Repeal the NFA soon STALKER

Because even those fucks would have a hard time weedling around the fact that it's unfucking constitutional, and they have to apply precedence. Which they set. That implies the same. So they either blatantly fucking disregard the weight of their office, or they piss off everyone who is left of center right.

If the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect firearm accessories, can't a state ban clipazines, stocks, sights, barrels, etc? They're not necessary for the operation of a firearm, they're useful accessories.

That's not even what this case about really. It's about the interstate commerce clause.

I know, I just read the petition and noticed that it says 2nd a doesn't protect accessories so I got curious.

Well to answer your question re clipazines that's actually a question going througb the courts right now. See Duncan v. Becerra

Thanks

Sorry, gents. This dies today. 10th circuit court already decided that the NFA is a valid excercise of congress's ability to tax. Arguments about amounts or who gets the receipt won't make the SCOTUS reverse that decision.

Please be wrong. Please be wrong

The 10th circuit also said that the 2nd amendment didn't protect SBRs with a rather aggressive interpretation of Heller so here's to hoping your nigger faggot ass gets AIDS

not necessarily true, they can delay their response too which will probably happen

>Today
Didn't see anything on it, from either google search or even TTAG

Click on the link in OP and start reading.

The deadline for another extension was 10 days ago

Ofc, because nothing will happen until the SC makes the decision on whether or not they hear the case.

>TTAG
Leave, newfag

TTAG is a Jow Forums colony, as opposed to the boomer airheads over at Ammoland.

Because it opens a ton of new precedents. The court has long since determined rights are not unlimited, but up till this point the 2nd has had a lot of legalese around it. By taking this case they could risk Federal power limits on EVERYTHING. So it's important to have a well formed case with guidelines. The GOA did well with their brief though. They outlined a lot of valid shortcomings that must be addressed. In particular accessories and the NFA tax being a more or less straight poll tax. Ideally they'd rule the ATF overstepped by policing intrastate activity and the NFA is no longer valid in it's current form and that the 2nd covers not just firearms but those things needed for them to function. But it is a far reaching precedent

Maybe for the reddit newfags
TTAG comments are exclusively boomerposting

fedniggers will never give up that amount of power, the constitution is fucking dead.

Thankfully the courts decide. A strong Fed was always a debate with the Founders but we've actually seen a bigger reduction than most realize of Fed reach. State legal weed is proof of that

Looking at the history there, nothing will happen. Extensions keep getting filed but they never get a response. SC will just let it expire.

>t. has no idea how cert petitions work
It can't expire you fucking retard

Turns out it's relatively easy to spot when a state government acts against the federal government, especially if a good chunk of the populace agrees with the feds.

But it's rather difficult to spot when a state government just doesn't do anything to enforce federal law on the populace if the staties just happen to look the other way.

Not him, not familiar with writ of certiorari procedure. What happens if the court says nothing today?

They don't miss their deadlines. They would have asked for another extension.

let's say against all odds scotus takes up the case. allow us to time travel and catch a glimpse of the future:

"yadda yadda, whatever, it would be inconvenient to upend all of this shit. NFA stands" -- roberts, 2020

Attached: 1553835394409.jpg (1728x2304, 889K)

Here let me amend your post.

“FUCK THE CONSITUTION. I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HELP BUT I CANT GO AGAINST PRECEDENT EVEN IF THEYRE WRONG OR ELSE MY POSITION LOSES MEANING.” - Surpreme Cuck

So it died then? Or do they announce what is being picked up in batches, etc.?

Can y'all imagine the eardrum-splitting REEEEEES that'll come from Bloomberg and Moms Demand Your Arrest in the unlikely event they decide to hear it?

What does this mean?

Attached: Untitled.png (625x95, 3K)

Means no sex for you

the gov't is essentially the bad guy in our case. the defendants (kettler) was convicted of possessing unregistered silencers.

he appealed it saying essentially the NFA exceeds congress's taxing powers (tax stamp), the 2nd amendment covers silencers, and the district court was wrong in their decision that the NFA taxing suppressors is constitutional.

to answer your question, the govt submitted a brief (their reasons and explanations) of why the SC shouldn't take the case.

Attached: 4thdimension.jpg (378x292, 24K)

holy fuck I am fucking triggered by this argument

This is a cateogeristically wrong summary and shows actual lack of knowledge.

>KANSAS decides to deregulate silencers made, sold, stored and used in state.
>Vet buys one uses in Kansas only never transports out of state.
>Uploads vids on FB
>Gets van visit
>Becomes Felon, can't own guns no more
>DID I mention he's an army vet?
>Challenges, loses, challenges, heads up to SC
>GOA issues excellent brief covering mutliple problems in NFA/ATF actions.
>MOST IMPORTANT/Likely to be addressed being ATF not allowed to do intrastate patrolling.

Nah there will be about 10 new "mass shootings" each week with the potentially unbanned items until the SC hears the case.

The solicitor general recommends denial

are you fucking high? read the brief.

The GOA is also posting an argument as part of this to address NFA issues but it is not just that the NFA is unconstitutional. That has already been ruled. The current arguments are centered rather on the tax status of the NFA rather than it's policy.

Of course he does, he's the one working for the feds. Now Kettler gets a chance to respond and then the SC decides if they want to hear it or not. Read the Fed's arguments. They're weak.

>They're weak
Doesn't matter, they're gonna carry the day.

Any ideas why this is? Just because the
>interstate
part of the commerce clause hasn't been used to restrict the feds in a while, so they think the
>not a tax
angle is less likely to run afoul of precedent?

>They're weak.
Not as I read the plaintiff's case for overturning Sozninsky. There appears to be droves of precedent upholding the case already.

Maybe it will convince Roberts and Alito to agree that supressors are covered by the 2nd just like ammo, and thus simply owning one cannot be taxed.

Circuit courts don't matter if SC says otherwise.

SC said the same thing back in '37, and it denied the option to revisit that decision back in '97, '98, and '04.

sadly this

Attached: Heller b-but that would be startling.png (709x941, 315K)

The NFA doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce. That's the GCA. The NFA comes from congress's power to levy excise taxes and thus far the shitpreme court has always agreed that it's a-ok to tax a right (see poll taxes).
GOA makes some solid points about why the NFA is bad (it's a net loss to the gov, you shouldn't tax a right, it's penalties are higher than any other tax law, etc etc) but imo until we pass an "anti gun tax" amendment the NFA will be here to stay.

Is this the US's brief for this case? If so, I'm saving this and trotting this out like a broken record every damn time someone mentions that common use does not apply to semi-auto rifles or 15/30 round magazines.

can someone please explain what is going on, I thought they were going to rule already?

No, that's the fucking DC v. Heller decision, where "based Scalia" went through ridiculous contortions to find the DC handgun ban unconstitutional without implying that "shall not be infringed" might actually mean "SHALL NOT".

Bumping for interest and any other thoughts on this

Attached: 1547479114335.jpg (251x201, 16K)

>2nd amendment didn't protect SBRs

How the fuck is this in any way justifiable? In the US v Miller decision the SC rejected the notion that short barrel shotguns were protected under the second amendment with the argument that they weren't a weapon in common use with the military, and therefore were not a weapon protected under the second for the people/milita. How long has the M4 been the standard "rifle" for the Army now? It's legally a SBR by NFA definitions with it's sub 16" barrel. In no way is the standard service rifle *not* something in common usage in a military context. If it's within common usage then logically* under the Miller decision SBRs should absolutely be protected under the 2nd amendment and be removed from regulation by the NFA.

>*implying logic or precedence has any bearing on BS politically motivated rulings.

They objectively got it wrong, I don't think that's up for debate. It's a matter of if it can go in front of them again so they can get it right.

The likelihood of SCOTUS ruling that intrastate commerce isn't interstate commerce and invalidating almost a century of federal policy is zilch. Never gonna happen.

Bump for great justice. Any word?

Friendly reminder that politics is not a zero sum game.

scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kisor-v-wilkie/
>"Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation."
foac-pac.org/Scotus-Agrees-To-Hear-Case-That-May-Ultimately-Undermine-Atf/Legal-News-Item/1019
>"Auer deference specifically keeps the courts from calling down regulatory bodies overstepping their bounds unless they’re particularly egregious. You know, things like the ATF potentially declaring things like bump stocks as machine guns despite them not having anything to do with how many rounds can be fired with a single pull of the trigger."
thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/12/ttag-contributor/breaking-supreme-court-grants-cert-in-case-that-could-end-deference-to-regulatory-agencies-challenge-atf-regulatory-power/
>"For gun owners, we need only look at the behavior of the BATFE in its shifting interpretations of firearms laws and regulations, which the courts have largely let stand because of Auer and Chevron deference."
townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2018/12/11/scotus-plans-to-hear-a-regulatory-case-that-could-be-a-huge-win-for-gun-owners-n2537371
>"The real win, however, would be for gun owners. Specifically, if Congress decides to rule in Kisor's favor, it means the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) could be reigned in. Right now, there are legal gray areas as far as implementing laws go."

Attached: 1547240072535.png (845x933, 72K)

I'm halfway through it, and their argument consists of saying they're not in common use (because we artificially restrict their adoption), so they're not part of what can be considered common arms. It's the solicitor general equivalent of "stop hitting yourself". Speaking of solicitor general, he probably should have taken a break from filing extension after extension to read the ruling Judge Benitez wrote, about that "they have to be in common use except we won't let them be in common use" circular logic non-sense.

Before anyone goes around saying that it would be illegal for AWB 2 to ban AR-15s because they are in common use, remember that this is clown world.

Writ denied here, there, and everywhere else.
Doesn't matter what argument they use, it's predetermined in this instance.

I encourage you to re-read, in that I only derided their argument and reminded the reader that this is clown world.

IIRC there was a court case involving tasers and part of it had whether or not they were in common use or not, I think the court found that tasers were in common use with about 500,000 of them in civilian hands setting a precedent for what is common use.

How many retards does it take to realize what SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means

Are tasers considered arms outside of Canada and Europe?

> How many retards does it take to realize
How many have you got?

The respondent (The US solicitor general) who is effectively the defense in this case recommends that the SC doesn't hear the case. The OP is wrong, I think Kettler will have to file a response to that and then the SC makes their decision to take it on.

>he's never read Heller

supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
>We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

>It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The NFA is baked in, baby. Only way it would get ruled unconstitutional is if Heller were overturned.

>Only way it would get ruled unconstitutional is if Heller were overturned.
Unless we start using our 2nd amendment rights to the fullest.

Attached: New fetish accquired.gif (460x460, 967K)

>Only way it would get ruled unconstitutional is if Heller were overturned.
Specifically, the only way it would be ruled unconstitutional and stick.

Bitching about who collects the tax isn't going to go anywhere. The best case scenario, the NFA gets struck down as a tax, results in it being reenacted as an actual ban, a concept unthinkable in 1934 but completely proven completely acceptable in 1994.

At which point, armed insurrection

>hey_kid_want_to_bomb_a_federal_building.jpg

>results in it being reenacted as an actual ban
Would require a new bill from congress, would it not?

Of course not, brother McVeigh

Attached: 1520643313520.jpg (1092x747, 203K)

DAE remember the Second Civil War (1994-1998)?

It's always bugged me how kids these days abbreviate it CCW. Second is spelled with an S, damn it. Not every war has to have a cool initialism like WW2.

I already responded to who thought I was making any point other than I hate lawyers, but in case you'd like to see that reply, here you go: You should probably read and understand the passages you quoted, though. I'd also like to point out the absurdity of labeling certain weapons as "dangerous". I thought that was the point, unless "dangerous and unusual" refers to a rod of plutonium on a stick, or a spray bottle full of ebola. Certainly there is nothing unusual about a semi-automatic weapon, and not more dangerous than other firearms. The opinion of the court in Heller emphasizes that handguns are very dangerous, and that this is what makes them so useful in self defense, and explains their widespread use.

> completely acceptable in 1994
1994 lead to the explosion in popularity of military style semi automatic rifles of all designs.

>In the US v Miller decision
See ; the Heller decision tied Miller in fucking knots to pretend the court is adhering to precedent while avoiding the only reasonable reading of Miller, precisely because throwing NFA out at this point would be "startling".

How do anons learn so much about law? Are there just a bunch of 2A loving lawyers here? I'd like to understand law (and US government) better but I don't really know where to start.

Start here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

Attached: my nigga Machiavelli.jpg (780x866, 62K)

Bombs away, Mr. McVeigh!

Kek

>US's recommendation against a WoC is literally just "we have this law therefore SCOTUS shouldn't touch it"
Armed demonstration in D.C. when

Attached: 1547682476983.png (428x424, 124K)

Considering half the population is by definition dumber than average....?

Overturning Wickard v. Filburn would be fucking amazing even though it will never happen. Imagine if interstate commerce actually meant interstate commerce.

I took a law class in high school from an ex-police chief. Was an elective that I felt may actually benefit me, cause if I'm going to live anywhere, I might as well learn how the law works.

>Wickard v. Filburn
Fuckin dems and their love of federal power

Attached: 101408857_135413849896.jpg (250x306, 19K)

>Armed demonstration in D.C. when
Literally never

>Literally going around a founding principal of federalism to centralize power
Lads how do I get into law school I want to sue the government

Attached: 1557119855364.jpg (334x354, 18K)

His story and fame is so ludicrous. It's like if Dean Cain had actually won the president position on the NRA, written a manual on how to manuever your way within federal politics as a gift to Trump, and 100 years later everyone forgot that he was ever Superman in a sitcom and instead handed his notes around as the basis for all political thought at the turn of the 21st century.

None of the famous progressive court cases make any sense at all from a rational standpoint. Row v. Wade invented a magical application of the right to privacy that never existed beforehand and hasn't been used as precedent for anything besides abortion. Gay marriage is not granted by the 14th amendment. If marriage is legally defined as between a man and women, equality means any man or woman can get married, regardless of race or sexuality. Two men getting married is not equality, it's a change in definition. Also interesting is that despite liberals using the 14th Amendment as a hammer to strike down anything that hurts their feelings, its is never used to strike down affirmative action, Title XIV or the Violence Against Women Act which put other groups above white males.

You're forgetting that less gun rights = more power for politicians. No gun rights, they have absolute power. No gun restrictions, they only have the power the people let them have. Literally why the 2nd amendment was put in the bill of rights.

Exactly. The 14th amendment explicitly states that it's equal protection under the laws. If the law specifies man and woman, then the law needs to change, not our interpretation of the law.

There is no way this is overturned. They won't hold that accessories are covered under 2A. That would open up an entire can of worms and they don't want to add more to their plate.

Funny how there's a huge push for gun rights going on right now, more states are going constitutional carry, etc. But if you looked at the TV or internet it'd seem the opposite.

It's like the media is pushing an agenda or something

Attached: serveimage (2).png (687x778, 445K)