Kettler v US, Kansas law protecting intrastate firearms vs NFA conviction

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Can you put this is some layman’s perspective, and splain?

    Kansas has a law saying you're exempt from the NFA if you make, buy, and possess your NFA-listed items inside the state of Kansas. Mr Kettler bought a suppressor from a dealer without paying the $200 tax, then filmed himself using it and posted the video on the internet. He was convicted in federal court of failing to abide by the NFA. Now he's asking the Supreme Court:
    1. If the NFA is a constitutional exercise of the taxing power

    2. If the 2A protects suppressors

    3. If NFA taxes violate precedents against taxes on civil rights.

    His petition is extremely broad, there's no split with other circuits over the topic, and he should have taken the Thompson-Center approach (pay the tax, then sue for a refund) to avoid being a felon if he failed.
     

    Elliotte

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 11, 2011
    1,207
    Loudoun County VA
    Reading the cert petition it spends a lot of text addressing NFA from a taxing standpoint (as it was enacted under Congress's taxing powers) and does a good job IMO of taking down all the justifications as a tax.
     

    Decoy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 2, 2007
    4,926
    Dystopia
    Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court


     

    Rob R.

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2016
    771
    Harford Co
    Would you look at that yet another case the GOA steps up and fights for us. Meanwhile the NRA’s picture is on the back of a milk jug no where to be found
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    SG's office requests extension for their reply from 19 February to 21 March due to heavy press coverage of the responsible attorney's other cases.
     

    delaware_export

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 10, 2018
    3,143
    Every time I see this post I ask myself how this is different than the ruling on legal gambling? Or even pot where legalized by state?

    My laymen’s understanding of gambling is that if the state had no laws against gambling the feds couldn’t prohibit gambling. Ditto pot. And the feds are not out arresting anyone for pot or gambling in the places that recently went with state not prohibiting.

    Aside from the BUT BUT BUT it’s guns, what am I missing here?

    If the tax argument, for suppressors, ok. But the tax is irrelevant on FA after ‘86 as new manufacture can’t happen so there is not tax authority.

    Isn’t the at what the judge said about the Obama care thing recently. With The tax removed by no enforcement so the law is unconstitutional?
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Solicitor General's brief in opposition uploaded today.

    Docket

    Questions presented
    1. Whether the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.
    5801 et seq., exceeds Congress’s taxing power under Ar-
    ticle I of the Constitution.
    2. Whether the Second Amendment guarantees a
    right to possess firearm silencers.
    3. Whether the district court plainly erred by hold-
    ing that the National Firearms Act’s tax on firearms silencers is constitutional.
     

    Starquest88

    Member
    Feb 26, 2019
    4
    Does anyone smart on here have an idea of how this case might go now that we've seen arguments from both sides?
     

    Not_an_outlaw

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 26, 2013
    4,679
    Prince Frederick, MD
    Kansas has a law saying you're exempt from the NFA if you make, buy, and possess your NFA-listed items inside the state of Kansas. Mr Kettler bought a suppressor from a dealer without paying the $200 tax, then filmed himself using it and posted the video on the internet. He was convicted in federal court of failing to abide by the NFA. Now he's asking the Supreme Court:
    1. If the NFA is a constitutional exercise of the taxing power

    2. If the 2A protects suppressors

    3. If NFA taxes violate precedents against taxes on civil rights.

    His petition is extremely broad, there's no split with other circuits over the topic, and he should have taken the Thompson-Center approach (pay the tax, then sue for a refund) to avoid being a felon if he failed.

    Then he wouldn't have standing IAW our courts! (Sarcasm)
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    As a non-attorney, I thought the argument made perfect sense. If suppressors had been invented after 1971, OSHA would require them to be included with every gun sold. SBRs are supposed to be “bad” because they make guns shorter. By that logic, suppressors should make guns safer.
     

    Elliotte

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 11, 2011
    1,207
    Loudoun County VA
    As a non-attorney, I thought the argument made perfect sense. If suppressors had been invented after 1971, OSHA would require them to be included with every gun sold. SBRs are supposed to be “bad” because they make guns shorter. By that logic, suppressors should make guns safer.

    SBRs & SBSs were put in the NFA b/c the writers of the NFA also had handguns on there originally. They were trying to outright ban as many firearms types as possible.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,214
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom