HB 227 by @RepMattKrause says guns that are made in Texas and stay in Texas are "not subject to federal law or federal regulation." IfHB 227 by @RepMattKrause says guns that are made in Texas and stay in Texas are "not subject to federal law or federal regulation." If a Texan claims this exception, bill has Texas AG seek federal court ruling on the constitutionality of the law. #txlege a Texan claims this exception, bill has Texas AG seek federal court ruling on the constitutionality of the law. #txlege
Last edited by mojo84 on Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Another gun bill by @RepMattKrause, HB 238, would bar state agencies, local governments from helping the feds enforce gun regulations in Texas. Exempted: border security operations. #txlege
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. What if someone in Texas uses the new plastic printers to make their own unregistered gun? Do we slide from sanctuary cities to sanctuary state? Government without interagency cooperation can range from difficult to downright hard to next to impossible.
Color me conflicted in Sugar Land on a brisk rainy day .
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. What if someone in Texas uses the new plastic printers to make their own unregistered gun? Do we slide from sanctuary cities to sanctuary state? Government without interagency cooperation can range from difficult to downright hard to next to impossible.
Color me conflicted in Sugar Land on a brisk rainy day .
Be well
Since all guns in Texas are "unregistered", I don't see how the possibility of some 3D printed guns is enough of a crisis to justify infringing on anyone's inalienable rights. So I'm not conflicted.
Explain how this could result in massive amounts of deaths and I might be OK with taking away people's god given rights in exchange.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. What if someone in Texas uses the new plastic printers to make their own unregistered gun? Do we slide from sanctuary cities to sanctuary state? Government without interagency cooperation can range from difficult to downright hard to next to impossible.
Color me conflicted in Sugar Land on a brisk rainy day .
Be well
If you knew anything about plastic 3D printers you would realize this is a made up scare tactic coming from the left. A fancy $80k metal printer might be a different story.
If 3D printed guns are such an issue because they are "unregistered," what about 80% lowers and Glocks? They will bring about the Armageddon.
In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law to pursue a natural justice.
sugar land dave. wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:45 pm
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. What if someone in Texas uses the new plastic printers to make their own unregistered gun?
People are making “unregistered” guns in Texas every single day in the form of 80% lowers/frames. On top of that, there is no registry in Texas anyway. The only use for the serial number on your guns in this state, is to conduct federal bg checks.
All that being said I’m anxious to see if this makes any movement. Several states already have laws similar to these, and what do you know, no blood on the streets.
sugar land dave. wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:45 pm
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. What if someone in Texas uses the new plastic printers to make their own unregistered gun?
People are making “unregistered” guns in Texas every single day in the form of 80% lowers/frames. On top of that, there is no registry in Texas anyway. The only use for the serial number on your guns in this state, is to conduct federal bg checks.
All that being said I’m anxious to see if this makes any movement. Several states already have laws similar to these, and what do you know, no blood on the streets.
Mr. Canales would like to make a registry of firearms in TX which are built from 80% lowers.
Sec. 411.225. MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURING OR
ASSEMBLING FIREARMS. A person who manufactures or assembles a
firearm to which this subchapter applies shall:
(1) before manufacturing or assembling the firearm,
apply to the department for a unique serial number or other mark of
identification;
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14
guns that are made in Texas and stay in Texas are "not subject to federal law or federal regulation."
Montana and Kansas have tried this, and it hasn't worked out so hot. Assorted shooting organizations in Montana lost a bunch of (well, all) cases about this. A couple of guys in Kansas just got convicted of making suppressors, depending on the Kansas law to protect them. They haven't been sentenced yet.
A law like this does have some value as a symbolic statement to the Federales, but wouldn't be of much value to people wanting to make weapons and accessories that are covered by federal law.
Another gun bill by @RepMattKrause, HB 238, would bar state agencies, local governments from helping the feds enforce gun regulations in Texas. Exempted: border security operations. #txlege
I have mixed feelings on this one. On one hand, I’ll take anything that protects gun rights in Texas. But on the other hand, there is little difference between this tactic, and states that declare themselves “sanctuary states” for the purposes of protecting illegal immigrants from ICE. Both are examples of a state defying federal law by passing a state law that forbids state lawn enforcement from cooperating with federal law enforcement in that specific area of the law. It seems to me that gun rights activists make themselves vulnerable to the exact same arguments that conservatives would use to invalidate immigration sanctuary, used against a pro-gun law like that.
Thoughts?
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
sugar land dave. wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:45 pm
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. What if someone in Texas uses the new plastic printers to make their own unregistered gun?
People are making “unregistered” guns in Texas every single day in the form of 80% lowers/frames. On top of that, there is no registry in Texas anyway. The only use for the serial number on your guns in this state, is to conduct federal bg checks.
All that being said I’m anxious to see if this makes any movement. Several states already have laws similar to these, and what do you know, no blood on the streets.
Mr. Canales would like to make a registry of firearms in TX which are built from 80% lowers.
Sec. 411.225. MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURING OR
ASSEMBLING FIREARMS. A person who manufactures or assembles a
firearm to which this subchapter applies shall:
(1) before manufacturing or assembling the firearm,
apply to the department for a unique serial number or other mark of
identification;
Correct. I’m stating that we already do have potentially millions and millions of “unserialized” guns in Texas, not to mention the U.S. Using a 3d printer would be none different policy wise than an 80% lower.
guns that are made in Texas and stay in Texas are "not subject to federal law or federal regulation."
Montana and Kansas have tried this, and it hasn't worked out so hot. Assorted shooting organizations in Montana lost a bunch of (well, all) cases about this. A couple of guys in Kansas just got convicted of making suppressors, depending on the Kansas law to protect them. They haven't been sentenced yet.
A law like this does have some value as a symbolic statement to the Federales, but wouldn't be of much value to people wanting to make weapons and accessories that are covered by federal law.
The guys in trouble for manufacturing suppressors were doing so as part of a business. Manufacturing for commerce and manufacturing for personal use (although it shouldn’t be, and the government should keep their filthy hands out of it) is very different.
So my two cents on this bill is that it is simply another way to take Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis vs US to the supreme court now that we have a R majority.
I think it would be great for us to sue to address the legality of the circumstances.... And hopefully overturn Wickard v. Filburn while we are at it.
That was very nearly the first domino that led us to this situation with unrestrained federal authority.
sugar land dave. wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:45 pm
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. What if someone in Texas uses the new plastic printers to make their own unregistered gun?
People are making “unregistered” guns in Texas every single day in the form of 80% lowers/frames. On top of that, there is no registry in Texas anyway. The only use for the serial number on your guns in this state, is to conduct federal bg checks.
All that being said I’m anxious to see if this makes any movement. Several states already have laws similar to these, and what do you know, no blood on the streets.
Mr. Canales would like to make a registry of firearms in TX which are built from 80% lowers.
Sec. 411.225. MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURING OR
ASSEMBLING FIREARMS. A person who manufactures or assembles a
firearm to which this subchapter applies shall:
(1) before manufacturing or assembling the firearm,
apply to the department for a unique serial number or other mark of
identification;
Correct. I’m stating that we already do have potentially millions and millions of “unserialized” guns in Texas, not to mention the U.S. Using a 3d printer would be none different policy wise than an 80% lower.
guns that are made in Texas and stay in Texas are "not subject to federal law or federal regulation."
Montana and Kansas have tried this, and it hasn't worked out so hot. Assorted shooting organizations in Montana lost a bunch of (well, all) cases about this. A couple of guys in Kansas just got convicted of making suppressors, depending on the Kansas law to protect them. They haven't been sentenced yet.
A law like this does have some value as a symbolic statement to the Federales, but wouldn't be of much value to people wanting to make weapons and accessories that are covered by federal law.
The guys in trouble for manufacturing suppressors were doing so as part of a business. Manufacturing for commerce and manufacturing for personal use (although it shouldn’t be, and the government should keep their filthy hands out of it) is very different.
“A federal judge spared from prison two Kansas men convicted of federal firearms violations after taking into account Monday their mistaken belief that a Kansas law can shield from federal prosecution anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state.”
Both got a felony charge and 2 years probation. Lives destroyed anyways
VERY interesting case. Even compared to marijuana in Colorado. Theor AG and governor would not back them in court either. Very interesting case
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas
The Annoyed Man wrote: Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:47 pm
I have mixed feelings on this one. On one hand, I’ll take anything that protects gun rights in Texas. But on the other hand, there is little difference between this tactic, and states that declare themselves “sanctuary states” for the purposes of protecting illegal immigrants from ICE. Both are examples of a state defying federal law by passing a state law that forbids state lawn enforcement from cooperating with federal law enforcement in that specific area of the law. It seems to me that gun rights activists make themselves vulnerable to the exact same arguments that conservatives would use to invalidate immigration sanctuary, used against a pro-gun law like that.
Thoughts?
Definitely good to consider it this way, however I think there is a different premise when it comes to the federal government imposing unconstitutional rule (i.e. infringing on the 2nd) vs a state refusing to comply with constitutional federal law (sanctuary cities). There probably isn’t a right answer in this situation, just my thoughts. Marijuana laws fall into this same category; states having conflicting state law with federal law.
