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

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes please!

Let us get this on the agenda for next session.

Not tracking. Get what done?

Is this like the "Castle Doctrine" nonsense that NRA was foisting on us years ago?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

It's working with pot across the nation. It can work with suppressors in Texas and here.

If the stoners can get this done, why can't gun owners?

Why can't gun owners? The Federal Govt. Med marijuana is what started it, it looked bad kicking in the doors of Grannies who we're using it for glaucoma, chemo patients, etc. Then you got a President who stated if it was legal under state law they wouldn't prosecute. Get a Pres who says that about suppressors and you have a shot. It also helps immensely to get over half the country who thinks something should be legalized, and have 1 in 10 of the populous that use that something on a regular basis and 1 in 5 in the last year. And a majority of the populous that have at least tried it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's working with pot across the nation. It can work with suppressors in Texas and here.

If the stoners can get this done, why can't gun owners?

The difference is existing law.

Marijuana is illegal at the state level. States can repeal the law and make it legal at the state level, but can't do anything about the federal level. See: Supremacy Clause.

Suppressors are not illegal at the state level (here). There's no law to repeal.

 

[HoughMade]

If the stoners can get this done, why can't gun owners?

Because the feds hate firearms owners, want to appear tough on everything firearms....and all smoke pot.

...OK, most.

 

[Leadeye]

Tough to compare suppressors to MJ. There's very little money on the table involving suppressors, but lots of big media pizazz. The amount of potential cash that will be generated by legal MJ is huge by comparison and leadership is going to want a big piece of it. You don't get guys like John Boehner on board unless there's a big chance to earn.

Always follow the money

 

[DadSmith]

The difference is existing law.

Marijuana is illegal at the state level. States can repeal the law and make it legal at the state level, but can't do anything about the federal level. See: Supremacy Clause.

Suppressors are not illegal at the state level (here). There's no law to repeal.

So a State trooper, local sheriff, or police officer would not arrest you for having a suppressor as long as you were not committing a crime? Say just shooting at a public range without a tax stamp.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So a State trooper, local sheriff, or police officer would not arrest you for having a suppressor as long as you were not committing a crime? Say just shooting at a public range without a tax stamp.

What IC makes possession illegal?

 

[bwframe]

Because the feds hate firearms owners, want to appear tough on everything firearms....and all smoke pot.

...OK, most.

Which is all the more reason to do this. Expose this for both reasons.

 

[bwframe]

The difference is existing law.

Marijuana is illegal at the state level. States can repeal the law and make it legal at the state level, but can't do anything about the federal level. See: Supremacy Clause.

Suppressors are not illegal at the state level (here). There's no law to repeal.

The law should be a declaration that Indiana does not recognize the Federal law and that the feds shall not enforce suppressor regulation, in Indiana.

Supressors for now, eventually more of the NFA.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The law should be a declaration that Indiana does not recognize the Federal law and that the feds shall not enforce suppressor regulation, in Indiana.

Supressors for now, eventually more of the NFA.

Then you just want pandering, because such a law is unenforceable and unconstitutional. See Article 6 of the US Constitution.

 

[bwframe]

Then you just want pandering, because such a law is unenforceable and unconstitutional. See Article 6 of the US Constitution.

Yes!

I want it talked about every day all the time until it becomes common. I want every one of your average gun owners who ever missed their earpro once to say; "Why are suppressors on the NFA?"

Every new gun owner, that the libs motivated to become one, should be behind this after their first trip to the range!

The libs making the narrative is exactly how pot went from a drug to just another cocktail.

We should learn from the lib's success.

 

[DadSmith]

Then you just want pandering, because such a law is unenforceable and unconstitutional. See Article 6 of the US Constitution.

2nd Amendment says the federal government cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms. They have multiple times and it is unconstitutional.

 

[HoughMade]

2nd Amendment says the federal government cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms. They have multiple times and it is unconstitutional.

The remedy for that is found in a combination of Articles I, II and II of the Constitution. It does not reside in the states according to Article VI.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The law should be a declaration that Indiana does not recognize the Federal law and that the feds shall not enforce suppressor regulation, in Indiana.

Supressors for now, eventually more of the NFA.

Are we really talking about firing on Fort Sumter again? Not happening.

The best course of action is to riddle the NFA with holes/exceptions to the point that it becomes feckless.

People want magic. I get it. They want to march about and wave guns, got it. Not happening.

Organize, organize, organize. Study, plan, then execute. Nonsense political kabuki theatre is less than optimal.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I want every one of your average gun owners who ever missed their earpro once to say; "Why are suppressors on the NFA?"

Suppressors are in the NFA as a substitute for handguns. Originally handguns were in the NFA, when they were taken out, suppressors were put in.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

2nd Amendment says the federal government cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms. They have multiple times and it is unconstitutional.

You either believe in the Constitution or you don't. "But they did it first" isn't much of a legal or ethical argument, IMO.

 

[DadSmith]

You either believe in the Constitution or you don't. "But they did it first" isn't much of a legal or ethical argument, IMO.

Regulating firearms is not allowed by the federal government per the Constitution. That would be left to the states. Our Constitution reads basically the same as the US Constitution so our state is infringing on our rights with any laws that infringe on ownership. Having to get fingerprints and approval is an infringement.

Federal statutes regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. Shall not be infringed?

 

[Alamo]

Texas suppressor law marches on…

Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit to Exempt Texas-Made Suppressors from Federal Law to Move Forward

A federal judge allowed a lawsuit that seeks to exempt Texas-made firearms suppressors from federal registration requirements to move forward.

thetexan.news

 

[Ingomike]

Texas suppressor law marches on…

Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit to Exempt Texas-Made Suppressors from Federal Law to Move Forward

A federal judge allowed a lawsuit that seeks to exempt Texas-made firearms suppressors from federal registration requirements to move forward.

thetexan.news

Great news because I presume that if they win other states can do the same. Seems to me that would break the log jam and potentially head us to full legalization. It is total lunacy they are still NFA.

 

[bwframe]

Texas suppressor law marches on…

Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit to Exempt Texas-Made Suppressors from Federal Law to Move Forward

A federal judge allowed a lawsuit that seeks to exempt Texas-made firearms suppressors from federal registration requirements to move forward.

thetexan.news