Texas-Made Suppressors Exempt From NFA Regulations HB 957

[wil]

under a truthful reading of the commerce clause, this is entirely legal. The battle is likely going to be over the federal court case which said that if a given item doesn't cross state lines, it by default effects commerce within another state owing to it not being available. Which is completely non-logical in the face of what the commerce clause says.

I don't remember what court case it was, I think it was two brothers, farmers of some sort, who brought the case all the way to SCOTUS and they reaffirmed the original ruling.

I suspect fedgov will use this as an excuse to try to shut it down should this go through the legal system.

If we can get this issue revisited by the current SCOTUS, that in itself would be a win. The past case made a complete mockery of the commerce clause and basically said that the federal government can regulate all commerce, not just inter-state commerce.

did what homework I could find, it is evidently the Wickard case which did the most damage, that being the case where the Scotus said that a lack of an interstate transaction therefore creates an interstate transaction owing to the presumption there would have been a transaction, which is simply an outright lie.

That will likely be the supposed pretext the feds will use to try to stop this. It is long past time for this lie of a decision to face genuine scrutiny.

I spoke to some attorney friends and they said that there is a reasonably good chance of this happening, subsequent court cases have pretty much overturned that ruling however it's a question of nobody has ever really made a coordinated effort to force the issue in court via subsequent rulings. Perhaps our state AG has chosen to force the issue finally.

[ELB]

Perhaps our state AG has chosen to force the issue finally.

More accurately perhaps, the Legislature has chosen to force the issue. They have given the state attorney general a hook to be able to employ the resources of the state. Normally if you get busted for an unregistered suppressor, you cannot call on the states attorney general to be your defense lawyer and argue anything at all. Now you can employ the AG in advance and avoid getting busted. As long as you don’t actually build the suppressor without a tax stamp.

This will be tough sledding no doubt, I’m sure the feds will First oppose this on procedural grounds, Arguing that it’s improper for the state attorney general to seek a judgment on behalf of an individual or somesuch. Or that he doesn’t have a standing because he’s not the one trying to build a suppressor, things of that nature. It’s possible that that entire line of argument will have to be argued up to the Scotus and back before the actual substance of the case, the declaratory judgment, can be argued. That could be measured in years.

But it certainly has the potential to be a much bigger deal than Constitutional carry. Constitutional carry is not a precedent setting event, there’s already 20 states that do it. Upending The overreach of the commerce clause interpretation, that is HUGE, Affects the entire country, and affects all kinds of regulatory power.

[wil]

Perhaps our state AG has chosen to force the issue finally.

More accurately perhaps, the Legislature has chosen to force the issue. They have given the state attorney general a hook to be able to employ the resources of the state. Normally if you get busted for an unregistered suppressor, you cannot call on the states attorney general to be your defense lawyer and argue anything at all. Now you can employ the AG in advance and avoid getting busted. As long as you don’t actually build the suppressor without a tax stamp.

This will be tough sledding no doubt, I’m sure the feds will First oppose this on procedural grounds, Arguing that it’s improper for the state attorney general to seek a judgment on behalf of an individual or somesuch. Or that he doesn’t have a standing because he’s not the one trying to build a suppressor, things of that nature. It’s possible that that entire line of argument will have to be argued up to the Scotus and back before the actual substance of the case, the declaratory judgment, can be argued. That could be measured in years.

But it certainly has the potential to be a much bigger deal than Constitutional carry. Constitutional carry is not a precedent setting event, there’s already 20 states that do it. Upending The overreach of the commerce clause interpretation, that is HUGE, Affects the entire country, and affects all kinds of regulatory power.

This legislation has enormous potential given what it inherently creates on multiple levels. It's to be expected fed will fight this tooth and nail. If it doesn't go to Scotus I would be surprised, and if / when it goes that far and Scotus accepts the case rather than dodging it or attempting to stop it via rejecting it, I would be extremely surprised.

The fact that the state AG is directly involved with this and puts state resources into it is a game-changer.

I'm not an attorney so my subsequent thoughts could be completely wrong, as for arguing the AG has no standing I suspect is a hollow argument. Why?

His job is to enforce the law, in this instance it is the commercial commerce clause which is really the issue, and it being the law then it's his job to enforce it properly. Which has not been done owing to the damnable court rulings in the past.
So I would say he does have standing owing to the law being improperly applied and it being his duty to either apply the law or see that it is properly applied.

I agree this is going to be a long haul in the courts. If fed loses this they lose an enormous amount of power over the states and by default over the public.

[C-dub]

The problem as I see it is that the fed has previously ruled that not participating in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated accordingly under that clause.

[K.Mooneyham]

The problem as I see it is that the fed has previously ruled that not participating in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated accordingly under that clause.

I know you are just restating what the Court ruled back in the day, but that's some of the worst twisted logic ever from those folks.

[PriestTheRunner]

The problem as I see it is that the fed has previously ruled that not participating in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated accordingly under that clause.

I know you are just restating what the Court ruled back in the day, but that's some of the worst twisted logic ever from those folks.

That where gun free school zones act, and all gun control laws come from. That ONE bad case.

And just as a continuing example of how Congress has been ignoring SCTOUS on issues arising out of Wickard v. Fillburn, look at the GFSZ Act: United States v. Lopez. The act was struck down by SCOTUS, and yet remains on the books..

https://www.britannica.com/topic/United ... ref1202757

Basically, "they" know that if Wickard v. Fillburn is properly and completely overturned, most all of the laws on the books that the federal government has no authority to regulate (IE almost all education laws, Title IX, Gun Laws, Weed Laws, etc) will disappear over time as they are challenged.

[ELB]

... United States v. Lopez. The act was struck down by SCOTUS, and yet remains on the books..

Legally/technically, The GFSZA of 1990 was struck down and is off the books.

Congress enacted a new law, the GFSZA of 1995, that was pretty much identical except it specifically banned "only" guns that moved in or affected interstate commerce. That's a new element that the prosecutor must prove, but I believe the bar to prove it is pretty low -- courts have had an expansive interpretation of what "moves in" or "affects" interstate commerce based on Wickard v Fillburn -- pretty much every gun qualifies as having moved in or affected interstate commerce.

[rtschl]

Don't forget Kansas tried this and people have been convicted on federal charges. I would not touch a non NFA Taxed suppresser.

I couldn't find it but I remember someone (gun friendly) on Twitter making the argument that the problem is not that it's an interstate commerce /state's rights 10th Amendment issue, but a tax issue, which gives the Feds legal authority regarding suppressors. You have to pay a federal tax for it. That has nothing to do with interstate commerce and as we can see in the case of the Kansas law that the Feds charged and convicted people. I think that is as wrong as ObamaCare being a Tax, but unless the Congress or the Supreme Court changes it, I think the same will happen here as it did in Kansas:

A retailer there then began selling unregistered suppressors. He, along with one of his customers, was arrested by the ATF, prosecuted and convicted. They appealed to the Supreme Court, but were denied cert.

The article below I'm citing has links about the case in Kansas.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/texas ... egulation/

[Soccerdad1995]

The problem as I see it is that the fed has previously ruled that not participating in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated accordingly under that clause.

I know you are just restating what the Court ruled back in the day, but that's some of the worst twisted logic ever from those folks.

This has to go down as one of the worst rulings ever by SCOTUS. Basically they said that the "interstate commerce" clause actually refers to every product or service purchased anywhere. In the minds of the justices that ruled for this, I guess the founder's were just joking about the "interstate" part, lol.

[Hoodasnacks]

Don't forget Kansas tried this and people have been convicted on federal charges. I would not touch a non NFA Taxed suppresser.

I volunteer as tribute.

We need to pick our defendant. We need someone where hearing is a problem, or where there is a present neurological problem that makes wearing hearing protection difficult. That person should not be inhibited in their 2nd amendment rights. This suit would attack the Federal law on 2nd amendment and commerce clause grounds. Current precedent is not in our favor...but it should be.

[K.Mooneyham]

The problem as I see it is that the fed has previously ruled that not participating in interstate commerce affects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated accordingly under that clause.

I know you are just restating what the Court ruled back in the day, but that's some of the worst twisted logic ever from those folks.

This has to go down as one of the worst rulings ever by SCOTUS. Basically they said that the "interstate commerce" clause actually refers to every product or service purchased anywhere. In the minds of the justices that ruled for this, I guess the founder's were just joking about the "interstate" part, lol.

(If you already know all of this, I apologize, this is mostly me just putting down my thoughts on the subject.)

I truly believe the intent of that ruling was two-fold. One being a money-grab because it allows the taxation of more goods and services. Two, an attack on Federalism. The USA is SUPPOSED to be a constitutional federal republic, a nation comprising multiple states, each with their own internal self-governance except where that that governance would be in direct conflict with the constitution, that cooperate for specific common goals such as national security. There are certain folks and groups who don't like Federalism and want a one-nation all-powerful government where the states are just administrative entities for that government. Those folks and groups despise the Tenth Amendment above all others, except perhaps the Second.

[ELB]

The Texas suppressor law lives still…

https://thetexan.news/federal-judge-all ... e-forward/