Attorneys General To SCOTUS: Second Amendment Protects Suppressors
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 10 months ago
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schimdt led seven other Attorneys General in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States contending that the Second Amendment protects suppressors too.
The seven other AGs represent the states of Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. They are asking SCOTUS to review a United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decision that held that firearm accessories fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protections.
The Tenth Circuit specifically ruled that Jeremy Kettler could not be granted relief for being trapped between federal law and Kansas law regarding possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor. They reached their finding, in part, by ruling that suppressors are not protected under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) because they are not “bearable.”
[ … ]
The AGs are asking SCOTUS to reverse that ruling. Their amicus brief states:
[The undersigned AGs] have a strong interest in protecting their citizens’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the lawful use of firearms—including for hunting or recreational shooting—is a venerable tradition in many amici States. This is especially true in Kansas, where its citizens recently and overwhelmingly voted to amend the State’s Constitution to reaffirm that an individual “has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose,” Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 4, and the right to “hunt . . . by the use of traditional methods,” id. § 21. The Tenth Circuit’s unsupported conclusion that firearm accessories are categorically excluded from Second Amendment protection threatens amici’s citizens’ right to enjoy these time-honored pursuits.
That suppressors aren’t “bearable” is an idiotic reason to suppose that the second amendment doesn’t apply. How big do they suppose suppressors are?
In any case, I hate to see the AGs arguing that suppressors shouldn’t be excluded from the scope of the 2A because of “sporting purposes,” which as we all know has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2A.
I predict the SCOTUS will not grant it a hearing.
On February 24, 2019 at 10:03 pm, Dan said:
There is NO LOGICAL RATIONAL REASON for suppressors to be an NFA item. The law was written as part of the attempt 80+ years ago by the
commies under FDR to enslave us by disarming us. And the hyperbole
and heavy breathing over suppressors continues for the same reason….
and for the reason that the gun grabbing morons simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what they actually are or what they actually do. So once
again we see blissful ignorance combine with malevolent motivation by
the commie left in the quest to deprive of us of rights.
On February 24, 2019 at 10:20 pm, Frank Clarke said:
Echoing Dan, I note that there is NO LOGICAL RATIONAL REASON for the NFA.
It is a fundamental precept of jurisprudence that later law supercedes earlier law. If article I, section 8 granted Congress any authority over firearms via its power to regulate interstate commerce, the 2nd amendment revoked that power.
On February 25, 2019 at 2:11 am, Longbow said:
Suppressors are under the NFA because FDR and Homer Cummings intended to place ALL handguns under the NFA as well (Concealable, remember? This is where the 26 inch over all length rule comes from.).
That was a step too far even for a Congress dominated by DemonRats.
On February 25, 2019 at 11:22 am, Fred said:
I thought I read that the SCOTUS is hearing this case in ’19.
What does this do to Trump’s Bump Stock ban? I find the closeness in time to the 10th circuits ruling and the Bump Stock ban to be willfully coincident. Nothing just happens in the Holy Washington Empire. Proving it is another matter but who cares? By Trump’s own logic we should hang him and the 10th judges for treason and then have the impeachment trials. I like to hang the traitors first, due process second.
America is dead.
On February 25, 2019 at 2:01 pm, Ned said:
It looks like the “friendly” Attorney’s General are trying to narrow the scope of the 2nd amendment. How is this helpful?
On February 25, 2019 at 2:03 pm, Jim Wiseman said:
I didn’t see the NC AG on that list. Of course, NC always struggles to be last when it comes to gun rights.
On February 25, 2019 at 5:18 pm, Henry said:
“And the hyperbole and heavy breathing over suppressors continues for the same reason….and for the reason that the gun grabbing morons simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what they actually are or what they actually do.”
No, it continues because to re-normalize suppressor ownership (like the re-normalization of shall-issue or constitutional carry) would be a highly visible and embarassing loss for the forces of disarmament, and therefore must not be allowed to occur, whatever the cost.