Texas, Silencers, ATF and the Supreme Court Bruen Case

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6578
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Texas, Silencers, ATF and the Supreme Court Bruen Case

#1

Post by Paladin »

Texas, Silencers, ATF and the Supreme Court Bruen Case
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.
I think these are winning arguments.
JOIN NRA TODAY!, NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, SAF, VCDL Member
LTC/SSC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. -Thomas Jefferson
User avatar

Topic author
Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6578
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Texas, Silencers, ATF and the Supreme Court Bruen Case

#2

Post by Paladin »

Updates on the case:

JOIN NRA TODAY!, NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, SAF, VCDL Member
LTC/SSC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. -Thomas Jefferson

JRG
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Waxahachie, TX

Re: Texas, Silencers, ATF and the Supreme Court Bruen Case

#3

Post by JRG »

Thanks for the update!

Joe
User avatar

Topic author
Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6578
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Texas, Silencers, ATF and the Supreme Court Bruen Case

#4

Post by Paladin »

US appeals court blocks challenge to federal firearm silencer law
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.
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.
JOIN NRA TODAY!, NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, SAF, VCDL Member
LTC/SSC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. -Thomas Jefferson
User avatar

PriestTheRunner
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Texas, Silencers, ATF and the Supreme Court Bruen Case

#5

Post by PriestTheRunner »

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.
So is the 'lack of standing' ruling un-appealable or can Texas take this higher?

I also don't see anything noting if this lack of standing includes the 3 plaintiffs that aren't Texas. They have a pretty dang clear standing.
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”