data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/03c7b/03c7bfe8299fcd0935fc4f55d980c9f21c09cd74" alt="Texas Flag :txflag:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/997e7/997e7a517e0b50502b63f3e25228a99c8c309353" alt="Cheers2 :cheers2:"
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
That is precedent, but incorrect, authoritarian precedent. So its worth it to challenge the bad precedent alone.
I agree, of course. But, a gun case is predestined to fail. It may even reinforce the bad precedent, because guns.
However, The logic/rationale might be ...it cannot cause "less" consumption of an item having "zero" consumption in other States ... as it's a banned item per the ATF ... right?
Also, maybe this will the first salvo to revamp the commerce clause's current interpretation.First, a private citizen looking to manufacture Texas-made suppressors must first tell the state attorney general. Then, the attorney general would seek a declaratory judgment from a federal court that HB 957 complies with the U.S. Constitution.