Silencer Case To Challenge The NFA Moves Forward

Published on October 18, 2018
Duration: 5:33

This video from Guns & Gadgets details a significant legal challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) originating in Kansas. It covers the case of Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler, who operated under the belief that Kansas's Second Amendment Protection Act superseded federal NFA regulations for intrastate silencer sales. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled federal law takes precedence, setting the stage for potential Supreme Court review.

Quick Summary

The Kansas silencer case, challenging the NFA, has seen the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rule that federal law (NFA of 1934) supersedes state laws like the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act. This ruling stems from Shane Cox's belief that his intrastate silencer sales were protected, but federal law's supremacy was upheld.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: NFA Challenge Case
  2. 00:29Kansas Silencer Case Background: Cox & Kettler
  3. 01:05Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act Explained
  4. 01:48Federal Charges & Prosecution Details
  5. 02:3010th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling
  6. 03:39Federal Interest & Next Legal Steps
  7. 04:38Judge's Quote & Supreme Court Outlook

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Kansas silencer case challenging?

The Kansas silencer case, involving Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler, challenges the National Firearms Act (NFA). Cox manufactured and sold silencers within Kansas, believing the state's Second Amendment Protection Act exempted him from federal NFA regulations and tax stamps.

What was the ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals?

A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law, specifically the NFA of 1934, takes precedence over state laws like the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act when they conflict regarding NFA-regulated items.

What are the next legal steps for the NFA challenge case?

Following the 10th Circuit's ruling, the next steps for the case involve a petition for an en banc hearing within the 10th Circuit. If unsuccessful, the case may be petitioned to the Supreme Court for review.

What is the significance of Judge Phillips' quote regarding the NFA?

Judge Phillips stated the Second Amendment does not protect silencers or the business of dealing in them, meaning the NFA's regulations do not burden protected conduct. This reasoning supports the federal government's authority to regulate these items.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News

View all →