Texas leading the way

[smee78]

As a Texan who resides in SC, this got my attention today in the news.


AUSTIN, Texas (May 23, 2021) – The Texas Senate gave final approval to a bill that would take the first two steps against National Firearms Act (NFA) restrictions on firearm sound suppressors. The bill now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk.

Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress) filed House Bill 957 (HB957) on Jan. 4. The legislation would repeal Texas code criminalizing owning a firearm “silencer,” more accurately referred to as a sound “suppressor” – outside of Federal regulations. The bill would also ban the state from enforcing any federal restrictions on suppressors that don’t exist under the laws of the state.

On May 4, the Texas House passed HB957 by a vote of 95-51. 14 Democrats joined 81 Republicans in voting yes. Last week, the Senate State Affairs committee voted 6-2 to report the bill “favorably w/o amendments,” sending it one step closer to the full Senate. And late into the night on Friday/Saturday AM, the full Senate passed it by a party-line vote of 18-13.

I am interested to see how this plays out, what do yall think about something like this in your state?

The full article can be found here
https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...r-freedom-act/

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by smee78

I am interested to see how this plays out, what do yall think about something like this in your state?

It'll probably go over about as well as it did for KS residents who thought they could manufacture without an FFL. I'm not saying it isn't a step in the right direction, but even if I lived in TX I wouldn't buy a suppressor without doing the paperwork the Feds require. At least not until this plays out in a Federal or the Supreme court. I currently live in CO, and there isn't any way a bill like this would make it out of committee for a vote on the floor.

[9x19]

It is largely symbolic.

The State isn't going to prosecute you for violating the terms of the NFA, but that won't prevent the FedGov from doing so.

[Txhillbilly]

Who wants to be the first test subject?

Not me!

[Tom Servo]

Who wants to be the first test subject?

Hopefully nobody here. We've already had one legal challenge, and it went horribly for the defendants in Kansas.

The federal government handed itself final authority on gun laws. They have a law-enforcement agency that loves busting otherwise harmless people for statutory violations of those laws. They've been known to do terrible things to make arrests.

These state-level nullification laws are symbolic gestures, but that's all they are. It's all they can be according to the courts.

At best, they're a toothless gesture. At worst, they mislead their citizens into thinking they're safe to violate federal laws.

Please do not post about intentions to violate federal firearms laws. Please don't encourage others to do so.

Nobody here has done that, and I'm glad. Just keep up the good work.

[Ed4032]

Maybe we could defund the ATF. Nothing political.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

I will give Texas credit for one thing. At least they are standing up and fighting. with a Great Gov.
Unlike the pathetic excuse Virginia has with a BLM owned, anti-gun rights and second amendment enemy. Many in Texas are seeing first hand what the border crisis is going to bring with new crime. More drugs, cartel empowerment and on and on. Abbot and Texas may not win, but they are sending a clear message to America. Bravo to them!

[FrankenMauser]

Texas leading the way

Sorry, but no.
Idaho did this about 12 years ago. (But wasn't first, either.)

No law-abiding citizen wants to be the test subject.
Criminals have attempted using the defense, but it doesn't matter. When other crimes are in play, LEOs have no problem handing the charges off to the feds.

[stagpanther]

I hate it when these things become politicized--because then the real utility of using them gets lost. There was a movement underway to get silencers available as an assistive device to older people who have hearing problems, and that was IMO the best chance to get the restrictions lifted--and as an old fart that does suffer from degenerating hearing I think this is a genuine "best chance" effort because the fed's own disability act resulted in very powerful institution of laws.

[10-96]

These state-level nullification laws are symbolic gestures, but that's all they are. It's all they can be according to the courts

Tom- Maybe not. It is my understanding that if enough states get on board with the idea, then the SCOTUS has to see it as the "law of the land". And it was just one more 'billboard' telling DC to get out of our back yard. TSRA posted an article that mentioned the KS affair and the intent behind the bill, I'll see if I can find a link to it.

[Double Naught Spy]

It is my understanding that if enough states get on board with the idea, then the SCOTUS has to see it as the "law of the land".

"has to see it..."????? Can you please cite a few cases where this has occurred? I see nothing about such a dictate in their charter.

It is a shame that the intent behind the Kansas law wasn't made public before folks became felons. I didn't see anybody talking about Texas doing this solely for symbolic reasons either.

[10-96]

DNS- OK,l maybe not worded the best, but it will take one or more court cases to see the end desire of the effort. The TX bill greases the wheel, if you will. I'm not digging through case law on interstate commerce and 10th amendment issue, but correct me if I'm wrong- but it's not far from the groundwork that was laid in states that legalized marijuana. The HOPE there among those who support it is that the feds will see left handed luckies as being commonplace in x-number of states and we might as well de-regulate it.
Now then, those are my thoughts, the way I understand it, and up to 1032hrs my local time, I thought I had the right to expound on my thoughts towards sound altering muzzle device issues on such a forum as this.

[dogtown tom]

stagpanther .....There was a movement underway to get silencers available as an assistive device to older people who have hearing problems.....

The group who's hearing is already irreparably damaged? No, the Hearing Protection Act was to prevent hearing loss to shooters.

Can't fix deaf.

[dogtown tom]

10-96 DNS- OK,l maybe not worded the best, but it will take one or more court cases to see the end desire of the effort. The TX bill greases the wheel, if you will.

It does nothing of the sort. Want the wheel greased? Elect people who REMOVE laws.

I'm not digging through case law on interstate commerce and 10th amendment issue, but correct me if I'm wrong- but it's not far from the groundwork that was laid in states that legalized marijuana.

Yet marijuana use and possession remains illegal under federal law. Just because a state decriminalizes an act, doesn't mean the USSC changes its view.

The HOPE there among those who support it is that the feds will see left handed luckies as being commonplace in x-number of states and we might as well de-regulate it.

No, the hope is that constituents are too dumb to realize that their legislator is pandering and engaging in political theater. And its working.

Now then, those are my thoughts, the way I understand it, and up to 1032hrs my local time, I thought I had the right to expound on my thoughts towards sound altering muzzle device issues on such a forum as this.

I don't think anyone restricted your rights to an opinion, but be prepared to back up your statements.

[smee78]

I look at it this way, marijuana is still federally illegal but states have made it ok. Even recreational use in some states, not just medical so why should this subject be any different? The states did something that is federally illegal and the government did nothing about it!

[JohnKSa]

States did NOT make marijuana use/possession ok. It is still illegal. If the federal government wishes to prosecute someone for it they still can. There is nothing the states can do to make marijuana use legal unless the federal law is changed.

The same is true of the laws under discussion here. They do not deregulate silencers because federal law takes precedence and federal law regulates silencers.

Furthermore, while the federal government for awhile made it policy to avoid prosecuting people for marijuana offenses, that policy changed in 2018.

There has been absolutely NO suggestion that the feds have any plans to soft-pedal NFA offenses.

Silencers will continue to be federally regulated as long as federal law remains unchanged. Nothing any state law says can change that.

[Double Naught Spy]

10-96 DNS- OK,l maybe not worded the best, but it will take one or more court cases to see the end desire of the effort. The TX bill greases the wheel, if you will.

Texas law no longer prosecuting for these things doesn't change federal law in any way.

One or more court cases? Well, the one in KS was an abysmal failure. Greasing the rails isn't a benefit if it derails the train.

[smee78]

Yes, as I said "marijuana is still federally illegal" but once the states adopted laws decriminalizing its use and position in their states they have taken a position saying they are not going to do anything about it. If the feds gave a ████ then why have they not gone in and shut down and arrested all the dispensaries in states that have made their position know? Plus the states are taking taxes from the sale of said product and they haven't done anything about that. States have to start somewhere and I believe it's a good start.

[JohnKSa]

Yes, as I said "marijuana is still federally illegal"...

Illegal is illegal. The only difference is what type of court the prosecution takes place in.

As I said, in 2018, the federal policy not to enforce marijuana infractions was officially changed by AG Sessions. The fact that they haven't made a concerted/publicized push to enforce the laws only means they haven't made a concerted/publicized push to enforce the laws. Tomorrow they could start an active enforcement campaign, or tomorrow they could hold off a bit longer. If anyone knows what they have planned, they're not making it public.

Plus the states are taking taxes from the sale of said product and they haven't done anything about that.

As far as I know there's no law against collecting sales tax on illegal sales.

States have to start somewhere and I believe it's a good start.

It's not any kind of a start at all, good or otherwise.

It doesn't do anything in terms of changing the legality. The only thing that changes is the entity who is doing the enforcement and prosecution. The marijuana model is a problematic analogy for this particular topic--as mentioned before the federal government has sent mixed signals about marijuana prosecutions and enforcement--but there has been absolutely nothing ambiguous about their intent to continue to enforce the NFA.

[sfwusc]

The NFA was held legal bc federal government has the right to tax and regulate interstate commerce.

Seems like figuring out how to limit those powers would be better for all. Maybe a back foot way to get gun rights back.

[9x19]

Unless the material is dug out of the ground and smelted, forged and machined, in the same state, the FedGov (and the courts) still believe the interstate commerce clause applies.

[JohnKSa]

Even if it is exclusively sourced/manufactured all within one state it will almost certainly be considered to be within federal jurisdiction.

Wickard v Filburn indicates that even if the item/material is exclusively sourced from inside only one state it still can affect interstate commerce by changing overall supply.

In that case, Filburn was growing wheat to use as animal feed. He was growing it all in one state, it wasn't ever even being sold. He was using it all himself.

SCOTUS found that because the grain he grew affected overall supply, it still affected interstate supply and therefore it could still be regulated federally.

[raimius]

Wickard is a terrible precedent, but there is such a house of cards built on top of it, I don't think SCOTUS will touch it.

[JohnKSa]

Agree and agree. I don't like it, but I can't see how they can reverse it without really opening a huge can of worms (from the federal perspective.)