Posted on Nov 17, 2016
Gun manufacturing case pits state law against federal law
4.25K
13
7
2
2
0
This may shape into an interesting states rights case.
"Two Kansans face up to a decade in prison for making and selling silencers without registering them with the federal government or paying the special taxes," Wichita CBS affiliate KWCH12 reported Tuesday. "They say it's allowed under state law. But a federal jury says it's illegal."
The defendants were relying on the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, a duly enacted law citing Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendment protections against federal infringements, declaring:
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.
That's been the position proponents of state Firearms Freedom Acts have been arguing for years, as efforts to the one first pioneered in Montana, have enjoyed various levels of acceptance and advancement in the states. The jury, obviously unschooled in its power to judge law as well as fact, sided with the government's position, which is basically "Too bad. Get our permission and pay us tribute or be destroyed."
"Two Kansans face up to a decade in prison for making and selling silencers without registering them with the federal government or paying the special taxes," Wichita CBS affiliate KWCH12 reported Tuesday. "They say it's allowed under state law. But a federal jury says it's illegal."
The defendants were relying on the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, a duly enacted law citing Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendment protections against federal infringements, declaring:
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas is not subject to any federal law, treaty, federal regulation, or federal executive action, including any federal firearm or ammunition registration program, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.
That's been the position proponents of state Firearms Freedom Acts have been arguing for years, as efforts to the one first pioneered in Montana, have enjoyed various levels of acceptance and advancement in the states. The jury, obviously unschooled in its power to judge law as well as fact, sided with the government's position, which is basically "Too bad. Get our permission and pay us tribute or be destroyed."
Gun manufacturing case pits state law against federal law
Posted from kwch.com
Weapons
Collecting Guns
2nd Amendment
ATF
Rights
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
2
2
0
Sir, this is a hot political potato. Which comes first; federal law that encompass the land, or the state law that protects the residents of the state? It's a shame it came to this, but going in, me personally would've had documented and irrefutable proof what I am doing meets the legal criteria of both federal and state laws. There should've been a light bulb going off in his head when you cannot open a gun store and sell weapons without going through the state AND federal agencies with their legal requirements. Kansas didn't help one bit by passing a law like this. Sure have your weapons as many as you like (I know I am), but I'm going to be listening to Black Jesus in my head telling me to check everything twice, and have signatures of those in positions where blowback would be sent to them not me. Kansas really screwed these men. You want to exercise your state rights, until something stupid happens. Then you'll say the store owner didn't read that section, or he must've been confused, in regards to the intent of the law. I hope noting comes of this, and the NRA doesn't step in and make it worse.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan I agree, this will be interesting.
Question is, what is the law of the land? The second Amendment has been argued by much smarter and more educated people than me. It would seem that some states disagree with the federal interpretation of this amendment.
Question is, what is the law of the land? The second Amendment has been argued by much smarter and more educated people than me. It would seem that some states disagree with the federal interpretation of this amendment.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
LTC (Join to see) - 2A is the law of the land. No one found them at fault for selling weapons, but silencers and full auto weapons are something that are tracked. 2A as far as I'm concerned means I can own, carry, and use in self defense or in defense of my homeland. Nothing I've ever seen regarding 2A mentions automatic weapons, silencers, or large cap mags. Now if he is taking his marching orders from the viewpoint of the state, then the state should be held accountable for the actions of these men. The constitution is written very vaguely, and I believe that is on purpose so it has the ability to add or take away as the US progress through the years. Who is responsible for the Constitution, the federal government. So to me, these men were railroaded by a state law intended to slap a certain President in the face, but it's going to slap these two men instead.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan - I understand your point, I was an ffl holder for many years and grew up believing that "class iII" weapons were controlled by the federal government. If you will, consider this, until the 1920s there was zero federal restrictions on firearms. Some contend that these early restrictions violate the verbiage and intent of the 2Ad. Montana enacted legislation several years ago similar to the Kansas law that is in contention here. Some states seem to take the position that 2Ad is to be taken literally.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A state can make state law but state law does not over power federal law. I am all for rifles and the 2nd amendment. I built my own AR platform weapon by buying the parts, but it would be illegal for me to sell the weapon. Since I manufactured the weapon it's not registered in the federal database. That is a good thing. I wouldn't try to sell it though, because I am not a licensed manufacturer. So these yahoo's are manufacturing without a license, and selling for profit. It's against the law. Federal law and always will be. This is not about the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment says nothing about the right to manufacture arms. They broke the law when they sold for profit. So they will probably get a fine. Then they should pay and apply for the proper license
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google