Second Amendment Protection Act

S

steve4102

New member
This thread was closed as a drive-by and I thought it might be interesting to discuss it.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=586289

The article states that the case of Cox and Kettler could shatter Federal Gun control laws if it made it way all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't see it, in fact I don't think this case has anything to do with the Second Amendment at all.

Back in 2013 Kansas passed legislation called the Second Amendment Protection Act. It was another bogus feel good law claiming that if a firearm was made in Kansas, stamped "Made in Kansas" and stayed in Kansas, then this law would prevent Federal Prosecution.

Mr Cox took the State of Kansas at their word and manufactured firearms and silencers without a license and Stamped them according to state law. Didn't work he got caught and was charged with felonies.

Now this Bearing Arms web site thinks that this is the biggest case since Heller and it will bring Federal firearms legislation to an end.

The way I see it, this has nothing to do with firearms or the Second Amendment and everything to do with interstate commerce and the Supremacy Clause? No?

Here is another article on Cox and Kettler and how they got themselves in trouble.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/12/kansas-second-amendment-protection-act-silencers/

Note this all happened last year.
 
Last edited:
steve4102 said:
...Back in 2013 Kansas passed legislation called the Second Amendment Protection Act. It was another bogus feel good law claiming that if a firearm was made in Kansas, stamped "Made in Kansas" and stayed in Kansas, then this law would prevent Federal Prosecution.

Mr Cox took the State of Kansas at their word and manufactured firearms and silencers without a license and Stamped them according to state law. Didn't work he got caught and was charged with felonies.....
Click to expand...

Yes, this is yet another example of a state "firearm freedom" law failing to live up to promises.

State nullification of federal law is a chimera.

  1. The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    Click to expand...

  2. There's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:

    • United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)

    • Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)

    • Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)

    • McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

    • Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)

    • Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)

    • Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)

    • Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)

    • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

    • Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).

  3. The Ninth Circuit has specifically ruled against Montana in a "firearm freedom law" case, Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).

  4. A State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)), but a State may not nullify federal law; and the federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help.

  5. See also Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011) in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Sheriff was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. But the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):
    ...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...
    Click to expand...

Cox and Kettler were sentenced in February. They were fortunate in that they were able to avoid prison, but they will each have to serve a period of probation.

It appears that Kettler has filed notice of appeal. Preliminary documents are showing up on PACER. The Tenth Circuit docket number is 17-3035. Notice of appeal was filed on 16 February 2017, and Kettler's opening brief is due 31 May 2017.
 
I don't think the SCOTUS would even take this case.
They've made their case(s ;)) about the commerce clause and preemption, and likely don't want to "waste" their time reiterating the same things.
 
State nullification of federal law is a chimera.
Click to expand...

I agree, but a state can shop the case to the ninth circuit, like what happened to Trump's travel ban.

I'm pretty sure the scotus will overturn the 9th like it almost always does.

didn't Montana or Wyoming do a similar "tenth amendment" gun law?
 
Chris Karma said:
I agree, but a state can shop the case to the ninth circuit,...
Click to expand...
No, a State can't "shop" the case. It must bring the case in the Circuit in which the State is located.

Chris Karma said:
...didn't Montana or Wyoming do a similar "tenth amendment" gun law?
Click to expand...
Both adopted such laws. The Montana law was litigated, and the Montana law got hammered by the Ninth Circuit, as I mentioned in post 4.

Chris Karma said:
...I'm pretty sure the scotus will overturn the 9th like it almost always does....
Click to expand...
Almost isn't always, and it unlikely here.

  1. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Montana Shooting Sports was based on Supreme Court precedent, i. e., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) in addition to a Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006).

  2. That 2006 decision in Stewart was the result of a 2003 decision in that case being kicked back to the Ninth Circuit by the Supreme Court with instructions to reconsider the decision in light of Gonzales. So the Ninth Circuit has already taken instructions in this sort of case from the Supreme Court.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Montana or Wyoming
Click to expand...
Both adopted such laws.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

In Wyoming the bill was introduced during the 2013 general session and passed in the House. It was passed out of Senate committee but was never considered for even a first reading in the full Senate.

I'd like the believe that even if it had passed the Senate our Governor, being a former US Attorney and not an idiot, would recognize the stupidity and unconstitutionality and veto it.
 
I think a very good thing. I'm willing to bet that if you compared the language of the Wyoming Firearm Protection Act to those in Montana, Kansas and every other state where it was introduced they would be essentially identical, from the same legislation bill mill.


The Wyoming Firearm Protection Act, as it was passed by the House:
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Engross/HB0104.pdf

And as originally introduced:
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf

The digest, showing failure to be considered by the Senate COW:
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Digest/HB0104.htm
 
All these laws have as their basis the limitation of the federal interstate transportation of goods and services. This is the framework upon which some of the gun laws are enacted at the federal level. The laws based in interstate transport don't apply to intrastate manufacturing and sales.

I don't expect the state laws to be upheld by the circuit or supreme courts but I do believe the reasoning is sound.
 
ShootistPRS said:
All these laws have as their basis the limitation of the federal interstate transportation of goods and services....
Click to expand...
No. What the Constitution actually says is that Congress has the power to (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3):
...regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Click to expand...
Though our history the federal courts have had a myriad of opportunity to consider what the regulation of interstate commerce means, and they have viewed the power of Congress to be considerable broader than merely the limitation of the interstate transport of goods and services.

You and others might think the courts have taken thing too far, but what you think doesn't matter in real life (except insofar as your views might encourage you to participate in efforts to change current law).

ShootistPRS said:
...I don't expect the state laws to be upheld by the circuit or supreme courts but I do believe the reasoning is sound...
Click to expand...
No, your reasoning is not sound since you admit that your reasoning won't be adopted to uphold these state laws. What decides whether one's reasoning on a legal issue is sound is whether it is useful for understanding what the courts will do.
 
Is'nt this the same line of reasoning that allows Texas to continue to mfg incandescent bulbs after they was banned at the federal level?

They're not sold out of state.
Now I understand I just compared light bulbs to suppressors but that really should not matter legal if it holds up for 1 it should for the other.


at least that's my understanding correct me if im wrong.
 
You and others might think the courts have taken things too far, but what you think doesn't matter in real life
Click to expand...
Laws only are obeyed when the citizens are in agreement.
Prohibition, for example, and the current drug situation.
Lots of circumstances come to mind.
Judges and courts are only part of the equation.
One would hope if/when the courts do go too far, the laws will indeed get changed.
Otherwise the rule of law fails us and lawlessness rules in its place.
What we think, and what we get our political representatives to think, matters very much.
 
Last edited:
Preamble to the constitution of the united states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Preamble to the constitution of the State of Washington:
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
Click to expand...

Both of these legal documents define The People as having the power to regulate government and the laws it imposes.
 
g.willikers said:
...One would hope if/when the courts do go too far, the laws will indeed get changed.
Otherwise the rule of law fails us and lawlessness rules in its place.
What we think, and what we get our political representatives to think, matters very much.
Click to expand...
Which is through the political process. Which is why I wrote:
...what you think doesn't matter in real life (except insofar as your views might encourage you to participate in efforts to change current law). ...
Click to expand...

ShootistPRS said:
... Both of these legal documents define The People as having the power to regulate government and the laws it imposes.
Click to expand...
If and to the extent and in the manner applied by a court. Law is meaningless simply written out on paper. It is a tool used by courts to resolve disputes before them by applying the law to the facts of the matter.

When a court applies the law to a matter in dispute, that application of the law affects the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your quoting snippets of law out of books doesn't actually affect anything.
 
g.willikers said:
Laws only are obeyed when the citizens are in agreement.
Prohibition, for example, and the current drug situation.
Click to expand...
And the solution to Prohibition (the 18th Amendment) was to repeal it (the 21st Amendment). That's the political process to which Frank referred.
 
Jury nullification applies to only the case in front of that jury on that day. Someone else could be convicted under the same law the very next day, in the same court. Repeal is universal.

Jury nullification isn't as available as you seem to think it is. Several years ago I was called for jury duty. Unlike previous times, this time they conducted the initial voir dire on the entire group, as a group. One of the questions asked was if anyone would have problems following the law as explained by the judge (which is what jury nullification is all about), raise your hand. We were under oath, so I raised my hand.

Well, BOY HOWDY!!! You might have thought I had just threatened to blow up the courthouse. The two lawyers (both sides of the case) immediately sent all the other jurors back to the waiting room, then they ganged up on me to try to tell me that a juror HAS to follow the judge's instruction. So I said that's not correct, that the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court once said that a jury is empowered to judge both the facts and the law, and if I didn't agree with the way a judge explained a law, I could not in good conscience follow the instruction.

So they put me in a small room while they hunted up a judge, then called me back in. A woman judge proceeded to tell me the same things the lawyers had said, and I proceeded to give her the same answers I gave them. In the end, she told me that my understanding of legal history was flawed, and to go home and do some homework. I was dismissed.

I went home, looked up the case, and wrote a letter to the judge to inform her that I had followed her instructions, and found the case. She didn't even have the courtesy to acknowledge my letter.

The point of all this is that judges and lawyers don't like jury nullification. They don't want it even mentioned in a courtroom, and they'll do everything they can to convince you that it's not legal. Most jurors have never heard of it, and if you have heard of it, you have to fight off the indoctrination that says it's not lawful. That's not very readily available, in my book, and it's also not something you can count on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top