• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Supreme Court to rule on US Army vet’s ‘unconstitutional’ gun suppressor this week after national controversy

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,313
Likes
25,238
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#1

Aurumag

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,676
Likes
11,964
Location
State of Jefferson
#2
This is a vital state's rights case.

I wonder how RBG will vote?

"...

The suppressors were stamped with “Made in Kansas,” and both Kettler and Cox argued that they were acting in accordance with Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act.

Kettler noted this point in his appeals, arguing that the NFA was “an invalid exercise of Congress’ power to tax.” His lawyers argued that the tax only exists as a form of gun control.

..."

An armed society is a polite society, and polite shooters use suppressors.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,313
Likes
25,238
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#4
This is a vital state's rights case.

I wonder how RBG will vote?

"...

The suppressors were stamped with “Made in Kansas,” and both Kettler and Cox argued that they were acting in accordance with Kansas’ Second Amendment Protection Act.

Kettler noted this point in his appeals, arguing that the NFA was “an invalid exercise of Congress’ power to tax.” His lawyers argued that the tax only exists as a form of gun control.

..."

An armed society is a polite society, and polite shooters use suppressors.
CASE AT SUPREME COURT CHALLENGES LEGITIMACY OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/01/1...enges-legitimacy-of-the-national-firearms-act
 

Aurumag

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,676
Likes
11,964
Location
State of Jefferson
#5
Bumping this thread, as it is a vital topic and worthy of attention.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
35,163
Likes
47,622
#6
The 46-page petition to the high court argues that the NFA, which was adopted in 1934, is unconstitutional and that it is, in essence, a money-losing tax that produces no revenue for the government while effectively criminalizing the devices it controls. Pointing that the taxes charged on the making and transfer of items such as suppressors are only collected by federal firearm regulators and not by the IRS, and that similar failures to pay a $200 tax due to the IRS would not produce a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, Kettler’s attorneys argue that the NFA is, in fact, a regulatory scheme.

“In other words, the purpose of this requirement is purely gun control, not tax collection,” says the filing before going on to contend, “The $200 ‘tax’ is just the hook by which the government continues to claim that the NFA is a tax, instead of what it so obviously has become — unconstitutional gun control.”
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
16,111
Likes
29,196
Location
ORYGUN
#7
I just thought that I would add this little ditty.
Interestingly, federal law demands that you do not remove the "silencer" on you vehicle !
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,313
Likes
25,238
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#8

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,292
Likes
10,358
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#9
The 46-page petition to the high court argues that the NFA, which was adopted in 1934, is unconstitutional and that it is, in essence, a money-losing tax that produces no revenue for the government while effectively criminalizing the devices it controls.
That was a common gov "MO" in those days. It's the same way the Harrison Act works and how they made the weed "illegal" the first time.
Ie: by taxing it into oblivion.
 

hammerhead

Morphing
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,790
Likes
9,187
Location
On a speck of dust
#10
The 46-page petition to the high court argues that the NFA, which was adopted in 1934, is unconstitutional and that it is, in essence, a money-losing tax that produces no revenue for the government while effectively criminalizing the devices it controls. Pointing that the taxes charged on the making and transfer of items such as suppressors are only collected by federal firearm regulators and not by the IRS, and that similar failures to pay a $200 tax due to the IRS would not produce a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, Kettler’s attorneys argue that the NFA is, in fact, a regulatory scheme.

“In other words, the purpose of this requirement is purely gun control, not tax collection,” says the filing before going on to contend, “The $200 ‘tax’ is just the hook by which the government continues to claim that the NFA is a tax, instead of what it so obviously has become — unconstitutional gun control.”
Is this any different from Oblabla care?
 

oldgaranddad

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
4,913
Likes
8,564
Location
On the top shelf.
#11
I think attacking the act on a purely revenue question is genius.

Congress was given the power to tax to provide funds for the government. Money losing taxes are by their own accord are unconstitutional since they offer the government no revenue benefit.

Add to the fact that the IRS was cut out of the whole process too, only counts against the government. Other forms of taxes collected by other agencies like Border and Customs involve the IRS and Treasury Department.

Seeing how the SCOTUS did legal gymnastics to allow Obama-Care means that anything is possible. Again, I think Roberts will be the swing vote and we all know he's been leaning against the constitution.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,313
Likes
25,238
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#12
Well there ya go.... SCOTUS announced that it demurred to decide the case on suppressors & the constitutional legitimacy of the NFA. Looks like the constitutionality of the NFA will be decided by the States & the people, not the People.
 

oldgaranddad

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
4,913
Likes
8,564
Location
On the top shelf.
#14
Well there ya go.... SCOTUS announced that it demurred to decide the case on suppressors & the constitutional legitimacy of the NFA. Looks like the constitutionality of the NFA will be decided by the States & the people, not the People.
They punted and decided to kick the can down the road. Cowards. Plain and simple.