Silencer case: Kettler v. United States

T

Tom Servo

Staff
The Supreme Court has declined to hear this case, and GOA is making noise about it.

In the 2010s, several states passed "firearms freedom laws," seeking to exempt their citizens from federal regulations if firearms were entirely manufactured within the borders of that state. The idea was that they wouldn't be subject to the Commerce Clause if they hadn't been involved in interstate commerce.

<cue skeptical growl>

Kansas passed their version in 2013. At some point, Shane Cox, owner of an Army surplus store, started making his own silencers, which were not registered under the NFA. He transferred one to Jeremy Kettler. Kettler was busted for possession of an unregistered silencer, and Cox was charged with unlawful manufacture in another case.

The way I see it, there are three facets to this.

  1. play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Is there anyone who doesn't know silencers are heavily regulated? Doubtful.
  2. there are underlying 10th Amendment issues, which these laws sought to highlight in theory
  3. in practice, these laws potentially mislead their citizens by letting them think they're immune from potential federal prosecution. This is very similar to the situation in states that have "legalized" marijuana in violation of federal law

In any case, GOA brought the case, lost, appealed to the 10th Circuit, lost, and requested cert from SCOTUS, which was denied. Kettler's sentence was a year of probation.
 
in practice, these laws potentially mislead their citizens by letting them think they're immune from potential federal prosecution. This is very similar to the situation in states that have "legalized" marijuana in violation of federal law
Click to expand...

On the nose.

The idea that items not in interstate commerce should not be subject to federal regulation as if they were in interstate commerce is one I endorse as coherent and faithful to the restriction stated in the COTUS. However, is it not the current state of our constitutional law.

Also, unless I misunderstand the case, one of these gentlemen had a short barrelled rifle that was not an exclusively intrastate item.
 
Until SCOTUS decides to revise their Wickard v Filburn interpretation, basically anything is involved in interstate commerce. (Which is a ridiculously stretched interpretation, but so many of our laws/case law now rests on it, that I doubt they want to correct that mistake.)
 
zukiphile said:
The idea that items not in interstate commerce should not be subject to federal regulation as if they were in interstate commerce is one I endorse as coherent and faithful to the restriction stated in the COTUS. However, is it not the current state of our constitutional law.
Click to expand...
Earlier today I quoted from Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Click to expand...
When the Supreme Court of the United States rules (as they have) that the Constitution granting the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce applies to items that have never been in interstate commerce because by having been made and sold locally they AFFECTED interstate commerce -- that's when you know that the government is really being run by the Red Queen.
 
I'm confused.:confused:
States make a drug legal to use recreationally which is in conflict with federal law and that does not get prosecuted?
Why restrict states from doing the very same thing with firearms and accessories?
 
P5 Guy said:
States make a drug legal to use recreationally which is in conflict with federal law and that does not get prosecuted?
Click to expand...

They are subject to federal prosecution and federal seizure for structuring.

Justice Stevens said:
Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
 
Last edited:
Sessions wanted to go after the Federal marijuana violations but his career was cut short in a genius move, related to recusal.

As Frank has discussed, the state laws do not trump the Federal laws.

Thus, state laws are either PR moves or setting up cases to reach the Federal courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top