GOA & GOF fund challenge to NFA in US Supreme Court

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tesser
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:03 am
Location: South Central Ohio

GOA & GOF fund challenge to NFA in US Supreme Court

Post by Tesser »

https://www.gunowners.org/gun-owners-of ... -court.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(January 14, 2019) -- Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its litigating arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), today continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, against a conviction for violating the National Firearms Act.

The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Jeremy for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor under the authority of the Kansas “Second Amendment Protection Act.”

Jeremy’s petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called “tax.”

In fact, each of the reasons the Supreme Court gave in 1937, finding it to be a tax, no longer apply today, 82 years later. Rather, the NFA has become what Justice Frankfurter once described as regulation “wrapped ... in the verbal cellophane of a revenue measure” — an unabashed gun control regulatory scheme, designed not to raise revenue for the federal government, but instead to keep NFA items out of the hands of Americans.

Next, Jeremy’s petition challenges the Tenth Circuit’s absurd holding that the Second Amendment applies only to “bearable arms” — but not firearm accessories, such as suppressors. The petition points out that the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment extends beyond actual firearms to ammunition, magazines, the ability to purchase firearms in gun stores, and the right to practice at shooting ranges.

Finally, Jeremy’s petition argues that, if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the NFA as a “tax,” then it is allowing Congress to impose a tax on a constitutionally-protected right — something which the Supreme Court has long said to be unconstitutional.

Hear, hear!
Liberty is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight.

HENRY WARD BEECHER, Proverbs from Plymouth Pulpit
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: GOA & GOF fund challenge to NFA in US Supreme Court

Post by M-Quigley »

Tesser wrote:https://www.gunowners.org/gun-owners-of ... -court.htm

(January 14, 2019) -- Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its litigating arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), today continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, a disabled combat veteran, against a conviction for violating the National Firearms Act.

The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Jeremy for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor under the authority of the Kansas “Second Amendment Protection Act.”

Jeremy’s petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to “lay and collect taxes.” The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called “tax.”

In fact, each of the reasons the Supreme Court gave in 1937, finding it to be a tax, no longer apply today, 82 years later. Rather, the NFA has become what Justice Frankfurter once described as regulation “wrapped ... in the verbal cellophane of a revenue measure” — an unabashed gun control regulatory scheme, designed not to raise revenue for the federal government, but instead to keep NFA items out of the hands of Americans.

Next, Jeremy’s petition challenges the Tenth Circuit’s absurd holding that the Second Amendment applies only to “bearable arms” — but not firearm accessories, such as suppressors. The petition points out that the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits all have concluded that the Second Amendment extends beyond actual firearms to ammunition, magazines, the ability to purchase firearms in gun stores, and the right to practice at shooting ranges.

Finally, Jeremy’s petition argues that, if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the NFA as a “tax,” then it is allowing Congress to impose a tax on a constitutionally-protected right — something which the Supreme Court has long said to be unconstitutional.

Hear, hear!
Don't know how true this is but I heard that this issue has been hashed out in lower courts many years ago. The ruling were that since it was a tax on the transfer of the item not the possession it does not violate the 2nd Admentment. You pay the tax when the item is sold to you for it's transfer, and you carry the paperwork and tax stamp as proof you paid the tax. There are allegedly also certain situations where an NFA item can be transferred without being "sold" and without paying a tax. The thing is though you supposedly can't legally make your own either, so I don't know if this fact can be used in the suit as well.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: GOA & GOF fund challenge to NFA in US Supreme Court

Post by djthomas »

M-Quigley wrote:Don't know how true this is but I heard that this issue has been hashed out in lower courts many years ago. The ruling were that since it was a tax on the transfer of the item not the possession it does not violate the 2nd Admentment. You pay the tax when the item is sold to you for it's transfer, and you carry the paperwork and tax stamp as proof you paid the tax. There are allegedly also certain situations where an NFA item can be transferred without being "sold" and without paying a tax. The thing is though you supposedly can't legally make your own either, so I don't know if this fact can be used in the suit as well.
So a $200 tax to obtain the forms necessary to register to vote or on the consent form for an abortion would be OK, so long as the actual act of voting or getting an abortion wasn't taxed. Seems reasonable to me. Official hypocrisy knows no bounds. Kind of like how my wife had to sign a consent form for me to get a vasectomy but she was free to get the pill or have her tubes tied without my involvement. For the record, she didn't sign (on principle) and they did my procedure anyway.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: GOA & GOF fund challenge to NFA in US Supreme Court

Post by bignflnut »

Joe Miller is the lawyer with his name on the firm...and he's a lucky, lucky, lucky little boy...let's here it for him...

Jokes aside (*cough*) THIS is what national pro-gun groups should spend capital on. Find a sympathetic figure and test that great SCOTUS Goalie.
1. Whether the National Firearms Act of 1934, upheld in Sonzinsky
, continues to be a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power when the
justifications for that decision have significantly eroded over the last 82 years.
2. Whether the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories such as sound suppressors.
3. Whether the tax imposed by the National Firearms Act, targeting the exercise of a Second
Amendment right, violates the rule of Murdock v. Pennsylvania , 319 U.S. 105 (1943) and Cox
v. New Hampshire , 312 U.S. 669 (1941).
I have my doubts that cert will be granted, but I applaud Lucky Joe Miller and GOA for having the stones to put the case forward.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Post Reply