Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws

Chester Copperpot

TCGs Far Right Leader
Donating Member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
29,832
Reaction score
800
Location
Shithole, IL
This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws

The federal trial of a Kansas man for manufacturing and selling firearms and silencers without a federal license could very well turn out to be the pivotal case that not only challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, but also every federal firearms law ever passed in a battle that will determine whether it is the states or the federal government that has the constitutional right to pass gun laws.

Put bluntly, this could be huge.

When Shane Cox began selling his homemade firearms and silencers out of his military surplus store, he stamped “Made in Kansas” on them to assure buyers that a Kansas law would prevent federal prosecution of anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state.

The 45-year-old Chanute resident also handed out copies to customers of the Second Amendment Protection Act passed in 2013 by the Kansas Legislature and signed by Gov. Sam Brownback, and even collected sales taxes. His biggest selling item was unregistered gun silencers that were flying out of the shop as fast as Cox could make them, prosecutors said later. One of those customers – 28-year-old Jeremy Kettler of Chanute – was so enthusiastic about the silencer that he posted a video on Facebook.

But last week a jury found Cox guilty of violating federal law for the manufacture, sale and possession of unregistered firearms and silencers. Kettler was found guilty on one count for possessing the unregistered silencer.

The case could reverberate across the country because it cites the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, pitting the federal government’s right to regulate firearms against the rights of states. The judge overseeing the case expects it ultimately to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

At trial, defense attorneys contended their clients believed the Kansas law made their activities legal, arguing they are “caught in the crossfire” of the struggle between the state and the federal government over gun control.

Cox and Kettler were convicted under the National Firearms Act, which is a part of the Internal Revenue code enacted under Congress’ power to levy taxes. The case raises the question of whether that taxing authority can be used to regulate firearms that stay within state borders. Advocates for state’s rights also contend such guns do not fall under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
 

Primalzer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
25,261
Reaction score
24
Hmmmm, interesting. I'd assume federal law trumps state law (a la drugs; marijuana may be legal in the state, but it is still not legal federally, and you can still be convicted of the federal crime). I'd be curious of the outcome, because it does come down to state vs. federal government.

sub'd
 

importcrew

Forum Sponsor
TCG Sponsor
Donating Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
12,109
Reaction score
44
Location
Hampshire
And if state wins....A lot of things will be changing all over the place.
 

Flyn

Go ahead. I'll catch up.
Super Moderator
Donating Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
48,126
Reaction score
750
Location
Selling homes on the Gulf Coast of Florida
It will be interesting to follow the case.

If decided in the States' favor, it would create huge differences in weapons laws from State to State. Buy your own tank in Florida, lucky to get a .22 in Illinois.
 

Yaj Yak

Harbor Master
Donating Member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
90,618
Reaction score
1,631
i think it's that way already :rofl:
 

tinfoilhat

TCG Conspiracy Lead Investigator
Donating Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
39,174
Reaction score
1,285
Location
Riding the Hubble
If the state wins, federal law means jack shit state by state. If federal wins, state laws are regulated by federal law which goes against the Constitution.

Do you go against the Constitution or the Federal Government?

Currently Constitution is considered "#1”

That's the reason this is a big deal.
 

Mr_Roboto

Doing the jobs nobody wants to
Donating Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
12,751
Reaction score
573
Location
Joliet
If the state wins, federal law means jack shit state by state. If federal wins, state laws are regulated by federal law which goes against the Constitution.

Do you go against the Constitution or the Federal Government?

Currently Constitution is considered "#1”

That's the reason this is a big deal.
This exactly. The states will still not get rights to violate the US Constitution provided the courts strike shit down like Cali is doing.
 
OP
Chester Copperpot

Chester Copperpot

TCGs Far Right Leader
Donating Member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
29,832
Reaction score
800
Location
Shithole, IL
Technically federal law already violates the Constitution, we just haven't had a person or trust or corporation or whatever with endless amounts of money to challenge those laws straight to the top and then challenge the Supreme Court.

This was kind of a fluke but because of the "severity" of the charges, these guys are doing just that and it will go straight to the Supreme Court. We could see some big changes, or in typical US politics fashion, these guys will be given a plea bargain for a much, much, much less sentence as long as the government can maintain their power over the 2A.
 

BADAZZTEALCOBRA

Well-known member
Donating Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
22,520
Reaction score
1,486
Location
Streamwood
Hopefully Trump gets a pro 2A justice approved before it makes it to that point.
 

Ryan02Stang

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
10,541
Reaction score
606
Location
Mount Prospect
Guys...Trump will deliver on this one. We'll have a pro 2A judge in there ready to destroy gun laws!

 

Eagle

Nemo me impune lacessit
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
62,584
Reaction score
109
Location
Woodsticks, IL
I don't know how i feel about this actually. If no federal laws protect the constitutional rights granted by the 2A, then what if you live in an asshole of a state like IL?
 

VenomousDSG

Smells own farts
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
13,546
Reaction score
204
Location
Yorkville, il
Don't hold your breath on anything happening anytime soon. And don't hold your breath in liberal states like California, Illinois, or New York enforcing the law, even if it's federal law. They will do what they want.

You already have mayors like Emanuel and Deblasio outright saying they won't enforce any of Trump's upcoming immigration laws, and that Chicago and New York are "sanctuary cities" for illegals and parasite criminals.
 

tinfoilhat

TCG Conspiracy Lead Investigator
Donating Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
39,174
Reaction score
1,285
Location
Riding the Hubble
I don't know how i feel about this actually. If no federal laws protect the constitutional rights granted by the 2A, then what if you live in an asshole of a state like IL?
Exactly where I am too. Not sure how I would want this case to be won or what compromises/amendments may be brought forward from it. It will be interesting to keep an eye on.
 

Ryan02Stang

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
10,541
Reaction score
606
Location
Mount Prospect
If you plan on being in IL forever, just buy what you can, when you can. I don't see them ever coming to our homes to take things away...
 

Mr_Roboto

Doing the jobs nobody wants to
Donating Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
12,751
Reaction score
573
Location
Joliet
I don't know how i feel about this actually. If no federal laws protect the constitutional rights granted by the 2A, then what if you live in an asshole of a state like IL?
The issue is going to be interpretation I think. If you look at what the 2A comprises it theoretically is the low water mark of gun ownership rights in America. Anything that places more restrictions on gun ownership would fall under the Equal Protection Clause and therefore be unconstitutional. I could see a lot of shit from Heller getting fleshed out heavily in the next set of rulings. That could be good or bad.

The other question is how any such rulings get enforced. e.g. if California decides to enforce its mag ban without it being legal, do you cut funds, arrest prosecuting attorneys for contempt etc. It's in my mind possible them, NY, MA, MD or NJ could go full rogue in certain areas and flat out ignore rulings. IL may be in line with that but even compared to those states they're a lot more moderate barring certain areas. (mostly in crook county)
 

Eagle

Nemo me impune lacessit
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
62,584
Reaction score
109
Location
Woodsticks, IL
Only recently has IL loosened their laws. Don't forget what it looked like just 4 years ago.

Don't think for a second Cook Cty and Rahm wouldn't like to go back to that point given the chance.
 

Mr_Roboto

Doing the jobs nobody wants to
Donating Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
12,751
Reaction score
573
Location
Joliet
Only recently has IL loosened their laws. Don't forget what it looked like just 4 years ago.

Don't think for a second Cook Cty and Rahm wouldn't like to go back to that point given the chance.
There's truth to that, I think features could be at risk especially if pre-emption gets tampered with by the legislature but I think that the feds could easily rip the door off the hinges in Cook County and Hoffman Estates.
 

nytebyte

Not Politically Correct
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,920
Reaction score
439
The other question is how any such rulings get enforced. e.g. if California decides to enforce its mag ban without it being legal, do you cut funds, arrest prosecuting attorneys for contempt etc.
I think you absolutely should do that. Everyone needs to start treating the Constitution as the law of the land that it actually is, instead of just a mere suggestion.

Now that we have some momentum on our side, we need to get tough and protect our rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

On another note, I was watching the news the other day and they had a couple of lawyers on who were discussing how the government mandates that bakeries and invitation artists must create cakes and invitations for homo weddings. As a business, they must do it whether they like it or not as a matter of upholding first amendment rights of their customers.

So basically, the government has said that businesses can't discriminate against gays, blacks or anyone else as a matter of protecting the 1A.

Ok, so then why doesn't that apply to the second amendment as well? Businesses can't discriminate based on race or sex orientation, but it's OK to put a "no guns" sign on the front of your business and discriminate against gun owners.

How is this even remotely fair? It's a double standard.
The government needs to stop picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution it wants to uphold.
 

Stink Star Productions

Don’t Drive Angry!
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
12,325
Reaction score
247
Location
Big wood cock
I still have not heard one good reason suppressors are even NFA only, and banned in some states, other than of course the false assumption that it makes the gun only make a whisper "thwwwp" noise like in movies
 

bikrboy128

Some say.....
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
10,685
Reaction score
101
Location
Wheaton
So basically, the government has said that businesses can't discriminate against gays, blacks or anyone else as a matter of protecting the 1A.
I was under the impression that a business can refuse service, but i guess it gets tricky when it's refusal because of discrimination. then again i dont understand why a business would refuse money. unless gay money is somehow different?

I still have not heard one good reason suppressors are even NFA only, and banned in some states, other than of course the false assumption that it makes the gun only make a whisper "thwwwp" noise like in movies
because it makes the scary black glock an even bigger scary black glock that can kill in total silence. think of the children!
 

wlorton

Enginerd
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
3,066
Reaction score
6
Location
Naperthrill
I was under the impression that a business can refuse service, but i guess it gets tricky when it's refusal because of discrimination. then again i dont understand why a business would refuse money. unless gay money is somehow different?



because it makes the scary black glock an even bigger scary black glock that can kill in total silence. think of the children!
Can I business refuse to service a homeless man not knowing they can or cannot pay? I do know someone that lived out of a backpack for a time by choice....
 

Frostopsy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Can I business refuse to service a homeless man not knowing they can or cannot pay? I do know someone that lived out of a backpack for a time by choice....


No soup for you!
 

GenXisT

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
0
So basically, the government has said that businesses can't discriminate against gays, blacks or anyone else as a matter of protecting the 1A.

Ok, so then why doesn't that apply to the second amendment as well? Businesses can't discriminate based on race or sex orientation, but it's OK to put a "no guns" sign on the front of your business and discriminate against gun owners.

How is this even remotely fair? It's a double standard.
The government needs to stop picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution it wants to uphold.
You weren't born a gun owner man.
This is why this conversation never goes anywhere because of ridiculous assertions like this. You're conflating 2 entirely different scenarios. If a business is operating with the public as their customers, then they are required to treat all customers the same. They still reserve the right to refuse service, but it can't be done on a discriminatory basis.

In other words, come in to my store without shirt or shoes, then kindly GTFO. So, your argument would work if you also included "discriminating against people with no shirt or shoes" but you know, come on...

Owning a gun is a choice, being black or gay or having scoliosis isn't. Private property have rules. Guns fall under those rules... Even in AZ, most restaurants don't allow guns... esp if they serve alcohol. That's not discriminating against gun owners because you can't simply look at someone and see that they own guns and go "nah, get out!".

We have a right to a trial by jury as well as a right to a speedy trial (6A and 8A) yet no one fights for these as ferociously as they do 2A. Example is obviously any American held in Gitmo for terrorism...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top Bottom