Feds convict 2 Kansas gunmakers for making NFA items under KS law

[johndoe3]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/ka ... 44618.html

Attorneys for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler argued that the fight between Kansas and the federal government over gun control laws is to blame for the confusion by two people who believed they were not doing anything illegal.

But jurors returned eight guilty verdicts against Cox, the owner of Tough Guys gun store in Chanute, under the National Firearms Act for allegedly illegally making and marketing unregistered firearms. They acquitted him of two other counts related to possession of a destructive device. Kettler was found guilty on one count of possession of an unregistered gun silencer.

"That is a Kansas law and my client is a Kansan and he thought that was the law. That is why he went to the trouble of stamping 'Made in Kansas' on it," Steven Gradert, Cox's attorney, said during closing arguments.

Background: The Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, which passed in 2013, says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept in Kansas are exempt from federal gun control laws. It made it a felony for the federal government to enforce them.

The Feds disregarded the Kansas law and took the 2 people to Federal District court. It appears that the Feds will make peoples' lives miserable for making SBRs and suppressors outside the purview of the NFA Act and paying the taxes.

[fishman]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/ka ... 44618.html

Attorneys for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler argued that the fight between Kansas and the federal government over gun control laws is to blame for the confusion by two people who believed they were not doing anything illegal.

But jurors returned eight guilty verdicts against Cox, the owner of Tough Guys gun store in Chanute, under the National Firearms Act for allegedly illegally making and marketing unregistered firearms. They acquitted him of two other counts related to possession of a destructive device. Kettler was found guilty on one count of possession of an unregistered gun silencer.

"That is a Kansas law and my client is a Kansan and he thought that was the law. That is why he went to the trouble of stamping 'Made in Kansas' on it," Steven Gradert, Cox's attorney, said during closing arguments.

Background: The Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, which passed in 2013, says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept in Kansas are exempt from federal gun control laws. It made it a felony for the federal government to enforce them.

The Feds disregarded the Kansas law and took the 2 people to Federal District court. It appears that the Feds will make peoples' lives miserable for making SBRs and suppressors outside the purview of the NFA Act and paying the taxes.

is it legal for a state to make a law exempting state citizens from federal laws? i didnt think thats how our constitution worked.

[T-Rex]

Those jurors failed!

[doubloon]

Those jurors failed!

Pretty much but it may not be over.

Should be a chance in there somewhere to overturn unconstitutional laws.

[johndoe3]

http://www.guns.com/2016/11/15/jury-fin ... xemptions/

The Guns.com article is a little more complete than the original article. Cox was the Pawn/Gun store owner who was manufacturing SBRs and suppressors and selling them, without a federal license and not paying the federal taxes. Kettler was a customer who bought a 'made in Kansas' suppressor from Cox.

An interesting question is whether the BATF would go after a person in Kansas who manufactured a suppressor or SBR for their personal use marked 'made in Kansas' (not in business or not buying a non-federally taxed suppressor/SBR)?

is it legal for a state to make a law exempting state citizens from federal laws? i didnt think thats how our constitution worked.

Reference the 10th amendment. There is this little thing about legal recreational marijuana sold in Colorado, WA, OR, and Alaska; and soon to be legal in MA, CA, Maine and Nevada (while the Feds have MJ as a schedule 1 prohibited drug and the Feds are busting a lot of people in all the other States where it is not legal at the State level). However, these States are requiring payment of taxes and quite strictly regulating marijuana. There have been a few big federal/state marijuana busts in Colorado recently where non-licensed growers were exporting to States where it is not legalized. Meanwhile, the Feds have hands-off of growers and users following the State rules.

So...sometimes it's OK for State laws to exempt State citizens from federal laws (where governments get their money in taxes).

[poikilotrm]

United States v. Cruikshank says that the feds can't do what they did to those two Kansans. The feds can limit their own laws, but cannot restrict a state's firearm laws. It also said that the feds could not bring charges against citizens in violation of any of their civil rights.

US v. Miller, we all know that case, said that militia weapons are not to be restricted by the feds. Silencers are used by the military, and are thus easily classed as militia weapons, so the feds failed there, too.

Then there is US v. Stewart. The 9th Circuit struck down a conviction for a home made machine gun. Why? Because it was made in-state, never sold, and never intended to be sold or moved across state lines.

9th Circuit decision:

a homemade machine gun may be part of a gun collection or may be crafted as a hobby. Or it may be used for illegal purposes. Whatever its intended use, without some evidence that it will be sold or transferred—and there is none here—its relationship to interstate commerce is greatly attenuated."

[poikilotrm]

Reference the 10th amendment.

Read the 9th. If that was ever honored, most of this s--t would disappear.

[johndoe3]

http://ag.ks.gov/media-center/news-rele ... titutional

The above article by the Kansas AG adds more to the story. The Kansas AG intervened in the Federal case to argue for the constitutionality of Kansas law and asked the Federal District court to dismiss the charges against the defendants. However, the Federal District Judge ruled that the Kansas law...

Instead, the Court concluded that because of the way the Kansas Legislature wrote the state law, it did not apply to this case. Specifically, the Court held that the Kansas law, by its terms, applies only to federal statutes enacted “under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.” But in this case, the federal prosecution was for violations of the National Firearms Act, which is part of the internal revenue code and was enacted pursuant to the power of Congress to levy taxes, not its power to regulate commerce.

So...the Feds went after the unpaid tax angle to convict the 2 people, and not whether the Kansas law is constitutional based on the Commerce Clause. The Judge said that the Kansas legislature failed to write into their law that 'made in Kansas' firearms are also free of federal taxes. It sounds like that will be the basis of the appeal, that the basis of the NFA taxes are for interstate commerce of firearms and 'made in Kansas' firearms are not part of interstate commerce and thus should not be taxed federally.

[TROOPER]

is it legal for a state to make a law exempting state citizens from federal laws? i didnt think thats how our constitution worked.

No, it isn't legal for a state to do that.

However, the federal government's claim to authority on the matter is the 'interstate clause'. KS tells its own citizens that firearms manufactured within the state with the intent to stay WITHIN the state don't fall under the purvey of the federal government since intrastate firearms don't fall under the 'interstate clause'.

The feds were wrong on this one. The jurors were wrong on this one.

The instant that firearm crossed a state line... then yes, it would fall under the interstate clause, and that would default authority to the federal. But that didn't happen.

Those men acted in good faith with an understanding of the law. The prosecution shouldn't have occurred.

[poikilotrm]

What Trroper said.

[Hasdrubal]

Any attempt to use a rational explanation of 'interstate commerce' is futile in the face of Wickard v Filburn, one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever made. If they can twist the actual meaning of the term into applying to a man growing wheat on his own land, and using it on his own land, not even selling it to neighbors, then you have no chance to convince them that the Kansas law should stand.

[TROOPER]

Any attempt to use a rational explanation of 'interstate commerce' is futile in the face of Wickard v Filburn, one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever made. If they can twist the actual meaning of the term into applying to a man growing wheat on his own land, and using it on his own land, not even selling it to neighbors, then you have no chance to convince them that the Kansas law should stand.

I don't disagree for the most part, but there should be some clarification.

The 'interstate clause' is a mad power-grab under the thinnest guise of legitimacy. On that point, we completely agree. The shame of the Wickard V Filburn case was that the courts were quasi correct -- wheat is a national product, and if someone grew and harvested some, the existence of that harvested wheat would absolutely influence the wheat market. Any wheat that the farmer grew for his own use necessarily lowered demand for national wheat by some small amount.

That's just economics, and it can't be helped or argued with. That said, so what?? Even though providing his own feed did affect the national supply-and-demand for wheat, it still doesn't make it unethical.

The courts were busy being lapdogs for arrogant fools in Washington: yes, the free-market can absolutely be manipulated... that's what socialism is. And no, it never benefits the end-consumers.

In this most recent case, however, the restriction was never about artificially propping up a national firearm market, it was about control, and nothing else. There is no end-game other than control.

I don't disagree with the reasoning of Wickard-v-Filburn, just the outcome.
I both disagree with the reasoning AND the outcome of this firearm BS.