over States rights....

 

[gryghin]

The Civil War was fought over States rights....

True Story...

Everyone thinks it was just about slavery, it wasn't... slavery was part of it.

It was the right of the Federal law over all of the States.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Indeed; Montana went to court and lost to the Feds.. the Court decided that
1) the Federals by way of BATFE have sole authority to regulate firearms and items covered under their regulations ...
And
2) the States do not have the authority to subvert nor contradict Federal laws


But here is a potential SCOTUS fly in the ointment...

1) the Appeals Courts, whichever ones.. have indeed ruled that various States can restrict, regulate, and ban certain firearms and accessories (see California, MD, CT, MAssuss, and so on) and the

2) interpretation that the Federals do not have sole authority regarding regulations of firearms not specifically covered under their regulations
Pretty hard to argue that rifles, shotguns, pistols, and any other "firearms" are "not specifically covered under the Federal regulations" when they are defined and regulated as such, and the BATFE goes after people for violations of these regulations

Edit. The fly in the ointment is...
1) the Fed have sole regulationary authority of firearms; otherwise why have a Federal BG check and FFL system
Or
2) the Feds don't. Otherwise, Montana, Kansas, and other States should be allowed to pass and enforce their laws, the same as California, Maryland, Massassusuchett(spelling?), Oregon, Washington, Connecticutt (spelling?) and Colorado

 

[RicInOR]

So, the owners of the "surplus store" are they doing hard time?

Cause if I want one, I have to apply for a licence and wait, and wait and wait, before I can pick it up. So the seller is checking.

 

[jbett98]

Doesn't Idaho's governor promotes building your own suppressor and not applying for a tax stamp as long as you don't take it out of state.

 

[surevaliance]

Masters don't want their [wage] slaves to be completely unchained?
What's new?

Poor stupid bastard. Don't post your backwoods NFA items on Zuckbook people! .gov helped fund Facebook. It is their to spy on you.

I wonder how many of non essential creatures are here right now, reading this thread?

 

[bbbass]

True Story...

Everyone thinks it was just about slavery, it wasn't... slavery was part of it.

It was the right of the Federal law over all of the States.

And economics.

 

[Alexx1401]

I did not read the links but I know if it was me I would have been far more careful. I have never heard of NFA items that you did not need the stamp for. Ditto to the poster asking about the shop that sold the damn thing. How are they not in the hot seat too?

 

[User 1234]

Indeed; Montana went to court and lost to the Feds.. the Court decided that
1) the Federals by way of BATFE have sole authority to regulate firearms and items covered under their regulations ...
And
2) the States do not have the authority to subvert nor contradict Federal laws


But here is a potential SCOTUS fly in the ointment...

1) the Appeals Courts, whichever ones.. have indeed ruled that various States can restrict, regulate, and ban certain firearms and accessories (see California, MD, CT, MAssuss, and so on) and the

2) interpretation that the Federals do not have sole authority regarding regulations of firearms not specifically covered under their regulations
Pretty hard to argue that rifles, shotguns, pistols, and any other "firearms" are "not specifically covered under the Federal regulations" when they are defined and regulated as such, and the BATFE goes after people for violations of these regulations

Edit. The fly in the ointment is...
1) the Fed have sole regulationary authority of firearms; otherwise why have a Federal BG check and FFL system
Or
2) the Feds don't. Otherwise, Montana, Kansas, and other States should be allowed to pass and enforce their laws, the same as California, Maryland, Massassusuchett(spelling?), Oregon, Washington, Connecticutt (spelling?) and Colorado

This is not quite correct. Both states and the federal government can regulate firearms. States cannot nullify a federal statute. The federal constitution can invalidate a federal statute. There are lawsuits where states have obtained court orders invalidating a federal statute, but they based their arguments on the federal constitution, not their own state law.

 

[User 1234]

This defendant was unfortunately gullible.

 

[Mooseman]

The Problem is The Authority of The Federal Government is actually limited by the Constitution. They have the Power to Tax and Regulate "Interstate Commerce" , they are Not supposed to regulate "IN State Commerce". They Have used Liberal Judges to skirt this authority using legal mumbo Jumbo by claiming "well, the raw materials Moved interstate " or " the parts Moved interstate or Internationally" and with lawyers writing laws that can be interpreted in Several ways the whole system is flawed and will remain as such until The Supreme Court gets cases and does Rulings.
Classifying a Suppressor as a Firearm has always been a Classic example... it is NOT a firearm , it is an Accessory , and yet it has never been officially challenged in The Courts.

 

[CamoDeafie]

This is not quite correct. Both states and the federal government can regulate firearms. States cannot nullify a federal statute. The federal constitution can invalidate a federal statute. There are lawsuits where states have obtained court orders invalidating a federal statute, but they based their arguments on the federal constitution, not their own state law.

I was referring to the decision brought by Ninth Circuit Court against Montana's Firearm Freedom Act 2008; that Court determined that Federal regulations preempted the Montana law, and that the Feds have authority to regulate the firearms in Montana that are covered under NFA regulations . This means that States cannot expect to subvert nor contradict Federal regulations pertaining specific firearms (those specific being under the NFA regulations), to my understanding.

 

[User 1234]

The part of your post I was disagreeing with was the statement that states cannot firearms if the federal government also regulates that firearm.

 

[Member 34319]

Meanwhile Pot is federally illegal and state legal.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

States only get to circumvent federal law on items that the furor sees fit.

 

[BillM]

The various states have been using the "regulate interstate transportation thereof" part of the
NFA to pass laws that "what happens in xxxx stays in xxxx". The rest of the original NFA dealt with taxation. Did they charge him with attempting to evade a $200 tax???

June 26, 1934.

[H.B.9741.] To provide for the taxation of manufacturers, importers, and dealers in certain
[Public, No. 474.] firearms and machine guns, to tax the sale or other disposal of such weapons,
and to restrict importation and regulate interstate transportation thereof.