New Law in Texas Deregulates Firearm Suppressors - Fight for Gun Rights!

[Alamo]

The case is still inching forward.

Although I thought the parties had agreed to a paper shootout*, the Federal District Court judge held a hearing on 15 Jun 23 on the motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs (Texas AG Paxton et al) and defendants (US AG Garland et al). I do not know what happened at the hearing because the documentation has to be purchased from PACER. I think it eventually becomes available for free, but right now, I would have to join PACER and pony up some dollars. That’s a bridge I am not going to ride across right now. Maybe there’s a rich INGO lawyer who has access to pacer? Hint hint.

Here is a link to Court Listener that shows all the steps in the case so far. Most of the motions and briefs and so forth can be downloaded for free. Just not the most recent activity.

Paxton v. Richardson, 4:22-cv-00143 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Paxton v. Richardson, 4:22-cv-00143 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

* Looking at my old post, I think the parties at the suggestion of the judge agreed to not have a trial. Hearings are still fair game apparently.

 

[Alamo]

Well damn.

I’ve only skimmed the opinion, but looks like case dismissed without prejudice, because the judge rules State of Texas and the individual plaintiffs have no standing to bring the suit.

Someone’s going to have to get prosecuted under federal law to carry case forward appears to be what the judge is saying.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.359439/gov.uscourts.txnd.359439.64.0.pdf

 

[KLB]

None of those cases have gone anywhere.

 

[Alamo]

There’s an interesting quote from the opinion at 5:41.

The judge is saying that assuming the federal licensing scheme is unconstitutional, then

Either an application is wrongfully denied, and a plaintiff is injured because the government has deprived them of a silencer, or an application is approved, and the plaintiff is injured by being subjected to the process and tax.

So it looks like the judge is saying if you want standing, simply apply for a tax stamp like usual (for a silencer that was made entirely within the State of Texas), and you will have standing, regardless of whether the application was approved or not.

I read awhile back that Texas has the highest number of suppressor tax stamps of any state in the union, Seems like we could find some company in Texas that legally manufactures silencers for sale and get a “made in Texas” one put together for sale to plaintiff upon approval (or not) by the ATF. Those nobody has to risk prosecution, or go to jail, and I would think he would be enough to wait for the approval to start a lawsuit, simply be subject to the process.

INGO legal eagles?

 

[Alamo]

p.s.

Of course, Texas should appeal this to the fifth circuit, but that’s going to be focused on the issue of standing, and presuming we win it gets kicked back to the district court. Which still gives the ATF a battlefield win because it drags out the war (and maybe two or three in the Supreme Court will die whole the demented-in-chief is still in office).

Seems like should get a second set off plaintiffs going to apply to the ATF for a suppressor stamp and be in position to file another lawsuit.

 

[Alamo]

State of Texas filed an appeal to the fifth circuit today. No free copy of it online yet that I can see, but entry on the docket.

Paxton v. Richardson, 4:22-cv-00143 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Paxton v. Richardson, 4:22-cv-00143 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

 

[Alamo]

Texas AG and others filed a notice that they were going to appeal to 5th Circuit in August; the actual brief was filed in late October. On 10 Nov the ATF asked for an extension to 16 Jan 24 to file their reply. The 5A granted their request but moved up the due date to 02 Jan 24, so no extended holiday for their attorneys I guess.

Details at:
Court Listener

 

[Alamo]

DOJ/ATF filed their brief on time on 2 Jan; Paxton et al have until 23 Jan to file reply.

 

[Alamo]

Texas AG‘s appeal hearing at 5th Circuit is tentatively scheduled for the week of 29 April 2024.

Finally.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67683414/50/ken-paxton-attorney-general-state-of-texas-v-steven-dettelbach/

 

[Alamo]

As noted above the fifth circuit penciled in a hearing for the suppressor case for next week.

However, I can’t find any information about specifically when or if it will be heard. The court listener docket page doesn’t have any new entries since February.

Anyone else know anything?

 

[Alamo]

Huzzah!

The appeal is scheduled to be heard on 01 May 2024 at 9 AM in the West Courtroom of the fifth circuit in New Orleans.

The announcement was filed back on 21 March, but it did not appear on the court listener website until sometime since yesterday when I made the query above.

 

[Alamo]

Oral Arguments Set for Texas Silencer Case

The oral arguments in Paxton v. Dettlebach, the Texas silencer case, will be heard at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Wednesday May 1, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

www.ammoland.com

The three-judge panel consists of Judge Edith H. Jones, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, Judge Edith Brown Clement, appointed by H.W. Bush in 1991, and Judge Cory T. Wilson, appointed by Donald J. Trump in 2020.

The argument is not directly on suppressors nor 10th amendment, but on standing.

 

[dsol]

Sooooo.... can someone smarter than me translate all the legalize to plain old dummy speak? What will this mean if it is won or lost?

 

[Alamo]

Sooooo.... can someone smarter than me translate all the legalize to plain old dummy speak? What will this mean if it is won or lost?

As I understand it:

US Congress and the federal government claim that they can regulate pretty much anything because of the interstate commerce clause of 10th Amendment by further claiming that basically everything affects interstate commerce, even if it is not sold or transferred from state to state.

Some states have passed laws in the past to the effect that suppressors manufactured, sold, and kept within a single state are not subject to regulation by the feds. When individuals have gone to court to try to enforce this, they were usually been slapped down by federal courts based on previous Supreme Court precedents. Individuals usually don’t have a lot of financial resources compared to the US DOJ and it’s hard to pursue these kinds of cases through the federal system.

Texas passed a similar law, one or two legislatures ago, but added a new twist that allows the Texas Attorney General to represent individuals who want to build a Texas-only suppressor and not be subject to the federal registration scheme.

The novel and key part of this law is to put the expertise and resources of the Texas Attorney General’s office into the case and focus on overturning “ everything is interstate commerce” justification for regulating suppressors (and anything else) that are manufactured and used within a single state.

A the Texas Attorney General, and three individuals filed a case in federal District Court in Texas to pursue this issue. The district court judge ruled that Texas and the individuals did not have standing, if I recall correctly largely because they haven’t yet actually tried to build a Texas only suppressor and suffer prosecution by the feds for not getting federal permission first. This, of course, would put the individuals at jeopardy of being convicted of a felony.

The Texas Attorney General appealed ruling to the fifth circuit court of appeals, and the hearing on the matter occurs tomorrow morning, 1 May 2024.

Note that this argument will be about standing only, not the merits of the interstate commerce clause and current interpretations of it.