Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: No Cert for Kettler

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,319
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)

    No Cert for Kettler

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-gun-silencers

    Can't say I'm surprised. It was a long shot, but I was hoping the Constitutional claim would get some attention (the tax claim was always weak, IMHO). It's disappointing that we can't get 4 votes to grant cert, which reinforces my belief that the court is not nearly as conservative as the left would like people to think. I would like to know if any of them voted in favor of cert. - his wasn't a bad case for them to take on factual grounds, so it's clear to me that they're comfortable with the "reasonable restrictions" implied in Heller and McDonald.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    District 11
    Posts
    6,346
    Feedback Score
    24 (100%)
    These are the guys we are supposed have faith will protect us from the bumpstock bans. #4dchess
    Let those who are fond of blaming and finding fault, while they sit safely at home, ask, ‘Why did you not do thus and so?’I wish they were on this voyage; I well believe that another voyage of a different kind awaits them.”

    Christopher Columbus

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,485
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    And people say Roberts and Kavanaugh AREN'T rat's-ass traitors? My bet is we had Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. If Miller were actually being adhered to, MG's and cans would be found protected by "common military use."
    Last edited by Diamondback; 06-10-19 at 20:45.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,571
    Feedback Score
    12 (93%)
    But the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not protect silencers, as they are not "bearable arms".
    I will say, ignorance is never a good defense. Cox should have done his due diligence before manufacturing suppressors and then selling said suppressors. Kettler should have researched the laws regarding suppressors before he purchased one. There is enough information online regarding suppressors to give a potential manufacture/buyer a good idea of what is required to posses one. Cox got 8 counts of possession and manufacturing while Kettler got 1 count for possession and playing ignorant didn't help. - Should have gone with the proven "get out of jail" line, "at this point, what difference does it make".

    I don't see the SCOTUS overturning anything NFA/GCA related because its 80+ year history. If they opened the books on NFA, I think it would allow certain law makers to add to the list, not lower regulation.
    Last edited by elephant; 06-10-19 at 21:39.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    4,354
    Feedback Score
    64 (98%)
    Quote Originally Posted by elephant View Post
    I will say, ignorance is never a good defense. Cox should have done his due diligence before manufacturing suppressors and then selling said suppressors. Kettler should have researched the laws regarding suppressors before he purchased one. There is enough information online regarding suppressors to give a potential manufacture/buyer a good idea of what is required to posses one. Cox got 8 counts of possession and manufacturing while Kettler got 1 count for possession and playing ignorant didn't help. - Should have gone with the proven "get out of jail" line, "at this point, what difference does it make".

    I don't see the SCOTUS overturning anything NFA/GCA related because its 80+ year history. If they opened the books on NFA, I think it would allow certain law makers to add to the list, not lower regulation.
    I thought they were acting in regards to state law that "nullified" federal law.
    Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly; the ill deeds along with the good, and let me be judged accordingly.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    7,615
    Feedback Score
    0
    If it is not a “bearable arm”, then it is not a firearm.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    6,854
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by elephant View Post
    I will say, ignorance is never a good defense. Cox should have done his due diligence before manufacturing suppressors and then selling said suppressors. Kettler should have researched the laws regarding suppressors before he purchased one. There is enough information online regarding suppressors to give a potential manufacture/buyer a good idea of what is required to posses one. Cox got 8 counts of possession and manufacturing while Kettler got 1 count for possession and playing ignorant didn't help. - Should have gone with the proven "get out of jail" line, "at this point, what difference does it make".

    I don't see the SCOTUS overturning anything NFA/GCA related because its 80+ year history. If they opened the books on NFA, I think it would allow certain law makers to add to the list, not lower regulation.
    Unfortunately, ignorance is often a successful defense when the perpetrator was sworn in.

    Laws targeting and screwing over minorities were on the books a long time also, so duration doesn't have a lot to do with it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OUTPOST 31
    Posts
    10,518
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    I like how the government gets to decide what arms the citizenry is permitted to resist government tyranny with.

    Pretty sure that’s not how things were originally intended ......... shocking


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,439
    Feedback Score
    0
    What we need is one of these district courts to take a mag ban and put a nationwide injunction on all Mag bans, just like the lefty courts do when it comes to illegal immigration .
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    not ohio
    Posts
    469
    Feedback Score
    0
    Everywhere I go there is some dude, "I support the 2nd, but..."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •