Kettler V USA is being distributed for conference on 6/6/2019 where the supreme court will decide weather to grant writ. Hopefully they will take the case.
All case files are located here supremecourt.gov
the governments arguments are weak and sound like they don't know what they are talking about. only 4 justices need to say yes to grant writ.
TLDR - the NFA may go before the supreme court.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
downsizedc.org
twitter.com
Bump for interest
>NFA ruled constitutional
>Gungrabbers ruled consitutional
We're fucked lads
Was a nice run.
Let me know when there’s actually good news, not just continuous anal rape.
You realize that they can rule parts of the NFA unconstitutional while not ruling the entire thing unconstitutional?
I wonder if they'd still maintain the same licencing/paperwork procedure if the tax was ruled unconstitutional?
they are expressly going after the taxing power in this case. The supreme court has previously ruled that taxes must be placed to raise money and not block or deny access.
They are also arguing that you cant tax a constitutional right and that since ATF makes no money off NFA taxes that the NFA is effectively restricting access to constitutional rights.
they could but the justices could potentially state that the registration requirement is also blocking access to constitutional rights since you cant register any new machine guns.
I don't want to get my hopes up. Assuming they even take the case, this could either go really well or really bad. I don't see a middle ground of no major decisions coming out of it.
Well, this could trigger a massive leftie chimpout and a gun ban push that would cost them 2020.
>implying anyone in government would even touch lifting the ban on registering new MGs
face it, the only people who care about repealing the NFA are heavy pro-2a people. no one else cares and plenty think its crazy.
Potentially. There are still gun owners on both sides of the aisle who would happily surrender their civil rights if it meant making their team win the popularity contest.
Fudds would lose their shit and make sure they get to the polling booth though.
Both are good arguments, both will be ignored.
Welcome to post 1800s America.
I want it, but it will never happen. I will support it in any way I possibly can, but I have literally no expectations and wouldn't be surprised if it made things worse.
WHO'S READY FOR GUN VENDING MACHINES?!?!
check'd
c- for effort.
meme magic is real
Trips demand it. Dubs confirm it.
>6/6/2019
Literally D-Day. Time to count down to zero hour, bois
Who's ready for anime virgins who don't own firearms to lurk without posting
someone give a greentext summary of what the case is about since OP is a complete faggot
Some faggot got busted by the gubment for using a suppressor. The madman decided to fight the charge by challenging the NFA itself. If he gets everything he wants, machineguns are legal again. (Yes I know they’re technically legal now but you know what I mean)
I believe GOA is in a lawsuit against the government to get rid of the NFA.
don't get overexcited
let's stick with some semblance of realism
I've donated, have you?
Some veteran bought a suppressor that was manufactured in Kansas and put it on a gun in Kansas (a state which has said this is legal to do) and then the federal gub'mint tread on him.
So now he's trying to take it to the Supreme Court to point out that the NFA can suck it.
I'm ordering a stock for my AR pistol as we speak.
Instadecline. The supremes will never rule on a 2nd amendment case again because the Constitution is so crystal clear it all but ties their hands. None of them want to deal with the national shitshow that will ensue if the floodgates are thrown open due to the NFA being overturned. The average normie thinks machine guns are wholesale illegal, can you imagine their reaction?
Fuck the NFA. Im sick of these games. Cant do this, cant do that. Its literally my gun. I paid for it. Government can kiss my ass.
You must be in your early 20s.
It was legal to own a machine gun up to 1986. Heck, you could buy a drop in auto sear for your AR before then.
Do you see how brainwashed you are?
You must be in your early 40s. It was legal to buy a machine gun via mail order until 1934
No fucking way the court takes this. They're not going to strike federal law that's over 80 years old.
Not even expecting the court to overturn the 5th in Mance and that's just a prohibition on interstate handgun sales.
TO DREAM, THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM,
The average normie believed that Hillary would win. Fuck 'em, ignorance is no excuse to the Law.
what ever happend to the lawsuit from years ago about the ATF fuqqing up and sending out the wrong stamp for a new mfg, MG it was like a 400 page thread on barfcom years ago
so he is challenging the constitutionality of the NFA? well i hope he wins but im a realist and recognize the supreme court is still too compromised. they will never acknowledge the case, they will let the lower courts rule whatever tyrannical shit they want
Thought pic was this guy for a second.
youtu.be
In the same way that it's legal to buy/make an SBR now, you just need to pay your dues to the crown.
Still unconstitutional. Like saying that certain opinions must be taxed before expressed, because they're more dangerous than others
That's my birthday gents. I know what I'm wishing for
>ATF makes no money
>well, let's go ahead and raise them..
>Based Kansas passes law that literally says "government get out REEEEEEEE!!"
>Spotless record army vet and all around patriot starts building and selling silencers to people without telling the whore of Babylon.
>Moran he sells one to posts vid of unregistered silencer on normiebook,
>ATF goes after low hanging fruit, arrests them both.
>Previous court affirms their convictions but gives them a slap on the wrist for sentencing.
>Based GOA, who has been with them the whole way, appeals their case to the SCOTUS.
>Makes several good arguments against the NFA. Including that the NFA is a net loss to the government, there is no way to pay the tax retroactively, the penalties for failing to pay the NFA tax are far far higher than for any other tax, and you can't tax a constitutional right in the first place.
The supreme cucks will never ever take the case however so don't get your hopes up.
>tfw my state finally does something noteworthy and good
we're still fighting the good fight bois
As with all else, we'll just have to see.
One wonders if they're waiting for Ginsburg to officially croak and *then* take it....
She'll never die. She's a lich sent to subvert freedom and keep us weak until their army arrives.
Fuck off shill
Put your avatar back on so I can report you, duckschitzo
>Petitioner has argued that the circuit court erred
in ruling that suppressors are not protected by the
Second Amendment because they are “firearm
accessories,” not “bearable arms.” Pet. at 21-22. In
7
response, the government asserts that the Second
Amendment protects only “‘weapons of offence, or
armour of defence,’” and that suppressors are neither.
Opp. at 10 (quoting Heller at 581). Then, only two
pages later, the government’s brief adopts the polar
opposite position, that suppressors are outside the
protection of the Second Amendment because they are
“‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Opp. at 12. The
government even asserts that suppressors are so
dangerous that they are part of “the arsenal of *** the
‘gangster.’” Id. (citing as authority a Michigan case
decided during the era of John Dillinger and Bonnie
and Clyde). The government is wrong on both counts.
Interesting argument. Best case scenario this throws out the SBR, SBS, and suppressor laws but I'm hopeful that this will at least do the job for suppressors
Shes already dead, but no one has bothered to call the bluff yet. Until then her staff will write the opinion pieces while never making a public showing.
interesting. And yes if supressors aren't firearms the court should tell the ATF that.
What's the argument that sbr, sbs, and cans would get deregulated for a laymen based on this brief
Are bullets not protected by the 2nd amendment either then?
“Bearable Arms” includes anything required to use them.
IF bows are “bearable arms,” then arrows are protected. As banning arrows infringes on your ability to use a bow.
The same applies to guns and bullets.
Somewhere in the literature it says ammunition is protected by 2A because it is what makes guns work.
Why are SCOTUS and grabbers so afraid of throwing down the gauntlet on 2A cases? Worst case scenario for both sides is that the debate is defined and settled.
For the same reason they don't want abortion to go to the supreme court. The likelihood that their position will crumble is extremely high as there's not much conditional guarantee of their stance.
If it means I can buy a .308 suppressor for less than the price of a new house I'm down
Suppressors are either weapons, and therefore protected by the 2nd, or they are not, and therefore fall outside of the ATFs purview and authority to regulate.
The grabbers know they will fucking lose
A man can only dream, eh? Fuck how this is out of our hands. We have to idly watch how the government decides to fuck us for now.
>debate is defined and settled.
It was defined and settled 250 years ago.
You can do that anyway
That's pretty cool actually. I've never thought of it that way. Is there conditional grounds for that argument being fair? Even if it's no longer considered a firearm part can it still be banned? If it works, what happens to all the supressors sitting in gun shops waiting to be sold?
>If it means I can buy a .308 suppressor for less than the price of a new house I'm down
Where do you live? I want these 600 dollar new houses.
You can get a $600 prefab at Home Depot
does castle doctrine extend to wheeled sheds I tow into an empty parking lot
Depends on your state. In Colorado your vehicle is an extension of your domicile.
this
y'know there's some interesting case law about air rifles and "suppressors". I am not a lawyer but the general argument is
>supressors are firearms therefore atf regulates
>only becomes a "firearm" when attached to a firearm
>airguns aren't firearms, therefore that isn't a "supressor"
seems relevant to this line of argument.
if the scotus decides to take the case then there s a high chance that some of our freedoms will be restored.
This here is what has me worried. At what point do the crazies decide that any modern feature attached to a firearm can be regulated separately? Sure, the gun industry will just find more loopholes to exploit but where would it stop? Gun accessories aren't explicitly protected under 2A and it would take some real mental gymnastics by the NRA to prove otherwise.
Judges are mostly politicians in robes and politicians are untrustworthy faggots.
Fuck me why can't my wife be a gun enthusiast like me and do a similar photo as this pic.....
What would be the immediate effects of NFA is suddenly gone?
Subguns literally EVERYWHERE, a massive boom in gunsmith conversion work, and a complete shakeup of the concealed carry meta.
Daily reminder machine guns will never be legal and trump signed the bump stock ban because they were basically machine guns.
The best we can hope for is over the counter suppressors and shorty short guns which would be AMAZING
I wonder how controllable a Glock 18 is.
All suppressors would be sold out in a couple days. Companies would have to ratchet up production to meet demand.
Short barreled uppers would fly off the shelves, but the difference I suspect wouldn't be as pronounced given that we've had this whole pistol brace business for some time.
A media freak out. "The deadliest new assault weapons now made LEGAL by SCOTUS under Trump administration!! Silencers for secretly murdering children!!"
No doubt all socialist paradise states would enact emergency stays on production and distribution of short barrels and suppressors. California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey...places like this will never have legal access to off the shelf suppressors.
With a fore grip just as controllable as a mac11
So awesome for clearing bathroom stalls
This is fine though because at a certain point the difference between states regarding gun laws is going to run afoul with interstate commerce. For example if a manufacture of silencers is in a free state surrounded by non transport states
Nobody thinks that machine guns would happen. The Hughes amendment is still in effect.
>SCOTUS will totally go pro 2A guys, they're just waiting for (insert whatever thing hasn't happened yet).
They will never, in the rest of the life of America, take another 2A case. Ever. I will put every last cent I have on this.
>Worst case scenario for both sides is that the debate is defined and settled.
That would undo so many things and they don't want to deal with that. Better to just talk about gays and trannies for the next 150 years.
There have been three gun cases that have been put on hold by the Supreme Court pending them outcome of NYC v NYSRPA. This case might actually be different because it doesn't involve handguns like the other cases.
After the NY transport case though you mean
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the NFA set up the registry for Automatics?
The Hughes Amendment barred all new machine guns made after that special date from being added to the registry, so no registry means no Hughes Amendment.
Or I'm retarded.
That would be correct, the only thing making post-86 gigglegats illegal is the ATF not selling stamps for it anymore
When will SCOTUS rule on the NYSRPA case? The ball better start rolling soon.
So, if the supreme court was smart to their zogged masters they either wouldn't touch it or leave the fully automatics alone in NFA.
wont happen. the only actual pro-2A justice was scalia. the current ones on "our side" are actually pretty apathetic and couldnt care less about guns. they just rule based on logical analysis of the constitution and case law, but are too afraid of being divisive to the rabid militant left so like every typical conservative they will kick the can down the road or avoid confrontation completely because they need to kowtow to the loud whiny liberals
>Why are SCOTUS and grabbers so afraid of throwing down the gauntlet on 2A cases?
see post abovealso it would affect thousands of cases and cause thousands of criminals to be retried or awarded damages for illegal incarceration. can you imagine all the lawsuits from every ambulance chaser who can find a gangbanger that got locked up on sawed off shotgun or illegal full auto charges? every one of those would be million dollar + lawsuits if they spent any significant time in prison for it. the justices are literally hemmed in by the institution which has gotten too large and too heavy for it to be moved anymore. it would have a very strong negative impact on the economy. budgets for cities and states would be destroyed. there is so much that would go wrong if they ever overturned or ruled on the NFA and guns
Sauce on distribution happening on the 6th?
>the economy
Mathfags deserve the rope
check the scotus site linked in the op you mongoloid
Lmao they updated it after the fact those fucking dorks. It wasn't there when I read the Kettler reply from the 23rd
So essentially, on the 6th will we know if scotus takes it?
>seething weeb snitchposter
Guess who's still here, janny's pet?
They won't and everyone here knows it. Just look at their rulings on abortion which is on even even worse ground since the right to life is pretty basic. Not to mention the SCOTUS has become so political that IF they decide to take it at all (hint: they wont) it would end up being worse for the gun owner as I'm sure they would rule in such a way that the government would have more power to regulate. I hate that say it guys but it's 2019, the only way things are going to change is through force and all of you know that.
>implying that the supreme court isn't capable of handing down controversial decisions that have dramatic impacts on society
That's literally their job
Thomas is based and is just as pro gun as Scalia if not more so. And with Kennedy gone, the likelihood of the court applying strict scrutiny to the 2nd is actually a possibility now. Why do you think the Democrats shilled against Kavanaugh so hard?
>Why are SCOTUS and grabbers so afraid of throwing down the gauntlet on 2A cases?
They are not. Its the way that cases are granted certiorari. Since it is an internally disruptive issue its hard to find a panel to vote unanimously to grant the petition for cert.
>The only actual pro-2A justice was scalia
This is wrong. Thomas is very pro-2A. He has written two or three dissents on denials of writs of certs, which is incredibly rare especially over the same issue.
Some time after October based on the calendar.
>The supreme court has previously ruled that taxes must be placed to raise money and not block or deny access.
I wasn't aware of that but it make sense.
Kavanaugh is a status quo faggot