PDA

View Full Version : Kansas man's homemade silencers clash with federal law



kidicarus13
11-22-2016, 11:51
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article116276598.html

WICHITA, KAN. 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.

ADVERTISING



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.
Kettler told jurors he bought the unregistered silencer "because of a piece of paper signed by the governor saying it was legal." Before trial, he criticized Kansas for "setting up its citizens to be prosecuted" by the federal government.
Jim Howell, a former Republican state representative, said he physically carried the bill around the Capitol and got 55 legislators to co-sponsor the legislation, which won bipartisan support. Lawmakers knew when they passed the law that there was going to be disagreement on who has authority to regulate firearms if they stay inside the state of Kansas, he said.
"I think these gentlemen understood that when they made a choice to do what they did," Howell said.
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has intervened to defend the state law's constitutionality in the first criminal case that has used the Kansas law as a defense. Schmidt said in a statement that buyers' reliance on the state law as a defense is "reasonable, and it is consistent with the State's interest in ensuring the Second Amendment Protection Act itself is defended."
That state law says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept in Kansas are exempt from federal gun control laws. It also made it a felony for the federal government to enforce them.
A day after it took effect, then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder advised Brownback that the state law criminalizing federal enforcement of gun laws was unconstitutional.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence challenged its legality in a 2014 civil lawsuit that was thrown out because a judge deemed the group did not have standing to sue.
Kansas modeled its law on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found to be invalid, according to court filings.
State firearm nullification laws, or firearms freedom acts as they are sometimes called, have been signed into law in nine states. In addition to Montana and Kansas, other states with them include Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, according to Everytown For Gun Safety, which advocates common-sense gun control laws.
The legal maneuvering comes against the backdrop of President-elect Donald Trump's election following a campaign that made gun rights a rallying cry for his supporters. A new U.S. attorney general will also be in place at the Justice Department.
And in another twist, the man who helped write the state's gun law — Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach — is now a potential pick for a job in the Trump administration. Kobach has called this case "a perfect example of a prosecution that should never occur."
Sentencing is set for Feb. 6.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article116276598.html#storylink=cpy



Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article116276598.html#storylink=cpy



Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article116276598.html#storylink=cpy

CS1983
11-22-2016, 12:06
Too bad he didn't engage in the manufacture and sale of a schedule 1 narcotic, instead of an evil decibel reduction device. I was under the impression Montana's law was mega-shoot you in the face Mr. Federal Agent style -- assuming Kansas didn't go that far?

vectorsc
11-22-2016, 12:12
This will be VERY interesting - as the appeals for this will probably reshape the scope of federal law or alternately eliminate the interstate commerce presumption.

This couldn't have come at a better time frankly.

Erni
11-22-2016, 12:33
I can't see the feds letting this go. Killing the interstate commerce clause would have interesting and far reaching impacts. Button down the hatches and open the check books boys, it's going to get rough.

Rumline
11-22-2016, 14:14
Wow, a chance to re-instate the 10th Amendment and check the Leviathan growth of federal power while allowing me to buy more cool toys!

Which means it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

[gohome]

BladesNBarrels
11-22-2016, 17:23
"Sentencing is set for Feb. 6."
'"last week a jury found Cox guilty of violating federal law for the manufacture, sale and possession of unregistered firearms and silencers."
"That state law says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept in Kansas are exempt from federal gun control laws.
It also made it a felony for the federal government to enforce them."

Question is: Who is being sentenced? Cox, the Judge, the Jury, or the federal government?

[Sarcasm2] [NoClue]

brutal
11-22-2016, 17:50
Kansas modeled its law on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found to be invalid, according to court filings.
State firearm nullification laws, or firearms freedom acts as they are sometimes called, have been signed into law in nine states. In addition to Montana and Kansas, other states with them include Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, according to Everytown For Gun Safety, which advocates common-sense gun control laws.




It never ceases to amaze me how on one hand a state's rights can be denied by the courts, and on the other upheld (magazine bans, etc.).

I guess I really am just a simpleton.

Jamnanc
11-22-2016, 18:50
"Sentencing is set for Feb. 6."
'"last week a jury found Cox guilty of violating federal law for the manufacture, sale and possession of unregistered firearms and silencers."
"That state law says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept in Kansas are exempt from federal gun control laws.
It also made it a felony for the federal government to enforce them."

Question is: Who is being sentenced? Cox, the Judge, the Jury, or the federal government?

[Sarcasm2] [NoClue]

If the Kansas government who passed the law has any balls they will attempt to enforce the felony/ies.

ray1970
11-22-2016, 19:32
He's screwed. Kansas doesn't have any political clout at the federal level.

You'll probably never see a thread here titled "Colorado man's home grown marijuana clashes with federal law".

Skip
11-22-2016, 19:47
It never ceases to amaze me how on one hand a state's rights can be denied by the courts, and on the other upheld (magazine bans, etc.).

I guess I really am just a simpleton.

Well I'm far more sophisticated so let me try to explain it to you...

If states' rights are advancing a Liberal cause it is upheld.

If states' rights advances a Conservative cause it is stricken down because the Federal Government can violate the Bill of Rights at will. Says so in the Supremacy Clause. All powers not reserved for FedGov are FedGov's to do as they please. Yup. The Founders just had too much paper lying around so they wasted it on the 10th Amendment. There was no need because of said Supremacy Clause.

BushMasterBoy
11-22-2016, 20:15
Instead of ensuring our freedom, we have become slaves to our laws. One may wonder if one day, the very laws will be the reason for our demise.

Gman
11-22-2016, 21:01
In addition to Montana and Kansas, other states with them include Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, according to Everytown For Gun Safety, which advocates common-sense gun control laws.
Yeah, let's legitimize the group and not point out that this is an organization funded by, and pushing the agenda of, Michael Bloomberg.

Great-Kazoo
11-22-2016, 21:35
This will be VERY interesting - as the appeals for this will probably reshape the scope of federal law or alternately eliminate the interstate commerce presumption.

This couldn't have come at a better time frankly.



The real test will be when and IF the new SCOTUS chooses to hear it. Granted it depends on who actually gets the approval for the open seat.

brutal
11-22-2016, 23:45
Well I'm far more sophisticated so let me try to explain it to you...

If states' rights are advancing a Liberal cause it is upheld.

If states' rights advances a Conservative cause it is stricken down because the Federal Government can violate the Bill of Rights at will. Says so in the Supremacy Clause. All powers not reserved for FedGov are FedGov's to do as they please. Yup. The Founders just had too much paper lying around so they wasted it on the 10th Amendment. There was no need because of said Supremacy Clause.


It all makes perfect sense now that you've explained it to me.







[Sarcasm2]

Jamnanc
11-23-2016, 07:20
Wow, I was somewhat ignorant of the supremacy clause. How come the Feds haven't been busting the pot growers in our fine state? It seems like a perfect application of the clause.

Erni
11-23-2016, 08:47
Wow, I was somewhat ignorant of the supremacy clause. How come the Feds haven't been busting the pot growers in our fine state? It seems like a perfect application of the clause.
See Skips response. Sad but true.