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

[tv1217]

Hollywood is partly to blame for keeping suppressors illegal. The general public doesn't understand that suppressed guns are still quite loud because James Bond's PPK has been going "pewt pewt" for the last 50 years.

 

[Ingomike]

Hollywood is partly to blame for keeping suppressors illegal. The general public doesn't understand that suppressed guns are still quite loud because James Bond's PPK has been going "pewt pewt" for the last 50 years.

It is hard to overstate how much this crap affects the public understanding. The public also believes a 30 round pmag will feed cartridges all day…

 

[tv1217]

The closest I've gotten to Hollywood quiet is with the CCI Quiet .22s (which are only moving at ±750fps) in a bolt action but even then it's clearly a gunshot. The only place it might go unnoticed in relatively close quarters is in a heavy industry or similar environments with a lot of constant background noise.

 

[Alamo]

Still marching on.

As I understand the current status the ATF has made several attempts to get this lawsuit dismissed and failed, so I believe the initial skirmishing over procdure is over.

The Federal District Court judge asked the parties if they really need a trial to sort this out or could be handled with motions and summary judgment? I believe both parties (the feds and Texas Attorney General) have agreed that this can be done without a trial.

The parties met with the judge on November 9 to start work out The submission of the emotions, and The parties are returned to their respective corners to work on them. I don’t know what the schedule is full resolution.

The Armed Scholar lawyer does a good job of explaining various 2A-related lawsuits, but he uses overly Clickbait-ish titles to grab your attention. I find this annoying, but he is still worth watching.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[HoughMade]

2 issues-

1. I'm not so sure Bruen applies to non-firearms (we had the discussion elsewhere about a suppressor not being a firearm for Constitutional purposes regardless of whether statute calls it one for a specific purpose). If we're going to go all "original intent", what was the "original intent" about a suppressor? I know their argument on this, but comparing a suppressor to a trigger or magazine is a stretch. further, the "ink and paper" thing would only be analogous if they were seeking to regulate steel, aluminum, polymer, etc. when used in a firearm.

2. This doesn't affect that fact that purely intra-state activities should not be subject to federal laws based upon the interstate commerce clause.

 

[yotehunt]

Interesting stance. States did this to Marijuana, and they got away with it.

 

[Ingomike]

Interesting stance. States did this to Marijuana, and they got away with it.

Because those in control of fed law enforcement want it that way…

 

[Twangbanger]

Why in the hell aren't we doing this?

If states are doing similar stuff with "legalizing" pot, then we should certainly be doing the same as Texas to start the precedence to "legalize" suppressors.

Jeez, Indy radio station WIBC is running advertisements for crossing into the Ilini border to "legally" buy pot.

Necro-post, but: too busy dreaming up medical loopholes for abortion that need closed?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Interesting stance. States did this to Marijuana, and they got away with it.

Because those in control of fed law enforcement want it that way…

Exactly. The feds say they won't enforce federal laws regarding cannabis that is legal under state law. They never said they couldn't, or that it was legal under federal law.

 

[gassprint1]

Exactly. The feds say they won't enforce federal laws regarding cannabis that is legal under state law. They never said they couldn't, or that it was legal under federal law.

If things don't cross state lines and origin is in that state, then i believe federal law does not apply. I think this is why most all states have the same laws on the books as what the federal level has.

 

[KLB]

If things don't cross state lines and origin is in that state, then i believe federal law does not apply. I think this is why most all states have the same laws on the books as what the federal level has.

The courts have said that is not true in the past.

 

[gassprint1]

The courts have said that is not true in the past.

I think alot of that has changed. Biggest was when California made Marijuana legal and the feds were still doing raids. In the end, the feds were ousted and people were left alone. Then it was a problem with county sheriffs taking over what the feds couldn't do and i think that was mostly done with and sherrif stopped thst nonsense.

 

[Ingomike]

If things don't cross state lines and origin is in that state, then i believe federal law does not apply. I think this is why most all states have the same laws on the books as what the federal level has.

This pretty much let that horse out of the barn…

Wickard v. Filburn

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[gassprint1]

This pretty much let that horse out of the barn…

Wickard v. Filburn

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

That case wouldnt apply to the California deal because it isn't a federal US product bought and sold on any type of exchange like the food product mentioned in the court case is. I could see the supressor deal going on in texas would relate to that case though so even my common sense theory could be wrong.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That case wouldnt apply to the California deal because it isn't a federal US product bought and sold on any type of exchange like the food product mentioned in the court case is. I could see the supressor deal going on in texas would relate to that case though so even my common sense theory could be wrong.

The grain he was growing wasn't on any type of exchange. It was for personal use. And if he wasn't growing it he would have to buy it, and since grain moves in interstate commerce simply growing it himself "effects" interstate commerce. Can you think of just about anything that doesn't move in interstate commerce? Look up the Heart of Atlanta case, it was held that an owner of a motel had to abide by federal regulations regarding race because while the motel doesn't move in interstate traffic, people travel interstate and effect commerce. Wickard v Filburn is one of the worst if not worst decisions SCOTUS has ever made.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States: The Commerce Clause extends the anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside the state.

supreme.justia.com

 

[Ingomike]

Wickard v Filburn is one of the worst if not worst decisions SCOTUS has ever made.

It sure is. The states should have shut that down right then…

 

[BigRed]

Intro to Con. Law:

A state can choose not to enforce federal law. It can choose not to participate in enforcement of federal law. It can refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement. It can refuse to give federal law enforcement information.

A state cannot cancel, preempt or invalidate federal law.

A primer on "general police powers":

The federal government does not have "general police powers" (which have little to do with police). Think of it this way. A state can make any law with only a few exceptions. A state's "general police powers" are limited only by the federal Constitution (and laws made in conformance therewith), it's own constitution, its own statutes or or its own common law.

The federal government, however, only has the power to make the laws that the Constitution says it can make. See the difference?

State: power to make any law with a few exceptions.

Federal: Power only to make laws that the Constitution says it can.

So now, the "Interstate Commerce Clause":

The most used and abused power given to Congress is the power to "regulate commerce among the several states". This is the "Interstate Commerce Clause". Congress asserts the power to regulate anything that moves, may move, may have moved or may, in any way affect, "Interstate Commerce". You can see how broad that can get. As an example, way back when, in Wickard v. Filburn, a regulation which was applied to limit the wheat grown by a farmer for use on his own farm was found to be constitutional because the potential aggregate affect of many farmers growing wheat for their own use could affect the general wheat market and therefore affect interstate commerce. No law based upon the "Interstate Commerce Clause" was struck down as exceeding Congress' authority from 1937 to 1995. In 1995, and this was big news the year I started law school, U.S. v. Lopez was decided which held unconstitutional portions of the "Gun Free School Zone Act" as exceeding the reach of the "Interstate Commerce Clause".

Finally, the Texas Suppressor Law:

It appears that Texas has passed a law to set up a situation which will test whether a suppressor completely manufactured, owned and used in Texas is subject to federal law. The NFA was passed under the authority of the "Interstate Commerce Clause". Therefore, if Texas can get a ruling from a federal judge that a completely in-state (intrastate) suppressor is not subject to a law passed under the interstate commerce clause, then suppressors would be legal in Texas.

But be careful, that is what the design of this law is. It is designed to set up a test case (or several). It is not designed to simply allow everyone and their brother to, instantly, start making their own suppressors...though due to bad reporting and rampant ignorance, I am sure many will.

To be clear, Texas can set up a situation where it does not believe that an "intrastate" suppressor would be subject to the "Interstate Commerce Clause". Texas does not get to decide whether a given suppressor is not subject to a law passed under the "Interstate Commerce Clause". That is a matter for the federal courts.

From where does man's rights originate?

I'm only asking because I want to know if I can go hunt or something.

 

[BigRed]

I will simply make an observation.

The only power granted to the central state, aka "general government", "central government", "federal government" et al

Is that which one cedes to state.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The grain he was growing wasn't on any type of exchange. It was for personal use. And if he wasn't growing it he would have to buy it, and since grain moves in interstate commerce simply growing it himself "effects" interstate commerce. Can you think of just about anything that doesn't move in interstate commerce? Look up the Heart of Atlanta case, it was held that an owner of a motel had to abide by federal regulations regarding race because while the motel doesn't move in interstate traffic, people travel interstate and effect commerce. Wickard v Filburn is one of the worst if not worst decisions SCOTUS has ever made.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States: The Commerce Clause extends the anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside the state.

supreme.justia.com

SCOTUS even ruled that the black market is regulatable interstate commerce in Gonzales v. Raich which addressed states legalizing marijuana. So marijuana grown for personal use within a single state also falls under federal control.

Several lower courts also cited Raich when Montana tried to protect Montana-made suppressors several years ago.