Kansas man's homemade gun silencers clash with federal law

[tk1700]

I'm not real familiar with NFA an silencers but have learned a lot about them on this forum. I know that it is a big issue and there is great hope that it will change after Jan 20. With that in mind this headline caught my attention.

Kansas passed a law that 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.

So, a guy who owns a surplus store made silencers, stamped them made in Kansas and sold them. One of his customers posted a FB video with the silencer. Last week a jury found the store owner guilty of violating federal law for the manufacture, sale and possession of unregistered firearms and silencers. The customer was found guilty on one count for possessing the unregistered silencer.

Another example of states exercising control inside their own borders despite what fed law says. This time the feds didn't look the other way. I look forward to what the knowledgeable folks inhere have to say.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/n ... 76598.html

[OneGun]

This is a very interesting situation that will ultimately end up at SCOTUS. I just do not know that I would personally want to become the test case of states' rights versus the Federal Government.

[bblhd672]

So the feds can go after homemade suppressors that violate federal law but not state law - however don't seem interested in prosecuting "state legal" marijuana distributors who are in violation of federal law.

[RogueUSMC]

Can't comment intelligently on this because I followed the federal NFA laws/ATF rules when I built my suppressor - I have no idea how a state vs fed issue would shake itself out.

That never kept you from commenting before...lol

Seriously though, the states lost their representation in the federal government with the passage of the 17th amendment. The ONLY benefit to a convention of states that everyone rattles on about is the POSSIBILITY of the 17th's repeal...

[Scott Farkus]

If the Fed's aren't going to bother enforcing drug laws in states that have made marijuana legal, why are they bothering to enforce this?

I don't like most of the federal firearms laws, but either we're a nation of laws or we're not. If we're not, then Texas needs to do what Kansas did and legalize suppressors manufactured in state (and SBR's and full auto while we're at it).

[anygunanywhere]

Maybe the guy needs to donate to the Klinton Foundation.

[TreyHouston]

Maybe the guy needs to donate to the Klinton Foundation.

[dhoobler]

There is another angle to this case, that of the Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution.

Congress derives its authority to enact firearms laws from the Commerce Clause, which authorizes congress to regulate interstate commerce. Since almost all firearms cross state lines, congress has the authority to regulate them.

If a firearm, or any object, never crosses state lines, congress, in theory, would have no authority to regulate it. SCOTUS held the first federal gun free school zone law unconstitutional because it exceeded that authority. Congress passed a new gun free school zone law to include the following language:

It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

a possible defense in the Kansas case might be to challenge the authority of congress to regulate activities within a state.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Feds v. state = Feds win. State resident v. feds = feds win. Selective prosecution is a fact of life and it happens every single day. Even your local prosecutors do it when they decide, based upon surrounding facts, to prosecute one person for a crime, but not the next person for the same crime.

This is an excellent example why I don't like bills that purport to supersede federal laws. I support those that prohibit Texas officers and agencies from assisting the feds. in enforcement of federal laws. Those are fine since the feds cannot conscript state peace officers and agencies to enforce federal law. That would be a quick way to start a shooting war.

The Commerce Clause has been so perverted by the SCOTUS that it is meaningless. All Congress has to do is include the language quoted by dhoobler and the law will pass constitutional muster on that ground. It's the "affects interstate . . . commerce" clause that is relied upon by Congress. The argument is that if you made the widget yourself, then you didn't have to buy one, thus "affecting interstate . . . commerce." Yeah, I know; me too.

Chas.

[bmwrdr]

So the feds can go after homemade suppressors that violate federal law but not state law - however don't seem interested in prosecuting "state legal" marijuana distributors who are in violation of federal law.

Good point. I think the departmental difference is the cause of the contradiction.

[TexasJohnBoy]

This will be very interesting to watch....

[parabelum]

I heard Feds can prosecute ham sandwich if they wanted to.

Similar case with Montana Firearms Freedom Act, it's a political ping pong and as Charles stated, Feds have the upper hand.

[The Annoyed Man]

Can't comment intelligently on this because I followed the federal NFA laws/ATF rules when I built my suppressor - I have no idea how a state vs fed issue would shake itself out.

I'm in the same boat - although I also own a commercially procured unit, and have another one on order. I am praying for passage of the hearing protection act which would (A) refund my $200 tax paid for each item, and (B) would either remove suppressors from NFA control, or vastly simplify it.

[bblhd672]

Feds v. state = Feds win. State resident v. feds = feds win. Selective prosecution is a fact of life and it happens every single day. Even your local prosecutors do it when they decide, based upon surrounding facts, to prosecute one person for a crime, but not the next person for the same crime.

This is an excellent example why I don't like bills that purport to supersede federal laws. I support those that prohibit Texas officers and agencies from assisting the feds. in enforcement of federal laws. Those are fine since the feds cannot conscript state peace officers and agencies to enforce federal law. That would be a quick way to start a shooting war.

The Commerce Clause has been so perverted by the SCOTUS that it is meaningless. All Congress has to do is include the language quoted by dhoobler and the law will pass constitutional muster on that ground. It's the "affects interstate . . . commerce" clause that is relied upon by Congress. The argument is that if you made the widget yourself, then you didn't have to buy one, thus "affecting interstate . . . commerce." Yeah, I know; me too.

Chas.

Sounds like SCOTUS needs to put the Commerce Clause back into its tight little box where the founders intended.