NFA Challenged In Supreme Court On Behalf of Veteran

YeeHaa

Member
Charter Life Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
6,763
Location
T'ville ~ Trinity
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Springfield, VA – Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its legal arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), this week continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, who is a disabled combat veteran. GOA/GOF submitted a petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Kettler, after he was convicted for violating the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Kettler for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor, despite the fact that Kansas’ “Second Amendment Protection Act” protected his actions.

GOA and GOF have stood with Kettler, both in his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and now in the U.S. Supreme Court.

GOA’s executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, “It’s time to challenge the NFA, which has long been a leviathan of unconstitutional gun control. GOA/GOF is not only proud to defend one of our nation’s disabled veterans, but also to potentially deal a significant blow to the NFA.”

GOA/GOF arguments challenge the legitimacy of the NFA as a so-called “tax,” challenge the absurd notion that the Second Amendment only applies to “bearable arms,” and raise concerns that the NFA is a tax on a constitutionally-protected right.

https://gunsinthenews.com/national-firearms-act-challenged-in-supreme-court-on-behalf-of-veteran/
 
*puts on flame retardant undies*

I wish this lawsuit was solely focused on the idiocy of SBR and Suppressor regulation, and left the full-auto stuff out of the picture. From a ******PRACTICAL****** perspective, I can see SCOTUS affirming deregulation of SBR and Suppressors, but declining to allow full-auto.

In the same manner that GCA, NFA, etc. eroded our rights over time, I think that the PRACTICAL - meaning likely to succeed - resolution is also incremental.
 
Last edited:
*puts on flame retardant undies*

I wish this lawsuit was solely focused on the idiocy of SBR and Suppressor regulation, and left the full-auto stuff out of the picture. From a ******PRACTICAL****** perspective, I can see SCOTUS affirming deregulation of SBR and Suppressors, but declining to allow full-auto.

In the same manner that GCA, NFA, etc. eroded our rights over time, I think that the PRACTICAL - meaning likely to succeed - resolution is also incremental.

Agree 100%, my guess is that they won’t grant certiorari because they want the issue addressed by the legislature. If it was more focused they might be willing to hear it, but maybe not.
 
GOA/GOF arguments challenge the legitimacy of the NFA as a so-called “tax,” challenge the absurd notion that the Second Amendment only applies to “bearable arms,” and raise concerns that the NFA is a tax on a constitutionally-protected right.

I am curious and have not given an iota of thought, but are there any precedents? What other constitutionally-protected rights are taxed?
 
While I'm glad at least one Pro-2A entity is actually standing up for gun owners & challenging the NFA (cos the NRA isn't going to....ever. they're a joke and just love to take your money), I don't see this going anywhere.

If he broke federal law, he broke federal law. Federal law supersedes state law & that's been upheld many times. I don't see how they have much of a legal leg to stand on.

Now arguing against the NFA is one thing, and I think at least suppressors & SBR/SBS could be removed & successfully argued (full auto is a different story...that's a big hill to climb), but trying to argue a state law supersedes a federal law I don't think is gonna have much traction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMP
If you think this through from a larger perspective, the whole thing becomes quite clear. Like I told a lib friend when we were discussing gun control, it's really not about the first word, but the second- control, who has it, who wants it, and why? History tells us that when the second word is the operative, bad things happen to those who comply blindly. To paraphrase Franklin, you give up your freedom for security, but you wind up with neither in the end.
 
To the full auto point, they weren't regulated prior to the NFA and there weren't very many crimes committed with them other than the gangland types. The real issue with that stuff is that it is economically self limiting. The little beasties are quite expensive to feed. Again, let's revisit what matters most to fedgov, Al Capone didn't go to Alcatraz for murder. It was tax evasion. So now the sheeple are compliant with taxation that the Founding Fathers would be shooting over, the left is now seeking to further entrench their control over the masses by removing any means of resistance.

To apply what we've seen from the leftists with their creeping control fetish, now they're after semiautos in certain states. Make no mistake about this, they're doing this as a trial balloon to gauge if and when the masses will accept further restrictions on liberty. So let's go full monty after full auto. Nothing like a little truth sunshine to help disinfect the mind of those who will see. Some during the fracas of 1776 still didn't see the light and wanted to remain subjects of the crown. Same thing will happen now, just a different crown worn by Pelosi and crew. Choose whom you will serve, but choose wisely.
 
Some during the fracas of 1776 still didn't see the light and wanted to remain subjects of the crown. Same thing will happen now, just a different crown worn by Pelosi and crew.
Good point.
 
I am curious and have not given an iota of thought, but are there any precedents? What other constitutionally-protected rights are taxed?

I think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are taxed into oblivion...

But strictly related to constitutionally protected rights...hard to be secure in your house with your papers and effects when governments can force you to pay property taxes and send armed agents to remove you when you don't/can't. In essence, we are all just renters.
 
I think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are taxed into oblivion...

But strictly related to constitutionally protected rights...hard to be secure in your house with your papers and effects when governments can force you to pay property taxes and send armed agents to remove you when you don't/can't. In essence, we are all just renters.

Yeah, I know in the big heady philosophical way, but do we now have a specific constitutionally-protected right that is taxed? Do you have to pay a fee for a permit to march? I don't know. If so, I think it can be argues it's a tax. I know the government will argue that they can do that, in context of this lawsuit, I can see the counterargument being that any tax on a protected right is unconstitutional.
 
Yeah, I know in the big heady philosophical way, but do we now have a specific constitutionally-protected right that is taxed? Do you have to pay a fee for a permit to march? I don't know. If so, I think it can be argues it's a tax. I know the government will argue that they can do that, in context of this lawsuit, I can see the counterargument being that any tax on a protected right is unconstitutional.

Not arguing but I wouldn't consider property tax to be big heady philosophical...that is a pretty direct interference with your property rights. The first line in my post was big heady philosophical :)

I am pretty sure many jurisdictions require a permit for a march/large gathering. Permits always cost money. I am pretty sure television and radio need broadcasting licenses and pay special taxes/fees for FCC stuff. I think there is even an extra tax on my cable and phone bill for special broadcasting taxes/fees.

They (the other side) argue that requiring an ID to vote is a "poll tax" that unnecessarily burdens minorities.
 
Last edited:
Not arguing but I wouldn't consider property tax to be big heady philosophical...that is a pretty direct interference with your property rights. The first line in my post was big heady philosophical :)

I am pretty sure many jurisdictions require a permit for a march/large gathering. Permits always cost money. I am pretty sure television and radio need broadcasting licenses and pay special taxes/fees for FCC stuff. I think there is even an extra tax on my cable and phone bill for special broadcasting taxes/fees.

They (the other side) argue that requiring an ID to vote is a "poll tax" that unnecessarily burdens minorities.

Property rights, yeah, public use, contracts clause, and all. But no matter how hard you argue that property taxes are unconstitutional, it'll never, ever, ever be abolished, whereas I can at least see some light that under the right circumstances this subject can be (viewed as unconstitutional). For the record I abhor taxes; theft by any other name.... I am tying to look at this specific 2A issue and the consideration that a "tax stamp" via NFA is a tax to exercise 2A rights.

Is telecoms a protected right, under 1A? I don't know. I like that the other side is arguing that voter ID is akin to a poll tax, because that same argument can be used to claim that a NFA/tax stamp unnecessarily burdens the accessibility of a right.
 
Free speech is protected. If you have to pay taxes/govt fees to use the current method of speech..do you have free speech (free from govt interference/not free as in Obamaphone)? If you separate telecom from quill and ink, wouldn't that be like separating ARs from muskets?
 
Last edited:
I think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are taxed into oblivion...

But strictly related to constitutionally protected rights...hard to be secure in your house with your papers and effects when governments can force you to pay property taxes and send armed agents to remove you when you don't/can't. In essence, we are all just renters.

My neighbor has just filed with SCOTUS regarding property tax. He doesn't expect anything but has gone thru the motions at great cost.

The last judge he was in front of told him point blank "No judge will ever rule against the income of the state"
 
I am curious and have not given an iota of thought, but are there any precedents? What other constitutionally-protected rights are taxed?
Taxes on the 1A via purchase of newspapers, phone service, internet.
 
My neighbor has just filed with SCOTUS regarding property tax. He doesn't expect anything but has gone thru the motions at great cost.

The last judge he was in front of told him point blank "No judge will ever rule against the income of the state"

There was a time when judges in this land would also never rule against impressment of American sailors, or against the supremacy of a king and parliament thousands of miles across an ocean, or on the immorality of even a 0.8% direct tax levied on a breakfast beverage without representation or consent of the People.

Once those actions enraged the public, and the inaction of the courts to address continued injustice made being a Law Abiding subject intolerable, the People shut the courts down through violence and the threat of violence.

They prevented the courts from opening for business.

They threatened jurists at their homes, along the roads, and in their offices.

They intimidated appointees enough that they wouldn't take their seats, but would resign rather than face the mob.

The defense of Freedom is sometimes an ugly business...... it's something we've lost sight of once it was wrapped in the fancy dress and accoutrements of the Declaration of Independence.

Regaining it isn't going to be all nobility and virtue.
 
Last edited:
While I'm glad at least one Pro-2A entity is actually standing up for gun owners & challenging the NFA (cos the NRA isn't going to....ever. they're a joke and just love to take your money), I don't see this going anywhere.

If he broke federal law, he broke federal law. Federal law supersedes state law & that's been upheld many times. I don't see how they have much of a legal leg to stand on.

Now arguing against the NFA is one thing, and I think at least suppressors & SBR/SBS could be removed & successfully argued (full auto is a different story...that's a big hill to climb), but trying to argue a state law supersedes a federal law I don't think is gonna have much traction.


Piss on them, the feds are breaking federal law and you're too blind to see it
 
Back
Top Bottom