Cowardice again raises its head at the highest levels of jurisprudence.
The background to this case is that in 2013, Kansas passed a bill, the “Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act” that made any firearm entirely made and possessed in Kansas exempt from Federal laws, regulations and the enforcement of same, to whit:
Sec. 4. (a) 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. This section
applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or
manufactured in the state of Kansas.
Sec. 7. It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony.
The two men, relying on this law, one making the suppressor and the other buying it from him in 2014, were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act as amended and annexed by the 1968 Gun Control Act.
When this happened, Kansas basically said “What law?”
Except for Justice Thomas, the justices of the Supreme Court have been extremely careful to not deal with any of the fallout of the Heller & McDonald decisions of a decade ago. They are cowardly letting the lower courts gut them at their leisure.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court refused Monday to decide if the Second Amendment protects gun silencers such as the one used in last month’s Virginia Beach shooting that killed 12 people.
Without comment or dissent, the justices turned away petitions from the operator of a Kansas army-surplus store and one of his customers who purchased an unregistered silencer in violation of federal law.
Two lower federal courts previously ruled that gun silencers fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment because they are accessories not in common use by law-abiding citizens.
The Trump administration had urged the Supreme Court not to hear the challenge. Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear “arms,” and that restrictions on silencers don’t burden the ability to use a gun for self-defense.
In addition, Francisco noted that the high court previously acknowledged that the Second Amendment permits banning “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
“Many courts have upheld restrictions on silencers on the alternative ground that silencers are dangerous and unusual,” he wrote.
Lawyers for Jeremy Kettler, who purchased a silencer from store owners Shane Cox, argued in court papers that silencers “are almost never used in crime” and that states “have increasingly recognized that suppressors are not dangerous.” They said Kettler, a disabled veteran, wanted to protect his hearing.