Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/31/2021 5:34:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2021 6:13:35 PM EDT by 1stID]
The 2021 Texas Legislature Session is over, and while they will return for a special session for other topics, gun bills are done and dusted.

Here's a summary of what we accomplished, in a session that had the most pro-gun victories since the 1995 Session that passed the CHL law.

The Big Ones:

Constitutional Carry, HB1927.  Huge progun win, with national implications for gun rights.  Texas is now the 20th (?) state to allow for CC, and probably increased the number of citizens eligible for it by 50% due to the large size of this state.  A fantastic accomplishment.  

Sanctuary State, HB 2622.  Defunds and prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from helping the Federal government carry out any new gun control laws.  

Suppressor Freedom, HB957.  De-criminalizes suppressors in state law, and allows for the possibility of a Texas-only made in Texas suppressor - we'll see if the courts are ready for a challenge to the over-reaching Commerce Clause interpretation.  

Emergency Powers and 2A Reform, HB1500.  This bill says that in a declared emergency or disaster, NO Governor can prohibit or restrict the sale, transportation, or use of firearms and/or ammunition

2A Anti-boycott, SB19. This is the bill that forbids state agencies from doing business with a company who has a practice or policy of discriminating against a firearm entity.

Hotel Carry, SB20. This bill allows lawful possessors of firearms and/or ammunition to transport the same directly to their hotel room and directly to their vehicle. (The establishment may make a provision for "cased" or "concealed" firearms, so bring your long gun case if you are traveling.)

Carry Options:

Holster Options, SB550. This bill changed the law to allow LTC holders to choose their holster, if they Open Carry.

Holster Options, HB2112.  This bill also eliminates the requirement for which holster LTC holders use for Open Carry.

HB 1407. This allows for LTC's to keep their gun in a holster, but no longer requires the owner to keep the gun out of sight while in their vehicle, as long as the firearm and the LTC holder are in the vehicle.

Firearms Carry and Protective Orders:

HB2675. This would allow for expedited LTC's for those under protective orders for the duration of that protective order.

HB918. This bill allows for those over the age of 18 AND in possession of a protective order, to be eligible for a temporary LTC for the duration of the order.

Foster Parents:

House Bill 1387 by Representative Cody Harris allows Foster parents to store their firearms and ammunition in the same locked safe and removes the trigger lock requirement.

It was a joint effort by all to achieve such success.  GOA Texas did a fantastic job in organizing gun owners, and forming us up into groups per Senate and House district to contract and lobby our reps.  They packed the seats for the House and Senate hearings on the CC bill, and did a huge amount of work behind the scenes with Legislators.   Rachel Malone and Felisha Bull from GOA Texas are so very effective.

TSRA, and Andi Turner, did a good job also in keeping their members informed and up to date on events.  This group did far more than in previous sessions to influence events.

Key legislators such as Rep White, Rep Schaefer, and Sen Schwertner to sponsor progun bills, push them through committees, and onto the floors.  

Speak Phelan - the speaker Texas should have had for years.  He's a great support of gun rights, and was key in committee assignments, and moving things to the floor.

LTG Patrick.  CC wouldn't have happened without him.  It wasn't a priority for him at the start of the session, but he listened to gun owners, and he could not have done more to help CC than what he did.  He may be a target for the leftists next year, as unlike Abbott he hasn't crushed his opponents in his elections.  He needs our support next year, as he's delivered for gun owners.

And all of us on here for trading information, tips, and advice on who to contact and what needs to be done.  It's been a pleasure to work with you all on gun rights, and to see us accomplish so much this year.  Congratulations troops, we did it.
Link Posted: 5/31/2021 6:17:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2021 6:20:21 PM EDT by DonofKalifornia]
Also no ban on any type guns, magazines went anywhere, same with universal back ground checks.

Even though I am no longer a member of TSRA, I noticed Andi Turner did a lot better job than Alice Tripp did, and if TSRA communicated to their members even better. When I talked to TSRA about setting up fast and quick e mail alerts, it fell on deaf ears.

Also Dan Patrick learned that gun owners hold a lot of power over his political career. Of course us being polite, but firm with staff helped a lot, compared to the Commie Mommies.
Link Posted: 5/31/2021 6:24:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2021 6:30:54 PM EDT by 1stID]
Yes, no antigun bills to speak of.  The only one that passed at all was one that made it a violation of state law to "lie", as to be judged in court, on a 4473 form.  Seems silly as it's a Federal form, so let them police their own forms.  It's like making it a Texas law about filling out your 1040.

I'm not a member of TSRA but I'm on their email list, and they did a good job keeping people up to date on events, bill progress, and asking them to contact elected officials.  TRSA may have a decent list of folks less involved in legislation than the GOA members, so it was good to get them working as well, not just us dedicated 2A supporters.
Link Posted: 5/31/2021 10:54:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/1/2021 9:02:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/1/2021 9:04:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/1/2021 9:47:20 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mojo:

 Same here.  I’d buy several for sure.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mojo:
Originally Posted By Eric802:
I’d be real excited if I could build silencers for TX-only use without needing a stamp.

 Same here.  I’d buy several for sure.


The demand is going to be off the charts. Here's to hoping it keeps going in the right direction
Link Posted: 6/1/2021 6:18:20 PM EDT
Would like to see Texas only suppressor but doubtful a court will rule that such an item would not be subject to the NFA.

But you never know, and worth a shot, as the AG has to defend the proposed manufacture of a Texas only suppressor in court, before anything needs to be built.  So win - good times, lose - hmm, not a net loss.  Playing with House money so to speak.
Link Posted: 6/1/2021 6:28:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mojo:
Same here.  I’d buy several for sure.
View Quote

You'd better hope that there's an absolutely huge number of Texans (hundreds of thousands or millions) who make or transfer Texas-only federally-unregistered silencers.  Enough so that either the ATF decides not to prosecute anyone because of the raw numbers, or enough so that anyone who is prosecuted is guaranteed to have someone on their jury who will vote to acquit, no matter what.  (Of course that ignores the whole "process is the punishment" by being charged in the first place.)

If neither of those happen then this is will just end up like similar laws in other states, where someone who doesn't understand federal preemption has the book thrown at them.  Then after they're convicted everything stays the way it always was.
Link Posted: 6/1/2021 7:11:46 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CleverNickname:

You'd better hope that there's an absolutely huge number of Texans (hundreds of thousands or millions) who make or transfer Texas-only federally-unregistered silencers.  Enough so that either the ATF decides not to prosecute anyone because of the raw numbers, or enough so that anyone who is prosecuted is guaranteed to have someone on their jury who will vote to acquit, no matter what.  (Of course that ignores the whole "process is the punishment" by being charged in the first place.)

If neither of those happen then this is will just end up like similar laws in other states, where someone who doesn't understand federal preemption has the book thrown at them.  Then after they're convicted everything stays the way it always was.
View Quote


Everyone and their dog has suppressors either commercial or home built.

Or I just hang around the wrong people....
Link Posted: 6/1/2021 7:33:01 PM EDT
The Suppressor Freedom bill has the provision for a suppressor manufacturer to have the Texas AG defend the Texas-only suppressor aspect in court.  That way, a ruling can be obtained prior to anyone doing anything that could be a violation of Federal law.

The other NFA laws in other states didn't have this aspect.  So it's a risk free way of seeing if the new batch of Federal judges, especially the ones on the 5th Circuit where Texas is, are on board for a roll back of the over-reach of the Commerce Clause interpretation.  As above, it's all playing with House money as a loss in court just keeps things are they are.
Link Posted: 6/1/2021 10:31:23 PM EDT
Another bill that passed which I forgot about was HB4346.  Basically it prevents someone who has granted an easement from then restricting users of the easement from transporting firearms, ammo, or alcohol over the easement.  

While I have not personally heard of this happening, it obviously originated somewhere for a bill to have been created.  It’s good to see this taken care of now and prevent another avenue of attack for the anti’s.

Below is the relevant text of the bill
(c)An instrument granting an access easement may not restrict or prohibit an easement holder or an easement holder’s guest from possessing, carrying, or transporting a firearm or an alcoholic beverage over the servient estate while using the easement for the easement’s purpose.

(d) The owner of a servient estate may not enforce a restrictive covenant in an instrument granting an access easement over the servient estate that restricts or prohibits the easement holder or the easement holder’s guest from possessing, carrying, or transporting a firearm or an alcoholic beverage over the servient estate while using the easement for the easement’s purpose.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/1/2021 10:43:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/2/2021 10:58:02 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mojo:


 
 Of course, I'm not going to buy suppressors starting Sept 1st.  This is a law that has a wait-and-see all over it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mojo:
Originally Posted By CleverNickname:
Originally Posted By mojo:
Same here.  I’d buy several for sure.

You'd better hope that there's an absolutely huge number of Texans (hundreds of thousands or millions) who make or transfer Texas-only federally-unregistered silencers.  Enough so that either the ATF decides not to prosecute anyone because of the raw numbers, or enough so that anyone who is prosecuted is guaranteed to have someone on their jury who will vote to acquit, no matter what.  (Of course that ignores the whole "process is the punishment" by being charged in the first place.)

If neither of those happen then this is will just end up like similar laws in other states, where someone who doesn't understand federal preemption has the book thrown at them.  Then after they're convicted everything stays the way it always was.


 
 Of course, I'm not going to buy suppressors starting Sept 1st.  This is a law that has a wait-and-see all over it.


Yeah, I don't think anyone wants to be the test case, but hopefully it's the first step in normalizing acceptance and legality of suppressors nationwide.  Just like with pot (which I hope Texas or the fed gov legalizes before or soon after I retire).
Link Posted: 6/2/2021 11:13:09 AM EDT
As above, there doesn't have to be a criminal test case for the Texas only suppressor.  The Texas AG is required to defend the law in Federal court, and this can be requested prior to any manufacturing of a Texas only suppressor.  As such, instead of Joe Bob making one in his garage and then having the full Eye of Moldour gazing upon him from the Federal Government, a suppressor company can request the AG file the suit, and also join in the case.  

This all makes it far easier for a judge to rule favorably in the case, than having to overturn a criminal conviction of someone who's made their own suppressor and was convicted for it.
Link Posted: 6/2/2021 3:52:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/2/2021 5:38:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Eric802:

So could I, as an individual with a lathe and enough knowledge to be dangerous, request that the AG file suit to clear this up?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Eric802:
Originally Posted By 1stID:
As above, there doesn't have to be a criminal test case for the Texas only suppressor.  The Texas AG is required to defend the law in Federal court, and this can be requested prior to any manufacturing of a Texas only suppressor.  As such, instead of Joe Bob making one in his garage and then having the full Eye of Moldour gazing upon him from the Federal Government, a suppressor company can request the AG file the suit, and also join in the case.  

This all makes it far easier for a judge to rule favorably in the case, than having to overturn a criminal conviction of someone who's made their own suppressor and was convicted for it.

So could I, as an individual with a lathe and enough knowledge to be dangerous, request that the AG file suit to clear this up?



Yep! The one detail of the law I need to figure out is if the material you make the suppressor out of has to be made in Texas. I’m not sure if there is a mill making titanium or inconel in Texas. Not even sure about stainless steel bar stock or tubing made in Texas. If it just matching the parts and assembling in Texas then making suppressors here are easy.
Link Posted: 6/2/2021 5:47:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:
As above, there doesn't have to be a criminal test case for the Texas only suppressor.  The Texas AG is required to defend the law in Federal court, and this can be requested prior to any manufacturing of a Texas only suppressor.  As such, instead of Joe Bob making one in his garage and then having the full Eye of Moldour gazing upon him from the Federal Government, a suppressor company can request the AG file the suit, and also join in the case.  

This all makes it far easier for a judge to rule favorably in the case, than having to overturn a criminal conviction of someone who's made their own suppressor and was convicted for it.
View Quote


What would be the basis of the lawsuit?  I'm no lawyer, but I thought that someone had to be harmed before you could file a federal lawsuit?  I suppose a company could request a determination from ATF, and then use the letter prohibiting Texas only suppressors as evidence of harm?
Link Posted: 6/2/2021 6:14:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/2/2021 6:23:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/2/2021 6:23:31 PM EDT by John-in-austin]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Eric802:

Yeah, I'm not sure how far upstream the chain of interstate commerce has to go for an item to be considered "Made in Texas".  Seems a little ridiculous to require that the aluminum ore be mined in Texas in order to make a .22 can.  If a completely benign, generic item (like bar stock) comes in from another state, and all the machining to make it into an otherwise regulated item happens in-state, is that good enough? I'd think so.
View Quote




Alcohol laws will help here.  There is extensive casework or what constitutes a "made in Texas" Beverage. Since a lot of the distilleries and wineries etc use precusors from out of state and can still be considered "Made in Texas" that might show the way.
Link Posted: 6/2/2021 9:33:25 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Eric802:

Yeah, I'm not sure how far upstream the chain of interstate commerce has to go for an item to be considered "Made in Texas".  Seems a little ridiculous to require that the aluminum ore be mined in Texas in order to make a .22 can.  If a completely benign, generic item (like bar stock) comes in from another state, and all the machining to make it into an otherwise regulated item happens in-state, is that good enough? I'd think so.
View Quote



I am sure the ATF would still say it doesn’t matter and want to murder some children for doing it.
Link Posted: 6/2/2021 9:39:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:
The Suppressor Freedom bill has the provision for a suppressor manufacturer to have the Texas AG defend the Texas-only suppressor aspect in court.  That way, a ruling can be obtained prior to anyone doing anything that could be a violation of Federal law.

The other NFA laws in other states didn't have this aspect.  So it's a risk free way of seeing if the new batch of Federal judges, especially the ones on the 5th Circuit where Texas is, are on board for a roll back of the over-reach of the Commerce Clause interpretation.  As above, it's all playing with House money as a loss in court just keeps things are they are.
View Quote


Yeah KS did nothing and when the ATF locked those guys up.
Link Posted: 6/8/2021 10:23:44 PM EDT
A couple of the bills noted above (HB 918 and HB 1387) were signed by Abbott last week.  That’s two down.
Link Posted: 6/11/2021 3:52:42 PM EDT
Latest posting from GOA Texas about this session, which we ran the table on pro-gun bills.

https://texas.gunowners.org/87th-legislature-recap/

And if you're not a member yet of GOA Texas, please consider it, really, really strongly!  The GOA crew of Rachel and Felisha are more responsible than anyone for us having such a fantastic result this year in the Legislature.
Link Posted: 6/11/2021 6:05:14 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:
Latest posting from GOA Texas about this session, which we ran the table on pro-gun bills.

https://texas.gunowners.org/87th-legislature-recap/

And if you're not a member yet of GOA Texas, please consider it, really, really strongly!  The GOA crew of Rachel and Felisha are more responsible than anyone for us having such a fantastic result this year in the Legislature.
View Quote


We ran the table on pro-gun bills, and stopping anti-gun bills. I know people got all twisted about the lying on a 4473, but it is a symptom of the Fed not doing their job. I know that because I really hit a nerve when I testified against the bill calling it the ‘Hunter Biden’ bill. Couple Democrats really did not like that.

Now GOA will start getting ready to for the 2022 elections, especially for House members if you know any very pro-gun candidates have them get hold of GOA to help bring in some additional support. GOA is already looking at helping get rid of a couple of very anti-gun Democrats this election.
Link Posted: 6/12/2021 9:28:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/12/2021 12:04:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2021 12:05:14 PM EDT by 1stID]
They would be - they would not ever be considered firearms (unlike what was proposed in the Hearing Safe Act), so you could buy them over the counter at any store.

That said, it's unlikely a Federal court will both go against the Commerce Clause over-interpretation that the courts have used for the last 90 years, and also rule pro-2A.  

But it's worth a free shot, as this bill allows for a court ruling prior to manufacture, so no legal risk (playing with house money so to speak).  And if a judge in the 9th can toss out CA's rifle ban, then who's to say a judge here in the 5th won't allow this to go ahead as well.

The gun grabbers may be hesitant to try for an appeal after a loss or two, for fear of making a precedent of it - similar to how DC of all places has shall issue handgun carry license, as the grabbers were afraid to appeal it and have the Supreme Court step in to rule, thereby putting NY and NJ's restrictive laws on the docket.
Link Posted: 6/12/2021 1:02:08 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:
They would be - they would not ever be considered firearms (unlike what was proposed in the Hearing Safe Act), so you could buy them over the counter at any store.

That said, it's unlikely a Federal court will both go against the Commerce Clause over-interpretation that the courts have used for the last 90 years, and also rule pro-2A.  

But it's worth a free shot, as this bill allows for a court ruling prior to manufacture, so no legal risk (playing with house money so to speak).  And if a judge in the 9th can toss out CA's rifle ban, then who's to say a judge here in the 5th won't allow this to go ahead as well.

The gun grabbers may be hesitant to try for an appeal after a loss or two, for fear of making a precedent of it - similar to how DC of all places has shall issue handgun carry license, as the grabbers were afraid to appeal it and have the Supreme Court step in to rule, thereby putting NY and NJ's restrictive laws on the docket.
View Quote


I am glad we have Paxton for AG, IMO he will go to the mat for us in Texas. When anyone talks having anyone else take over for AG we need to really look out.

Looks like George P better find something else to do.
Link Posted: 6/12/2021 7:05:13 PM EDT
Indeed.  I don't care how many affairs or such he has - he's a great defender of the 2A, and has been targeted by the Justice department as a result - he's been under indictment by them for longer than it took to win WWII.  Either take his case to trial or let him be.

As for George Bush the VIII or whatever his name is - no more Bushes.  They give up and quit while still in office if leftist say mean things about them.
Link Posted: 6/14/2021 6:57:33 PM EDT
Two more signed by Abbott.  SB 550 and HB 2112 were both signed today.
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.

If you are the system administrator please click here to find out more about this error.