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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Ragnar Danneskjold, Jun 12, 2021.

  1. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,704
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    I heard that it passed the Senate(I think?) a few weeks ago. Any word on its progress since?
     
  2. Buzznrose

    Buzznrose Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,769
    Location:
    SA, TX
  3. billtool

    billtool Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2020
    Messages:
    139
    Passed both chambers and is on the Gov's desk for signature.
     
  4. Kevin Keith

    Kevin Keith Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    285
    Location:
    South of Tulsa
    Maybe we really are a second amendment sanctuary state!
     
    db_tanker and DoubleMag like this.
  5. Phaedrus/69

    Phaedrus/69 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,176
    Location:
    Big Sky Country
    You'd still face Federal charges for the can, right? I though the courts had struck down "firearms freedom" laws in the past?
     
  6. JDeere

    JDeere Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2020
    Messages:
    567
    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.
     
  7. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,214
    Location:
    WNY
    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.
     
  8. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    23,887
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    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.
    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.
     
  9. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    8,212
    Location:
    Virginia
    Given the federal Supremacy Clause, state legislation of this kind is an empty gesture. Virtue signalling for the folks at home.
     
    Phaedrus/69, dogtown tom and twarr1 like this.
  10. Kevin Keith

    Kevin Keith Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    285
    Location:
    South of Tulsa
    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!
     
  11. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,705
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    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.
     
  12. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,705
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    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
     
    Phaedrus/69 likes this.
  13. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,214
    Location:
    WNY
    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.
     
  14. milsurpguy

    milsurpguy member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2021
    Messages:
    550
    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.
     
  15. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,464
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    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:
      • at 162:

    2. Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997):

    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):

    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):
    • 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).
     
    torchroadster and CapnMac like this.
  16. Phaedrus/69

    Phaedrus/69 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,176
    Location:
    Big Sky Country
    That's the one I was thinking of! Thanks.
     
  17. JDeere

    JDeere Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2020
    Messages:
    567
    Guess I missed it back then...Off doing something else and not interested...:D
     
  18. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    18,779
    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.
     
    dogtown tom and rbernie like this.
  19. Insignificant bill

    Insignificant bill Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    661
    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.
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  20. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,584
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    This right here.

    Already tried and failed; predictably.

    IMO, this sets up otherwise innocent but gullible people to being prosecuted by .gov/fed
     
    Elkins45 likes this.
  21. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,214
    Location:
    WNY
    Let Abbot buy one and go to the range and use it.
     
    DoubleMag and Elkins45 like this.
  22. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,071
    Location:
    Northern KY
    Silly rabbit, test cases are for the little people.


    it’s almost always the gullible and weak minded who end up being the poster children for these kind of bad decisions.
     
  23. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    21,210
    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.
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  24. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    21,210
    The Texas-made suppressor law has been signed by Gov. Abbott:
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/17/gov-greg-abbott-signs-bill-exempting-texas-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?
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  25. rabid wombat

    rabid wombat Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    1,205
    Location:
    TX
    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.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice