Texas Made Suppressors

[bshefa]

Apparently, Texas law is such that if a suppresor is made in Texas it is legal to sell here without a tax stamp. There is a guy around here pumping them out and selling them for 500 a piece. I have yet to buy one and don’t plan to as I’m a bit concerned about it. However, most of my friends have. I get that they are still federally illegal cans without a stamp. However, my main concern is that this guy selling them is taking credit cards and Venmo. No just cash. I envision a raid on him that looks down his list of sales and starts busting the consumer as well. Thoughts ?

[Recycled bullet]

The Ruby Ridge killings happened for far less.

[mikejonestkd]

https://kfox95.com/texas-gun-suppres...stering%20them.

[rickyrick]

The government should be encouraging use of suppressors… if they cared

[Aguila Blanca]

State laws do not trump federal law.

[JohnKSa]

Correct.

Federally illegal is illegal everywhere in the U.S.

[bshefa]

No I get that it’s illegal. Thoughts on the use of credit card and e pay to catch those that bought

[44 AMP]

A deep cover sting operation, perhaps???

All the Texas law means is that the state of Texas will not bust you.

The Feds operate under Federal law, and a suppressor without a stamp is a federal crime. Doesn't matter if Texas cares or not.

First clue something is hinky, not accepting cash. Does the phrase "legal tender for all debts, public and private" mean anything to you? Its on our money.

ANY business that won't accept cash should be a HUGE red flag. Looks to me like this guy wants a list of people who bought his product. A list the Feds can seize and use. Remember that a silencer doesn't even have to work to be something you can be prosecuted for possessing. The crime is the intent to silence a firearm without obtaining Federal approval first. Possession of something intended to be a silencer, without a tax stamp is prime evidence of intent to violate Federal law.

Is this guy selling "silencers" entrapment? possibly, but I'm not going to volunteer to be the test case. Recommend you don't, either.

I suggest you tell your friends who bought one that they should consider the $ they paid GONE, and obtain valid legal council on how to legally surrender/dispose of the device before the feds come to see them. And, even then, they still might face charges....

The Feds don't have a sense of humor about such things very often, if ever.

[JohnKSa]

Thoughts on the use of credit card and e pay to catch those that bought...

Probably just an example of Hanlon's Razor.

Yeah, if you're going to break a federal law, leaving a paper trail just makes a bad idea all that much worse.

[dogtown tom]

bshefa Apparently, Texas law is such that if a suppresor is made in Texas it is legal to sell here without a tax stamp.

No, it's not legal.
States cannot magically exempt themselves from federal laws they don't like.
It's called the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

This Texas law was slapped down last summer by a federal judge because the Texas AG lacks standing.

There is a guy around here pumping them out and selling them for 500 a piece.

1. Manufacturing silencers requires an 07FFL and SOT. If he's doing this as an unlicensed person....he's an idiot.
He should read this: https://www.wibw.com/content/news/Ka...511074301.html

I have yet to buy one and don’t plan to as I’m a bit concerned about it. However, most of my friends have.

Your friends are idiots.

I get that they are still federally illegal cans without a stamp. However, my main concern is that this guy selling them is taking credit cards and Venmo. No just cash. I envision a raid on him that looks down his list of sales and starts busting the consumer as well. Thoughts ?

Its an easy way to never own guns again.

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP A deep cover sting operation, perhaps???

I doubt it.
First, making illegal silencers and offering them for sale is entrapment. There's enough idiots already violating federal laws without some conspiracy theories.

First clue something is hinky, not accepting cash. Does the phrase "legal tender for all debts, public and private" mean anything to you? Its on our money.

I don't think you know what the phrase really means. NO ONE
is required to accept cash. Ever. And never has been.

ANY business that won't accept cash should be a HUGE red flag.

Good luck buying something on Amazon with cash. "Cash only" businesses actually invite IRS scrutiny.

Remember that a silencer doesn't even have to work to be something you can be prosecuted for possessing.

You might want to reread that.
Muffler or silencer. Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

If it doesn't work, it ain't a silencer. It may not work well, but if it works at all...its a silencer.

The crime is the intent to silence a firearm without obtaining Federal approval first.

Oh heck no.

Possession of something intended to be a silencer, without a tax stamp is prime evidence of intent to violate Federal law.

No. Possession of an unregistered silencer is the crime. It's not at all "intent" as possession means you are in ......possession. ie you have already made it.

The Feds don't have a sense of humor about such things very often, if ever.

This.

[JohnKSa]

State legislatures that pass laws like this are not doing their citizens any favors.

There are a number of laws that fall into this general category.

1. State laws that claim to "legalize" marijuana use. It isn't legal to use or possess marijuana anywhere in the U.S. because there's a federal law against it.

2. State laws that claim to "legalize" the possession and construction of NFA items without following NFA rules. It isn't legal to possess or make NFA items without following federal law and federal law applies everywhere in the U.S.

3. State laws that claim to legalize the carry/possession of firearms without the need for a state issued license. The Gun Free School Zone act is a federal law that applies everywhere in the U.S. and makes it a felony to carry within 1000ft of school premises. The only exception that allows a person to pass through a GFSZ with a firearm that is not locked up and unloaded is a permit from the state in which the school zone is located that requires the state's LE to verify that the person is eligible. Constitutional/permitless carry within 1000ft of school premises is a federal crime everywhere in the U.S. Up to 5 years in federal prison and up to $5K in fines--and you never own firearms again. Same with permits that do not require any sort of LE check of the person.

4. State laws that make it seem that it's legal to carry in their state via reciprocity of permits from other states. See #3. Another state's permit can't satisfy the exception of the GFSZ act. Carrying via reciprocity in a state that didn't issue your permit within 1000ft of school premises is a federal crime everywhere in the U.S.

[dogtown tom]

JohnKSa State legislatures that pass laws like this are not doing their citizens any favors.

Truth.
The State of Kansas didn't lift a finger, didn't spend a penny when two Kansans ignorantly believed the Kansas silencer law allowed them to violate federal law.

[MZ5]

The following is the personal opinion of a non-attorney, and although said person has stayed at a HolidayInn Express before, he has not done so particularly recently.

Idaho apparently(??) has a similar statute, though it must have been passed after I left. I _thought_ the argument for these statutes' validity is lack of federal authority. I further believe the argument goes along the lines of:
The federal government only has the legal or regulatory authority explicitly granted to it in the Constitution of the United States (including that granted indirectly). The commerce clause, as it is frequently called, is used to assert authority over LOTS of things not explicitly granted in the Constitution. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that comes remotely close to granting federal authority to legislate or regulate possession by individual citizens of pretty much anything at all, reliance for such authority comes from said other clauses, like commerce. There is a line of thinking that I've read or heard, many times, that if an item like a silencer is manufactured in a state and only offered for sale in that state, and so long as it always remains in that state, there can be no federal authority to declare it contraband. Perhaps I've misunderstood the general line of thinking, but I believe this is substantively what I've read and heard over time.

I _thought_ I'd read various SCOTUS decisions where they deal with the commerce clause in particular by determining whether there is a "nexus to" interstate commerce. I further thought I recalled reading about a decision related to firearms in particular?) wherein SCOTUS' reasoning went along the lines of... well, all the materials and machinery used to make said firearm came to that state in interstate commerce, and having huge in-state-only manufacturing and sales definitely significantly impacts interstate commerce, so there's the nexus to interstate commerce and thus the authority for the federal government to legislate or regulate. With that, then, I believe federal supremacy wins the day.

In short: I see these state statutes as pure political theater intended to incite and inflame (or perhaps mollify and pacify, I suppose?), but which have absolutely zero substantive value, meaning, or legal force.

Now all the ACTUAL attorneys on the forum can come in and correct all the things I recalled wrong or misunderstood or mis-read.
(-:

[MarkCO]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Correct.

Federally illegal is illegal everywhere in the U.S.

For guns, but drugs, have at it.

[JohnKSa]

Nope. If it's illegal by federal law, it's illegal everywhere in the U.S. States can NOT legalize actions or things that federal law prohibits.

The only thing that state laws "legalizing" drugs buys you is that if you are arrested and prosecuted for an offense it will be by the feds and not by state LE/courts.

You still have to check that you are an illegal drug user on the 4473, you are still a prohibited firearm possessor under federal law, etc.

I _thought_ I'd read various SCOTUS decisions where they deal with the commerce clause in particular by determining whether there is a "nexus to" interstate commerce. I further thought I recalled reading about a decision related to firearms in particular?) wherein SCOTUS' reasoning went along the lines of... well, all the materials and machinery used to make said firearm came to that state in interstate commerce, and having huge in-state-only manufacturing and sales definitely significantly impacts interstate commerce, so there's the nexus to interstate commerce and thus the authority for the federal government to legislate or regulate. With that, then, I believe federal supremacy wins the day.

After Wickard v. Filburn it seems that the commerce clause can be stretched to mean virtually anything the feds want it to.

That said, the 1990 GFSZA was initially challenged and the challenge was upheld based on the idea that Congress didn't have authority to pass the law. The law was re-written in 1995 to include that the gun in question had to have moved "via interstate or foreign commerce" and that small change has been enough that the law has now stood for nearly 3 decades including against several appeals.

[MarkCO]

@JohnKSa, that's my sarcasm face.

[JohnKSa]

Sorry.

There are just so many people who don't get it. I think a big part of it is that some people don't want to believe that it's still illegal.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

There are just so many people who don't get it. I think a big part of it is that some people don't want to believe that it's still illegal.

My grandparents often said (but I don't think it originated with them) that, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."