SCOTUS to rule on Kansas Vet's Suppressor.

[lts1ow]

Denied cert.

8D Chess.

[General Geoff]

Denied cert.

It was going to be denied even without the recent VA Beach shooting. To accept cert, that means questioning the Wickard v. Filburn interpretation/expansion of the commerce clause, and that is the glue that holds together 90% of federal laws and regulations passed since the 1940s. That's never gonna happen.

[GeneCC]

It was going to be denied even without the recent VA Beach shooting. To accept cert, that means questioning the Wickard v. Filburn interpretation/expansion of the commerce clause, and that is the glue that holds together 90% of federal laws and regulations passed since the 1940s. That's never gonna happen.

THey'd also be questioning the NFA. No USSC decision has ever challenged the NFA.

Another "reason" - the US Civil War. States Rights? What States Rights?


The Court blew it off. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....%5C18-936.html




Guess that these State laws that 'nullify' Government over reach aren't worth the paper that they're printed on.

[General Geoff]

Guess that these State laws that 'nullify' Government over reach aren't worth the paper that they're printed on.

Absolutely correct.

The Civil War cemented federal supremacy over state sovereignty. The Feds call the shots. Up until the 1930s, it wasn't such a bad thing, because the Feds still operated on the extremely limited powers granted to them by the Constitution. Only after Wickard v. Filburn did they get carte blanche over anything and everything they want to regulate or ban.

Before Wickard v. Filburn, the NFA only applied to firearms and silencers that crossed state lines. People still had the freedom to build their own machine guns or purchase locally-made ones, as long as they didn't cross state lines.

[GunLawyer001]

Silencers are part of the 1934 Act, based on the Taxing power. It's not a commerce clause issue, like the 1986 MG freeze is.

ATF collects plenty in taxes from silencer registrations, the USSC would likely uphold that part of the NFA. A sane and ethical Court might not uphold the 1986 MG freeze, however, since Heller acknowledged that guns are an individual right, and they'd apply Strict Scrutiny to the 1986 law. But they'd probably allow it, because MG's get bad press, and fit into that "unusual" and "dangerous" category that Scalia mentioned.

[Justin///M]

THey'd also be questioning the NFA. No USSC decision has ever challenged the NFA.

Another "reason" - the US Civil War. States Rights? What States Rights?


The Court blew it off. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....%5C18-936.html




Guess that these State laws that 'nullify' Government over reach aren't worth the paper that they're printed on.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've said that before when people tend to celebrate these laws. There's no such thing as nullification in this manner.

It's a shame some citizens have to learn that the hard way.

It's interesting how the feds pick and choose which they're going to enforce though. All states nullifying pot laws are also currently in violation.

[Qtrborecrazy]

THey'd also be questioning the NFA. No USSC decision has ever challenged the NFA.

Another "reason" - the US Civil War. States Rights? What States Rights?


The Court blew it off. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....%5C18-936.html




Guess that these State laws that 'nullify' Government over reach aren't worth the paper that they're printed on.

Federal Drug laws seem to be overlooked quite a bit as Justin pointed out.

[sota]

Federal Drug laws seem to be overlooked quite a bit as Justin pointed out.

For profit, privately owned prison system don't want their cash cow being hamburger'ed

[press1280]

Denied cert.

Somewhat interesting considering SCOTUS is currently holding 5 other 2A cases for NYSRPA. This tells me theyre not interested in even looking at the NFA right now under any standard of scrutiny.

However, it does indicate that the held cases (public carry, interstate purchases) are something SCOTUS has their eye on.