Any word on Texas HB 957, the one that proposes to exempt Texas made suppressors from the NFA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You'd still face Federal charges for the can, right? I though the courts had struck down "firearms freedom" laws in the past?

I'm no attorney but I'm gonna bet the Feds jump all over this about State Law vs Federal law or the fact that all materials were manufactured locally in Texas. I sure would not want to be that first test case.
 
It's a good thing to signal that there is opposition to stupid laws and perhaps the national GOP can get off its butt. If and when they have the legislative options the Hearing Protection Act can be brought to the fore. Last time, Mitch fled from any pro active gun bills.

As far as protection against prosecution, worthless - unless it is part of the case finally made to Scotus.

The marijuana folks are getting farther in their state 'rebellions' against Federal laws. Where I live, the mayor of the big city is all in favor of a 72 acre farm and processing complex where the old steel mills used to be.
 
You'd still face Federal charges for the can, right? I though the courts had struck down "firearms freedom" laws in the past?
Well, the ruling in Gonzales v Raich pretty much put paid to the notion that the states could ignore Federal law regarding things like maryjawanna, and yet more and more states have decriminalized it since the ruling with no apparent response from the Feds. Confusing times.
As far as protection against prosecution, worthless - unless it is part of the case finally made to Scotus.
Pretty much so. I can't see using the state law as any sort of affirmative defense, unless some bright group of lawyers think that they can re-argue the Commerce Clause notion contained in the Gonzales v Raich decision to a different end.

I would not volunteer to be the test case.
 
Maybe our Atty General could argue that we need supressors to protect our projected future weeed farms...you know, without disturbing the neighbors. Uncle Joe surely would approve anything to protect that crop!
 
Maybe we really are a second amendment sanctuary state!
Don't be silly. Take five minutes on Google and see how these firearm freedom/Second Amendment sanctuary laws have actually played out in the Federal courts.

In short..........worthless.

Two guys in Kansas can tell you how it works.
 
I'm no attorney but I'm gonna bet the Feds jump all over this about State Law vs Federal law or the fact that all materials were manufactured locally in Texas. I sure would not want to be that first test case.
Where you been the last twenty three decades?:D
The test cases occurred years ago.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says federal law trumps state law.
and ATF reminded FFL's of this when Montana passed the first state firearm freedom law in 2009:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
 
In any case, no state law exempts a state from Federal law - that's well known. Thus it is PR unless actual production and sales take place to generate a test case.
 
Forget the federal government. There's something called anti commondeering and it's been upheld in the supreme Court.
Starts at about 4 minutes in:


Also saw a study that from 2001 to 2016 says that 91% of people sent to jail by the ATF for "gun crimes" were minorities from the inner city. That's grossly racist and can't believe the liberals aren't trying to burn down the atf like an autonomous zone in waco.
So I'll take those chances.
 
Forget the federal government. There's something called anti commondeering[sic] and it's been upheld in the supreme Court....

That's very nice, but you don't understand what that means. The anti-commandeering doctrine flows from the principles of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment. See --

  1. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) --
    • at 161:
      ...Congress may not simply "commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 288, 101 S.Ct. 2352 2366, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981). ...

    • at 162:
      ...While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress' instructions. See Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 565, 31 S.Ct. 688, 689, 55 L.Ed. 853 (1911)....

  2. Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997):
    ...the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. In Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981), and FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 102 S.Ct. 2126, 72 L.Ed.2d 532 (1982), we sustained statutes against constitutional challenge only after assuring ourselves that they did not require the States to enforce federal law. ....

So under the anti-commandeering doctrine, a State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S.), but the anti-commandeering doctrine doesn't support a State attempting to nullify, or actively interfere with the enforcement of, federal law; and federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help. For an example of these principles applied to state marijuana laws, see Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011) in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Sheriff was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. But the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):
...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

...saw a study that from 2001 to 2016 says that 91% of people sent to jail by the ATF for "gun crimes" were minorities from the inner city. That's ....
Since you neither cited a source nor supported that claim with verifiable, credible evidence, there's no reason to believe that's true. In any event that still doesn't mean that a non-minority is home free. A similar Kansas law didn't work for Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler who made suppressors in Kansas and were then were convicted in federal court in Kansas for violating the NFA.

The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
  • There's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:
    • United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)

    • Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)

    • Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)

    • McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

    • Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)

    • Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)

    • Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)

    • Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)

    • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

    • Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).

  • The Ninth Circuit has specifically ruled against Montana in a "firearm freedom law" case, Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).
 
Where you been the last twenty three decades?:D
The test cases occurred years ago.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says federal law trumps state law.

Guess I missed it back then...Off doing something else and not interested...:D
 
Well, the ruling in Gonzales v Raich pretty much put paid to the notion that the states could ignore Federal law regarding things like maryjawanna, and yet more and more states have decriminalized it since the ruling with no apparent response from the Feds.

And no one gets why I have a problem with laws that are not enforced and the selective enforcement of laws.

People that think they would automatically be OK because they don’t enforce Federal drug laws, or border security/immigration ones think the same people will turn blind eye to laws that have results they do not want. That is wishful thinking and I too won’t be first in line to be the guinea pig.
 
The real effort should be in getting rid of the NFA. But at the least removing suppressors from the NFA. They shouldn't even be on it.
 
In any case, no state law exempts a state from Federal law - that's well known. Thus it is PR unless actual production and sales take place to generate a test case.
The states declaring themselves 2A sanctuaries are not exempting themselves from federal law, they're saying they won't enforce new regulations, executive orders etc. The antis don't have the votes in Congress, especially the Senate, to pass actual new laws.
 
The Texas-made suppressor law has been signed by Gov. Abbott:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...xas-made-suppressors-from-federal-regulation/

The text of H.B. 957 says, “A firearm suppressor that is manufactured in this state and remains in this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

IOW, Texas is assuming that the federal law (Is it actually a law, as opposed to a regulation? I'm not being snarky, I really don't know.) regulating suppressors is based on the interstate commerce clause. Does anyone here know whether there is documentation for this having been the legislative intent? Or if not, what was the stated rationale?
 
Fair warning, I am not a lawyer. Based on conversations at a local gun store, my understanding is that a 4473 will still have to be filled out. This puts the seller in a bind. Not a lot of sellers are going to get between the ATF and state law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top