TexasCHLforum.com

From the recent amendment to Paxton v. Richardson:

4. There is a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons, id. at 2128, but firearm suppressors are neither dangerous nor unusual. They are in “common use,” and therefore the Second Amendment protects their possession and use.Id.

5. There is no historical tradition that can justify regulation of making firearm suppressors for non-commercial, personal use in Texas—including requirements that citizens ask permission before making a firearm suppressor, pay a $200 tax, place a serial number on the firearm suppressor, and register it.

In a short 14-page decision the court affirmed a lower court decision dismissing the case for lack of standing. Standing is a doctrine that courts require for an individual’s grievance to be heard. It requires an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to a defendant’s conduct and the potential for redress or remedy from the court. The court held that the plaintiffs in the case failed to establish an actual injury or that actual harm was imminent.

Paladin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:24 pm US appeals court blocks challenge to federal firearm silencer law
Honestly this seems to me to be another bad ruling, but I guess the courts don't really want to give the American public standing when their constitutional rights are being violated in so many ways right now.