We have another gun case headed to the Supreme Court. It’s a viable challenge to New York’s transport ban, brought by a credible plaintiff, and supported by competent litigators.
But that’s not the one in the news. Instead, we have faux outrage that SCOTUS won’t hear Kettler v. United States, a case in which one idiot sold illegal silencers to another idiot, got busted, and wants to waste everyone’s time and money appealing his conviction. The lawsuit was brought by everyone’s favorite incompetents at Gun Owners of America (GOA), and I’m thankful the court chose not to hear it.
Let’s rewind. A few years ago, several states passed “Firearms Freedom Acts,” laws which claimed to exempt their citizens from federal gun regulations. Kansas passed their version in 2013. From a theoretical standpoint, these laws set up an interesting debate between federal and state power to regulate firearms, and they might provide a challenge to the overbroad application of the Commerce Clause.
From a practical standpoint, they’re dangerous. Much like state-level laws “legalizing” marijuana, they promote a false sense of safety. Federal authorities can still arrest and prosecute people for things their state told them are “legal.” These laws are going to get gullible people in very real legal trouble.
In the case of Kettler and Cox, I have little sympathy. Anyone who knows silencers exist knows they’re heavily regulated on the federal level. If the guy at the Army surplus store is selling them with no paperwork, then something is definitely amiss. How much of this is the fault of the Kansas legislature? It’s hard to say. Their law certainly muddies the waters, but the fact remains: there’s a reason you can’t buy silencers at WalMart.
That brings us to the problem with this case. We won Heller and McDonald in large part because we had credible, sympathetic plaintiffs. It shouldn’t matter, but it does. Remember that Claudette Colvin was passed over for the Montgomery bus discrimination case because her status as a single mother was deemed problematic at the time.
Until Heller, the vast majority of 2nd Amendment challenges were brought as part of a smorgasbord of appeals by an attorney representing a criminal brought up on serious charges. It typically went like this:
- criminal leads the police on a chase
- when apprehended, they find a stolen or unregistered pistol under the car seat
- the attorney claims the criminal’s 2nd Amendment rights were somehow violated by the seizure of said gun
Let’s be honest. Nobody wants to hear it. When the courts did hear these cases, we ended up with bad precedents that made things worse.
That’s why 2nd Amendment jurisprudence is so slow to take shape. We have to present the right argument, with the right situation, and with the right organizations arguing it. This case has none of those traits.
GOA has a long history of bringing bad cases, and I’d argue they’ve done more harm than good. How they continue to fleece people into giving them money is beyond me, but it’s a relief this case didn’t get heard.
(Yes, I know that’s a pellet gun in the photo. It’s the one CNN has been using and I found it amusing.)