[marktwain]

I believe, with today's Supreme Court, this case has a chance, maybe as much as 50%. The arguments are good. The court needs to cut back on the insane doctrine the Commerce Clause gives the Federal government control over all sales, trade, making, growing, giving and use of all items in the entire country.

The Second Amendment nexus is good. There are court cases which say the taxing power cannot be used to circumvent the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

[Travis McGee]

I think the SCOTUS will shoot this down. Even the “conservatives.” Unfortunately.

[Magnatron]

3. There has never been a public-safety justification for the taxation and regulation of firearm suppressors.

This more than anything.

In fact, an argument could be made that suppressors increase safety through the reduction of hearing loss…

[Navy Patriot]

This is a positive, though I have less confidence in US Courts and the US JustUs System.

However, you were right on the Rittenhouse Judge, hope your right again.

Thanks for posting this.

[pierrem15]

The 2nd Amendment argument won't fly. If it does, it's because the registration is too burdensome and the tax too high. If the tax were trivial and collected by the seller, like a sales tax, it would fly.

The real issue is the Commerce Clause: it's overturning Wickard v. Filburn, so any "homemade" item not intended for transfer across state lines is simply not under Congress' authority to regulate.

But that would also apply to firearms themselves.

[nagant]

Backtracking, federal law and federal cops receive their power over contraband, like silencers, from the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. This means that the federal government has no authority over items which never leave a state.

Go Paxton!

[Houserino]

Need to undo all gun laws going back to at least 1934 NFA.

[zeugma]

I would be more impressed if it weren’t an election year.