WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to federal regulation of gun silencers Monday, just days after a gunman used one in a shooting rampage that killed 12 people in Virginia.

The justices did not comment in turning away appeals from two Kansas men who were convicted of violating federal law regulating silencers. The men argued that the constitutional right “to keep and bear arms” includes silencers.

The court’s action in the silencer cases was among dozens of orders in pending appeals, including decisions to add an international child custody dispute and four other cases to next term’s docket. The justices also will hear cases dealing with a death row inmate in Arizona, racial discrimination claims against Comcast by an African American owned media company, environmental cleanup at a Superfund site in Montana and a dispute between Intel Corp. and a retired Intel engineer.

The court also rejected an appeal from a Yemeni man who has been held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base for more than 17 years. But Justice Stephen Breyer said “it is past time” for the court to decide whether indefinite detention at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba is legal.

In the silencer cases, Kansas and seven other states joined in a court filing urging justices to hear the appeals. The states said the court should affirm that the Second Amendment protects “silencers and other firearms accessories.” The other states are: Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place.

Shane Cox, owner of a military surplus store, was convicted of making and transferring an unregistered silencer, and customer Jeremy Kettler was convicted of possessing one, all in violation of the 85-year-old National Firearms Act. Both men were sentenced to probation.

Meanwhile, police are trying to determine a motive for the deadly shootings in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Authorities have said that city employee DeWayne Craddock opened fire in a municipal building on May 31. Police say Craddock was armed with two semi-automatic handguns, a silencer and extended ammunition magazines.

Craddock later was killed in a shootout with police.

https://apnews.com/0958862d44824d9596feb5ec097273be

the answer is a federal agent who will enter a legalized marinara state and make several arrests of pot users or growers to take to federal court.

if it is a states wight to legalize a drug the it is a states right to legalize a suppressor or other accessory.

the issue is so many of our laws would be turned on end with such a ruling that they just want to ignore it.

I'm still trying to figure out how the suppressor was really a factor. How about an idiot that obviously had issues that somebody knew about that did a horrible thing to innocent folks.

The AP. I don't trust one single word from the AP.
The idiot reporter who wrote this statement, "President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place,"
has no clue about what separation of powers of the three branches of government means.
Whether or not Trump's administration asked or not matters not. It is a non sequitur. Idiot, that guy is.

"President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place."

Very interesting.

Jim

"President Donald Trump's administration..."

Wonder if B. Todd Jones, current director of the BATFE, made that request. He's an Obama appointee, but since he still has the job we'll blame it on the Donald.

How about the SCOTUS do their @$#&% job and quit skirting the issue.

Mike

I could see Donny making that request.

I blame my state. its a felony to enforce federal gun law in KS. Why pass the law if federal agents and prosecutors don't get arrested and charged? It would get in front of the supremes then.

I have long said that it's an exercise in futility to pass state laws to "protect" the 2A. The federal law will ALWAYS trump the state effort.

I can understand completely why SCOTUS wouldn't touch this case.

1. They sure don't want to debate whether the NFA violates 2 A.

2. They don't want to address states rights and the 10th amendment...although I think that would be the easiest issue.

3. They don't want to open the can of worms that is the "commerce clause" and all the horrendous law decided under that farce over the decades.

^^^^^^^^
X2

W17 X3

X4. And I will add, SCOTUS needs to make it right and to do so means they need to find some grit.