United States v. Cox
235 F. Supp. 3d 1221
D. Kan.2017Background
- Defendants (Shane Cox; Jeremy Kettler joined) moved to dismiss NFA-based indictments, arguing the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional as a regulatory punishment rather than a valid federal tax and that it violates the Second and Tenth Amendments.
- Case generated public interest; judge explains legal obligations to follow controlling Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent.
- Defendants convicted under NFA for: possession of a short‑barreled rifle without registration/tax; making/possessing/transferring silencers without registration/tax; and unlicensed dealing/manufacturing of silencers.
- Court explains federal supremacy: if NFA is constitutional, it overrides conflicting state law (Kansas SAPA).
- Court analyzes whether NFA is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power and whether application here violates the Second or Tenth Amendments; declines to decide commerce‑clause grounds because taxing power suffices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity under federal taxing power | N/A (government defends the NFA as a tax) | NFA is a disguised penalty/regulation, not a bona fide tax | NFA is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power (Sonzinsky controls) |
| Tenth Amendment / state law conflict | Federal law preempts conflicting state law when constitutional | Kansas SAPA purportedly renders NFA invalid within Kansas | If NFA is constitutional federal law, it preempts state contrary law; NFA is constitutional, so SAPA cannot invalidate it |
| Second Amendment challenge | N/A (government defends constitutionality) | NFA infringes Second Amendment rights by regulating/banning some arms/accessories | NFA does not violate the Second Amendment: short‑barreled rifles and silencers are not arms "in common use," and commercial licensing/qualifications are permissible under Heller |
| Commercial regulation / licensing | N/A | NFA requirements for licensing, registration, and tax are beyond federal power or impermissible burdens | Licensing/tax for dealing/manufacturing is a permissible condition on commercial sale of arms and passes constitutional muster |
Key Cases Cited
- Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937) (upholds NFA as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (Second Amendment does not protect dangerous or unusual weapons like short‑barreled shotguns)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to keep and bear arms but permits longstanding regulations and commercial conditions)
- Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (taxing power can uphold regulatory measures; discusses limits where taxes become penalties)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (if power delegated to Congress, the Tenth Amendment does not reserve it to the states)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (reaffirms centrality of self‑defense in Second Amendment analysis)