Supreme Court punts again on silencers

[Saltwater60]

Supreme Court rejects challenges to silencer laws

I’m starting to think even the republicans are useless. Been thinking this for a while now. You’d think with what the dems did to Kavannaugh the conservative justices would be out for at least a little bit of revenge. Guess not.
Supreme Court rejects challenges to silencer laws

 

[GOPerfect]

Curious, why would they take the case?

Anyone actually read this particular case?

Or just complaining to complain?

 

[Edwardteach72]

Curious, why would they take the case?

Anyone actually read this particular case?

Or just complaining to complain?

The case had to do with Kansas passing a law saying that Federal gun restrictions are no longer valid or enforceable within the state, specifically the NFA as long as the item was manufactured, and sold, and stayed within the state by and to state residents.

Well one man manufactured a suppressor and sold it to another dude who (I think there was 3 total arrests) was the arrested by the ATF for an illegal unregistered suppressor.

The case was being brought up to challange the legality of the NFA

 

[GOPerfect]

The case had to do with Kansas passing a law saying that Federal gun restrictions are no longer valid or enforceable within the state, specifically the NFA as long as the item was manufactured, and sold, and stayed within the state by and to state residents.

Well one man manufactured a suppressor and sold it to another dude who (I think there was 3 total arrests) was the arrested by the ATF for an illegal unregistered suppressor.

The case was being brought up to challange the legality of the NFA

I know this, did you read the entire case? Not all cases deemed to be a violation are good enough to bring to the highest court.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I know this, did you read the entire case? Not all cases deemed to be a violation are good enough to bring to the highest court.

Agreed.

I also am not keen on having judges operating from a position of wanting to extract "revenge"; that's not part of the job description (not saying you said that, GOP, just reacting to the earlier post).

 

[Edwardteach72]

I know this, did you read the entire case? Not all cases deemed to be a violation are good enough to bring to the highest court.

Yes and I get that. But it goes to show how little the 2A is actually thought about when it comes to this court.

I hate bringing this stupid case up but cake and gays That was snagged up by SCOTUS almost immediately, this guy was arrested and charged a while ago

 

[Edwardteach72]

Agreed.

I also am not keen on having judges operating from a position of wanting to extract "revenge"; that's not part of the job description (not saying you said that, GOP, just reacting to the earlier post).

I did not understand that individuals comment nor did I like it tbh. I am actually much happier so see that the young justice is conducting his business in a very professional manner instead if "exacting revenge"

 

[BDinPutnam]

In fairness. Ed, the issues presented in Masterpiece Cakeshop were more universal and pressing than the constitutionality or lack thereof for NFA. JMHO.

 

[Edwardteach72]

In fairness. Ed, the issues presented in Masterpiece Cakeshop were more universal and pressing than the constitutionality or lack thereof for NFA. JMHO.

I mean are they though? The whole NFA was established to keep arms out of peoples hands by taxing them so much that the common person would not be able to afford such items, the stamp was 200 back in the 30s so about the same as almost $4,000 today.

Suppressors were chosen for the list because game wardens were worried that people would poach animals to survive during the great depression. And are still on there because reasons.

I cant remember the number if states that allow items like suppressors to be owned but it's a large portion of the 50, thus affecting a large portion of the population.

But as for the cake case, that ended with a narrow decision that was very specific as to not affect a lot of other things

 

[Saltwater60]

I mean are they though? The whole NFA was established to keep arms out of peoples hands by taxing them so much that the common person would not be able to afford such items, the stamp was 200 back in the 30s so about the same as almost $4,000 today.

Suppressors were chosen for the list because game wardens were worried that people would poach animals to survive during the great depression. And are still on there because reasons.

I cant remember the number if states that allow items like suppressors to be owned but it's a large portion of the 50, thus affecting a large portion of the population.

But as for the cake case, that ended with a narrow decision that was very specific as to not affect a lot of other things

Not trying to be a jerk, but passing a law and making firearm related items unaffordable for people because some one might commit the crime of poaching is not a valid reason to pass a law or regulation.
I did not read the case and maybe it has merits and maybe it doesn’t, but I’m sick of the SC punting on all these cases and leaving us to the wolves. That was my point. This spurs other states on to pass stupid laws that may or may not infringe on our rights.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Not trying to be a jerk, but passing a law and making firearm related items unaffordable for people because some one might commit the crime of poaching is not a valid reason to pass a law or regulation.
I did not read the case and maybe it has merits and maybe it doesn’t, but I’m sick of the SC punting on all these cases and leaving us to the wolves. That was my point. This spurs other states on to pass stupid laws that may or may not infringe on our rights.

I didn't say it was a valid reason, just a bit of history. This was why the Heller ruling was able to "not cover" NFA items because they are "dangerous and unusual".

And as BD mentioned unlike the cake case this seems to affect less people, and I was pointing out that when you regulate something to the point where the common person can afford to own it then turn around and say oh well look here we are in 1990something/2019 and boy look not that many people own suppressors we should just consider them unusual vs commonly owned things

 

[BDinPutnam]

@Edwardteach72 I agree with you on general principle which is why I think Masterpiece Cake was, at the time, a more important case for the Court to take on. It is far easier to prevent going down the slippery slope (Masterpiece) than it is to climb back up it (NFA).

Doesn't mean both government actions dont suck and shouldnt be corrected.

 

[Marine Cpl]

@nortatoga , I’m guessing that you are finally seeing what is really happening with that ridiculous Heller ruling in your signature or you just cannot comprehend what you are reading.

 

[spat]

Yes and I get that. But it goes to show how little the 2A is actually thought about when it comes to this court.

I hate bringing this stupid case up but cake and gays That was snagged up by SCOTUS almost immediately, this guy was arrested and charged a while ago

The way this case was structured it wasn't really a 2A case.

It was a "how far does the commerce clause really go" case.

The argument wasn't that the 2A covers suppressors, it was that the feds can't regulate something that doesn't travel in interstate commerce.

 

[Edwardteach72]

The way this case was structured it wasn't really a 2A case.

It was a "how far does the commerce clause really go" case.

The argument wasn't that the 2A covers suppressors, it was that the feds can't regulate something that doesn't travel in interstate commerce.

But challenging it on the commerce clause was challenging the validity of the NFA and what its "intent" was by charging a tax to exercise a right

 

[spat]

But challenging it on the commerce clause was challenging the validity of the NFA and what its "intent" was by charging a tax to exercise a right

yes, but not by claiming the NFA violated the 2A.

If they had taken this case, and ruled in our favor you still wouldn't have been able to order a suppressor from anywhere out of state without paying the tax and registering it.

 

[Edwardteach72]

yes, but not by claiming the NFA violated the 2A.

If they had taken this case, and ruled in our favor you still wouldn't have been able to order a suppressor from anywhere out of state without paying the tax and registering it.

No but it would have been the first step in invalidating the NFA

 

[nortatoga]

@nortatoga , I’m guessing that you are finally seeing what is really happening with that ridiculous Heller ruling in your signature or you just cannot comprehend what you are reading.

Could you point out where Heller challenged the NFA?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Could you point out where Heller challenged the NFA?

I guess it was a reading comprehension issue.

 

[nortatoga]

I guess it was a reading comprehension issue.

Sorry Will it is you who don't understand what you are reading! Stay the fool.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Sorry Will it is you who don't understand what you are reading! Stay the fool.

I guess you still can’t see it. Reread Edward’s post on Heller.

 

[Defilade]

The Trump administration had also urged the court not to take up the issue.

^^^^^^^ This is what is disturbing to say the least. So it was such a priority that they had to urge the S.C. not to take the case? For what reason???

 

[BDinPutnam]

^^^^^^^ This is what is disturbing to say the least. So it was such a priority that they had to urge the S.C. not to take the case? For what reason???

Because continuing the long line of the imperial presidency which stretches back to Woodrow Wilson requires the 10th amendment be as much of a second class right as the second amendment itself.

 

[Bustedknees]

^^^^^^^ This is what is disturbing to say the least. So it was such a priority that they had to urge the S.C. not to take the case? For what reason???

Afraid to open Pandora's box !! If the case was won , it would mean giving a state legal right to negate a federal law ??

 

[Edwardteach72]

Afraid to open Pandora's box !! If the case was won , it would mean giving a state legal right to negate a federal law ??

And trump doesnt want that any more than any other fed

 

[Edwardteach72]

Afraid to open Pandora's box !! If the case was won , it would mean giving a state legal right to negate a federal law ??

And trump doesnt want that any more than any other fed

 

[Darth]

And trump doesnt want that any more than any other fed

Drain the swap?

 

[BDinPutnam]

Drain the swap?

Drain the swap meet! Make your local gun club great again!

 

[spat]

Afraid to open Pandora's box !! If the case was won , it would mean giving a state legal right to negate a federal law ??

It would have negated a lot more than the NFA.

Drugs would be the biggest immediate impact. Would have eliminated all federal drug laws about anything that didn't travel interstate.

A lot of other stuff that the feds consider their domain would have gotten nuked too.

It's too bad we couldn't have gotten a coalition of all the groups that want the feds to leave stuff alone together on this.