Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/5/2021 2:16:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 3:06:11 PM EST
[#1]
Actually, I called about that very thing today.  I don't think they have anyone lined up.  I called a few weeks back to Senator Springers office since he was one of the bill sponsors.  Today someone from his office called me back.  To his knowledge no one was 'lined up' and they had no plans in place.  I asked him to pass my information on to the AG stating my intent to build and requesting the AG to "Seek a declaratory judgment".  We will wait and see.

I agree with you, I believe an individual would be a better case than a business.  To take it a step farther, I think someone (like myself) who builds form 1 suppressors in their home shop from raw material with their own machine equipment (meaning raw material and lathe and mill, not a 'solvent trap') would be a good case.

We'll see maybe.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 3:15:44 PM EST
[#2]
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 3:28:43 PM EST
[#3]
The bill does not go into effect until 9/1 like most Texas bills unless an emergency. After that day the AG can start working on taking it to court for an injunction.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 3:32:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: sanangelo] [#4]
Anyone that wants to line up to be a test case is a fool and is going to miss having the ability to fart after being in a federal prison for a few years.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 3:42:59 PM EST
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sanangelo:
Anyone that wants to line up to be a test case is a fool and is going to miss having the ability to fart after being in a federal prison for a few years.
View Quote


The bill specifially states that the AG is to seek a judgement if a citizen tells them of their 'intent' to build a suppressor under this law.  No suppressor has to be made and no felonies have to be committed to get this going.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 3:48:38 PM EST
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sanangelo:
Anyone that wants to line up to be a test case is a fool and is going to miss having the ability to fart after being in a federal prison for a few years.
View Quote


Please know what you are talking about before posting.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 4:48:15 PM EST
[#7]
AG needs to have a get on-board period maybe 3 months to get as many on-board as possible.

Would be nice to have 1 million requests by 12/31 and file suit 1/1 with those 1 million, rather than file suit with one on COB 9/1.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 4:49:05 PM EST
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sanangelo:
Anyone that wants to line up to be a test case is a fool and is going to miss having the ability to fart after being in a federal prison for a few years.
View Quote


This is Texas, not Kansas.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 5:18:09 PM EST
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


This is Texas, not Kansas.
View Quote



True.   But it’s not going to lead to anything good.  This law is nothing but grandstanding that will accomplish nothing in the end.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 5:31:41 PM EST
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sanangelo:



True.   But it’s not going to lead to anything good.  This law is nothing but grandstanding that will accomplish nothing in the end.
View Quote


No one knows that.  You never know what's going to happen in court, and it's all playing with House money anyway - with a negative result in court, things are as they are, no worse.

Some people whine that we never play offense for guns, only defense - then when you do try to advance the ball, they say it'll never work.

If you don't think it will work and don't care about it, just ignore it.  Let the rest of us try to advance gun rights and reduce the over-reach of Federal laws.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 5:46:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: RenegadeX] [#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sanangelo:
True.   But it’s not going to lead to anything good.  This law is nothing but grandstanding that will accomplish nothing in the end.
View Quote


It accomplishes a lot.

On Sep 1, if your Silencer is made in Texas and stamped such, local police cannot do anything. So hopefully all Texas Silencer makers will stamp accordingly, and nothing in the law says you cannot do it retroactively.

Suing to get gun rights is very expensive, this law makes the State pay for it.

It is all win and nothing to lose.

update:

The actual law is codifed, silencer does not need to be made in Texas to be exempt from Texas Law. The stamping is for Fed Non-Applicability which is not yet applicable.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 5:52:26 PM EST
[#12]
It's my understanding that with HB957, suppressors are totally decriminalized as of 1 Sep under Texas law, such that any sale or possession issues are completely at a Federal level, as the state of Texas has no laws with regards to suppressors at all.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 6:00:05 PM EST
[#13]
The new laws requirement that the AG "Seek a declaratory judgment" has me wondering how the AG has standing to file such a lawsuit.

Federal Constitutional Standing Requirements Under Article III
Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and gives Congress the authority to create additional courts. It also gives the Judicial Branch of the federal government authority over certain types of cases. The Judiciary Act of 1789, one of the first bills passed during the first session of Congress, created the federal judicial system, which today consists of a nationwide network of district courts and circuit courts of appeals.

Federal law requires anyone seeking to file a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court to establish that the federal judiciary may exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, and over the persons or entities involved.

Over the last century, the Supreme Court has also established a system for determining when a person has standing to bring a claim in federal court. While the rules regarding standing do not appear in the Constitution, the Supreme Court based them on the authority granted by Article III of the Constitution and federal statutes.

What is Standing?
“Standing” is the legal right for a particular person to bring a claim in court. A plaintiff must establish that they meet the legal criteria for standing. This generally involves demonstrating an injury and a direct connection to the defendant. If, for example, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident with the defendant, and the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was responsible for the accident, they most likely have standing to sue. Federal courts have developed their own rules for lawsuits that involve questions of federal or constitutional law.

Article III
The Case or Controversy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, located in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1, does not mention the word “standing.” Despite this, it is the basis for many important court decisions addressing standing.

One of the first Supreme Court decisions to address standing in this manner was Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 (1922). The plaintiff in that case sought to challenge the District of Columbia’s ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, which prohibited the government from denying anyone the right to vote based on their gender. At the time that plaintiff sued, the amendment had not yet been ratified. The court ruled unanimously against the plaintiff, holding that individuals did not have a general right to sue to invalidate a statute or other legislative act. Since the plaintiff’s ultimate goal was to challenge the Nineteenth Amendment itself, his lawsuit was not a “case” that a federal court could hear.

In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), the Supreme Court ruled against two plaintiffs who sought to challenge certain expenditures by the federal government. The plaintiffs alleged that the Tenth Amendment barred the expenditures in question, but they did not allege that the expenditures would cause them any specific or individualized harm. In ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the court held that it had “no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional.” Id. at 448. In order to make such a ruling, a plaintiff would need to show that they have “sustained or [are] immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury” from the challenged law. Id.

Three Requirements for Article III Standing
The rules for Article III standing took their current form in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The case involved a challenge by an environmental organization to federal regulations issued under the Endangered Species Act. In ruling against the plaintiff, the Supreme Court identified a three-part test for establishing standing in federal court. A plaintiff has the burden of proving each element of the test.

1. Injury in Fact
A plaintiff must have suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that meets two additional criteria: (1) it is “concrete and particularized”; and (2) it is “actual or imminent,” as opposed to “conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. It does not need to be an economic injury, but it needs to be something that has directly affected the plaintiff.

2. Causation
The plaintiff’s injury must be “fairly traceable” to the conduct that is the subject of the lawsuit. Id. It cannot have resulted from actions by someone who is not a party to the lawsuit.

3. Likelihood of Redress
A decision in the plaintiff’s favor must be likely to provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff’s injuries. The court specified that “redress[] by a favorable decision” must be “likely,” rather than “merely speculative.” Id. at 561.

Other Standing Requirements
In addition to federal constitutional standing requirements, described above, many statutes or claims have their own additional standing requirements, or doctrines applying the constitutional standing requirements specific to the claim or statute.

For example, under the federal antitrust laws, plaintiffs must satisfy federal antitrust standing, which, most prominently, includes antitrust injury, which you can read about on our antitrust website.

Another example is standing for the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows certain persons to challenge federal agency activity, which you can read about here.

The lesson is that if you are defending or about to bring a federal lawsuit, you should check constitutional and any other standing requirements.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 6:06:06 PM EST
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:
It's my understanding that with HB957, suppressors are totally decriminalized as of 1 Sep under Texas law, such that any sale or possession issues are completely at a Federal level, as the state of Texas has no laws with regards to suppressors at all.
View Quote


It appears this is true, but HB957 also has this:

Sec. 2.053.  MARKETING OF FIREARM SUPPRESSOR. A firearm suppressor manufactured and sold in this state must have the words "Made in Texas" clearly stamped on it.

There does not appear to be any penalty though if it does not.

It is also a little confusing as these definitions are being put in the government code, not the penal code.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 6:12:58 PM EST
[#15]
Is the "Made in Texas" stamped category for those that are to avoid NFA rules, where it has to be built, machined, assembled, etc. all within the state, in an attempt to avoid the Commerce Clause aspect of how a Federal law can be enforced on intra-state activity?

I think if you just want to build a conventional suppressor and ship it to other states, you don't have to follow those various aspects.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 8:06:13 PM EST
[#16]
There's a bunch of youtubers posting about it.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 9:59:02 PM EST
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:


No one knows that.  You never know what's going to happen in court, and it's all playing with House money anyway - with a negative result in court, things are as they are, no worse.

Some people whine that we never play offense for guns, only defense - then when you do try to advance the ball, they say it'll never work.

If you don't think it will work and don't care about it, just ignore it.  Let the rest of us try to advance gun rights and reduce the over-reach of Federal laws.
View Quote


Well said.
Link Posted: 8/5/2021 10:24:15 PM EST
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:


No one knows that.  You never know what's going to happen in court, and it's all playing with House money anyway - with a negative result in court, things are as they are, no worse.

Some people whine that we never play offense for guns, only defense - then when you do try to advance the ball, they say it'll never work.

If you don't think it will work and don't care about it, just ignore it.  Let the rest of us try to advance gun rights and reduce the over-reach of Federal laws.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:
Originally Posted By sanangelo:



True.   But it’s not going to lead to anything good.  This law is nothing but grandstanding that will accomplish nothing in the end.


No one knows that.  You never know what's going to happen in court, and it's all playing with House money anyway - with a negative result in court, things are as they are, no worse.

Some people whine that we never play offense for guns, only defense - then when you do try to advance the ball, they say it'll never work.

If you don't think it will work and don't care about it, just ignore it.  Let the rest of us try to advance gun rights and reduce the over-reach of Federal laws.


This is why it is so important to let a court case play out, sometimes it takes years like the over turning the magazine ban or assault weapon ban in California. If you are paying for attorneys none of it comes cheap. The AG’s office have plenty of attorneys to handle a going to court for us.
Link Posted: 8/23/2021 12:02:11 PM EST
[#19]
Bump for any new info.
Link Posted: 8/23/2021 4:52:44 PM EST
[#20]
What/where are the pertinent contact links?

I have been thinking about doing a form 1 can, and I would not be opposed to stick a "made in texas" stamp on it.

I'll do some legwork on my side too.
Link Posted: 9/7/2021 2:57:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 44-40pro] [#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:


No one knows that.  You never know what's going to happen in court, and it's all playing with House money anyway - with a negative result in court, things are as they are, no worse.

Some people whine that we never play offense for guns, only defense - then when you do try to advance the ball, they say it'll never work.

If you don't think it will work and don't care about it, just ignore it.  Let the rest of us try to advance gun rights and reduce the over-reach of Federal laws.
View Quote



Hear Hear! That's the ticket.

I FUCKING HATE DOOMERS AND NAYSAYERS too chickenshit to crawl out of mommies' basement. SIGN ME UP AS A PLAINTIFF!! Off to call Springer's office. WHO's WITH ME??????


ETA: Just spoke with Sen Springer's office. They're going to have the legislative assistant who ran the bill get in touch with me. C'mon folks lets get atleast 100 plaintiffs on this. (Although I'd rather see 1000 or more)





Link Posted: 9/7/2021 3:52:22 PM EST
[#22]
IM me the senator’s contact information and I will be a plaintiff too.
Link Posted: 9/7/2021 5:10:21 PM EST
[#23]
Me too, PM me the info, and ill get in on this.

I also have an idea for an integral can, so I can do 2!
Link Posted: 9/8/2021 11:27:33 AM EST
[#24]
Sent IM to both of you.


C'mon folks, time to get this rolling.
Link Posted: 9/8/2021 12:08:40 PM EST
[#25]
You contact the AG, not Springer.
Link Posted: 9/8/2021 8:55:56 PM EST
[#26]
Will do that as well! Springer's rep told me she'd have the legislative assistant contact me as well.
Link Posted: 9/13/2021 2:42:42 AM EST
[#27]
Riflegear had their grand opening a month or so ago and there was a table set up with suppressors.  I'm not sure who it was but I specifically asked the guy about the "Made in Texas"  status and he told me it was complicated and there wouldn't be any made any time soon because not only did the suppressor have to be made in Texas but all the materials had to be produced in Texas.  I just looked at him with my mouth open like WTF?  Just sayin.....
Link Posted: 9/13/2021 7:10:23 AM EST
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By QB:
Riflegear had their grand opening a month or so ago and there was a table set up with suppressors.  I'm not sure who it was but I specifically asked the guy about the "Made in Texas"  status and he told me it was complicated and there wouldn't be any made any time soon because not only did the suppressor have to be made in Texas but all the materials had to be produced in Texas.  I just looked at him with my mouth open like WTF?  Just sayin.....
View Quote


That is probably true too.
the original fight on commerce clause/ interstate trade so to speak was that not all of it was made in the state.
they bought materials from other states etc.. so it wasn't wholly made there.

the other thing was the wheat one, where even though it was all made in state, it affected trade between states, because if that guy hadn't made it, they would have/ could have purchased from out of state.

lot of dancing to make sure the fed gov gets its way.
Link Posted: 9/13/2021 9:11:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: Holdemdown] [#29]
Nevermi d
Link Posted: 9/13/2021 3:00:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: RenegadeX] [#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By QB:
Riflegear had their grand opening a month or so ago and there was a table set up with suppressors.  I'm not sure who it was but I specifically asked the guy about the "Made in Texas"  status and he told me it was complicated and there wouldn't be any made any time soon because not only did the suppressor have to be made in Texas but all the materials had to be produced in Texas.  I just looked at him with my mouth open like WTF?  Just sayin.....
View Quote


It is not really complicated at all.

Silencers are no longer regulated under Texas Law. Federal Law still applies.

Just like in Virginia.
Link Posted: 9/13/2021 4:30:35 PM EST
[#31]
Link Posted: 9/13/2021 4:35:42 PM EST
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Eric802:
Well, to be fair, it would be pretty dicey for a manufacturer to dip their toe into the "Made in Texas" waters, particularly if they are already engaged in interstate commerce selling cans in other states. The "Made in Texas" wheelhouse should be individual builders or, at most, a local manufacturer that does absolutely nothing in interstate commerce. As an individual, I don't even think I'd want to make completed baffles and ship them to individuals inside the state of Texas. Hand delivery, sure. But using any kind of shipping company, nope.
View Quote


This has gotta be the most misunderstood law ever passed.

There is nothing "dicey". To go that route would be a violation of Federal law.
Link Posted: 9/13/2021 5:05:28 PM EST
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By buckshot_jim:
ATF is sending letters to FFLs telling them not to do it...
View Quote


Link Posted: 9/13/2021 5:12:59 PM EST
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


This has gotta be the most misunderstood law ever passed.

There is nothing "dicey". To go that route would be a violation of Federal law.
View Quote


Well, there are two aspects to it.  You seem to be focused on the fact that Texas cops no longer should care about suppressors at all, but getting the attention of federal agents is going to make for a very bad day.  That's a good take, but that's not the only thing the law does.

I think most of us are more interested in the long term changes that can come from having the state raise a middle finger to the federal laws about suppressors.  Marijuana possession still violates federal law, and yet you can "legally" smoke a doobie in about half of the country.  Nobody will bother you.  MJ businesses are thriving.  The Feds aren't going after anybody for buying/selling/possessing pot unless you're mixed up in some other criminal stuff.

I think most of us are dreaming about being able to go to the local store and buy a suppressor without having to involve the federal government, just like pot is treated.
Link Posted: 9/13/2021 5:17:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: RenegadeX] [#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:
Well, there are two aspects to it.  You seem to be focused on the fact that Texas cops no longer should care about suppressors at all, but getting the attention of federal agents is going to make for a very bad day.  That's a good take, but that's not the only thing the law does.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:
Well, there are two aspects to it.  You seem to be focused on the fact that Texas cops no longer should care about suppressors at all, but getting the attention of federal agents is going to make for a very bad day.  That's a good take, but that's not the only thing the law does.


This statement I made covers all aspects:

"Silencers are no longer regulated under Texas Law. Federal Law still applies."

It is really that simple. When it changes, I will be here to tell all.

Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:
I think most of us are more interested in the long term changes that can come from having the state raise a middle finger to the federal laws about suppressors.  Marijuana possession still violates federal law, and yet you can "legally" smoke a doobie in about half of the country.  Nobody will bother you.  MJ businesses are thriving.  The Feds aren't going after anybody for buying/selling/possessing pot unless you're mixed up in some other criminal stuff.

I think most of us are dreaming about being able to go to the local store and buy a suppressor without having to involve the federal government, just like pot is treated.


Well then, other than me, has anyone contacted the AG as outlined in GC 2.054?  Because 2.054 is how you get to Federal law not applying. Irony will be if only those who contacted AG get standing.
Link Posted: 9/14/2021 1:49:20 PM EST
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Well then, other than me, has anyone contacted the AG as outlined in GC 2.054?  Because 2.054 is how you get to Federal law not applying. Irony will be if only those who contacted AG get standing.
View Quote


I have contacted the Texas attorney generals office with my intent via their 'contact us online form':
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/contact-us-online-form

HB957 Sec. 2.054 says "On written notification..." so I opened with asking if the form submission satisfied that requirement and then described my intent and asked the attorney general to "seek a declaratory judgement" as per HB957 Sec. 2.054. Hopefully they send a reply at some point.

We need as many people as possible to supply written notification of their intent to manufacture a firearms suppressor.
Link Posted: 10/14/2021 9:12:01 AM EST
[#37]
bump
Link Posted: 10/16/2021 12:21:50 PM EST
[#38]
@tone_suk1 follow up?
Link Posted: 10/17/2021 2:06:28 AM EST
[#39]
Do it and quit being a pussy.

Worst case scenario your dog gets shot.
Link Posted: 10/20/2021 10:18:13 AM EST
[#40]
@Holdemdown

I've heard fk all from the OAG since I submitted an electronic correspondence via their website contact form. Not sure if they are supposed to acknowledge or respond but it would be nice if they did. I can't imagine they'd send a letter back to me if I sent a certified request letter though.

So, I guess there is no telling... I may submit another form in the near future. (maybe the form experienced an error when I used it)
I get the feeling this issue isn't high on their list of priorities.
Link Posted: 10/20/2021 10:49:08 AM EST
[#41]
I am not expecting anything for a year at best, between getting plaintiffs then putting a good case together. Also the AG has been pretty busy with the border/Fed bullshit and mask/vaccine mandates to rescind.
Link Posted: 10/27/2021 5:11:47 PM EST
[#42]
Thanks, I dont expect anything soon either.  Even then, the feds have the power and aim to keep it.
Short of watering the tree of liberty, nothing will change.
Link Posted: 10/31/2021 5:31:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: MongoCaver] [#43]
Link Posted: 11/3/2021 1:26:13 AM EST
[#44]
Originally Posted By Eric802:
The law allowing "Made in Texas" suppressors takes effect on Sept. 1.  As y'all know, it requires that the AG bring a case in federal court to determine whether the Commerce Clause will allow for such a thing, or whether it'll be dead before it gets going. The law says that anyone wishing to build such a suppressor must (IIRC) contact the AG in writing to request that they initiate this suit. Do we have any "insiders" here who know of plans for someone or some company to do this? I personally feel that an individual who wants to make a suppressor would be a more viable test case than a company, but who knows. I might be willing to throw my name on such a letter but, from past experience with the Illinois State Rifle Association, I know that state organizations often have people lined up to be "named plaintiffs" in such things.
View Quote


No and you won’t as the matter has already been litigated by Montana and Kansas. The TX statute is “feel good” legislation at best.,

I’m all for deregulating suppressors but you should educate yourself on that prior federal litigation as well as the legal  basis of the NFA before you start volunteering for anything.

The National Firearms Act is a based on federal tax authority (hence why it is part of Title 26 of the U.S. Code). Unlike federal firearms statutes in a title  18 USC such as 922 and 924 violations,  the NFA is not based on federal authority over interstate and foreign commerce. The NFA is a federal tax statute and as such interstate nexus is not a factor.
Link Posted: 11/3/2021 1:35:23 AM EST
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


This has gotta be the most misunderstood law ever passed.

There is nothing "dicey". To go that route would be a violation of Federal law.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


This has gotta be the most misunderstood law ever passed.

There is nothing "dicey". To go that route would be a violation of Federal law.


This ^^^^ right here.

Kansas men collateral damage in gun control dispute

The unregistered gun silencers, each stamped “Made in Kansas, were arranged in a display case at a military surplus store in a rural Kansas town. Beside them was a copy of a Kansas gun law signed a year earlier by then-Gov. Sam Brownback that purports to prevent federal prosecution of anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in Kansas.

Jeremy Kettler said he was skeptical when he saw the display in 2014, but Chanute store owner Shane Cox assured him that as long as the silencers didn’t leave Kansas they were legal. Kettler, a disabled Army veteran with no serious criminal history, researched the state gun law before returning and buying a silencer.

His trial lawyer would later tell a federal court that Kettler wanted one because he had suffered hearing damage in combat and the muffled report of his firearm during target practice was easier on his ears and less aggravating to his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court turned away without comment the appeals from Kettler and Cox on firearms convictions in a case that challenged federal regulation of gun silencers. The decision came just days after a gunman used a silencer in a shooting rampage that killed 12 people in Virginia.

“I was just collateral damage in this dispute between the state and federal government,” Kettler said after the ruling. Cox and his attorney could not be reached for comment.

The Kansas Legislature and the Kansas governor basically “sold this kid down the river with a law they knew full well was not going to be able to thwart the federal government,” said Ian Clark, the attorney who represented Kettler at trial. “That is the sadness of all this — they basically made Jeremy and Shane their guinea pigs.”

President Donald Trump’s administration had asked the court to leave the convictions in place.

Kansas and seven other states had urged justices to hear the appeals.

Instead, the Supreme Court let stand a ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the National Firearms Act falls within Congress’ power to tax. The 10th Circuit didn’t address the constitutionality of the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act, which Kansas defended when intervening in the criminal case.

Kettler said he’s considering a civil lawsuit against Kansas for enacting the statute, which remains on the books.


States can’t simply opt out of federal gun laws that they don’t like, and this court decision that the Supreme Court has let stand is just the latest affirmation of that,” said Jonathan Lowy, vice president of legal for the gun control advocacy group Brady, formerly known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Lowry contended the Kansas Legislature should work to protect the people of Kansas against gun violence instead of enacting an unconstitutional measure that is “not worth the paper it was written on.”

The Kansas law states firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept within Kansas borders are exempt from federal gun control. It also contains a provision allowing the state to prosecute federal agents who attempt to enforce U.S. laws upon firearms made in Kansas.

“The law was written that way to prevent this from happening — so that it would be a challenge to the federal government coming in, based on the Constitution,” Kettler said. “It was supposed to be between the state of Kansas and the federal government, not against the individuals who were just following the law.”

Kettler, now a convicted felon for possession of the silencer , mostly faults Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt for not filing a state complaint against the federal officials who prosecuted him. He derided the friend-of-the-court brief filed by Schmidt as “a half-hearted attempt to make it look like he was doing something.”

Link Posted: 11/3/2021 9:54:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: RenegadeX] [#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HCM3156:


No and you won’t as the matter has already been litigated by Montana and Kansas. The TX statute is “feel good” legislation at best.,

I’m all for deregulating suppressors but you should educate yourself on that prior federal litigation as well as the legal  basis of the NFA before you start volunteering for anything.

View Quote


This is not Montana or Kansas and there is nothing feel good about it. Silencers are now deregulated at state level and their is a legal process to get the state to pay the bill to challenge it at the federal level.
Link Posted: 11/3/2021 9:22:59 PM EST
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HCM3156:


No and you won’t as the matter has already been litigated by Montana and Kansas. The TX statute is “feel good” legislation at best.,

I’m all for deregulating suppressors but you should educate yourself on that prior federal litigation as well as the legal  basis of the NFA before you start volunteering for anything.

The National Firearms Act is a based on federal tax authority (hence why it is part of Title 26 of the U.S. Code). Unlike federal firearms statutes in a title  18 USC such as 922 and 924 violations,  the NFA is not based on federal authority over interstate and foreign commerce. The NFA is a federal tax statute and as such interstate nexus is not a factor.
View Quote


What other tax do you pay that requires besides the money: photographs, fingerprints, and a 6-9 month wait for your payment to be fully approved?  It would be one thing if to make an NFA item you just mailed them a 200 check and were on your way - clearly there's more to the NFA process than just the tax amount.

As before, no one knows how this will end up - you pass pro 2A gun law at the state level and spin the roulette wheel at the Federal court level.  The Texas law has the wise provision of allowing for it to go to court prior to making a silencer without an NFA stamp, so there's no risk to the participants.

As I said before - our side constantly whines about only playing defense, then when state legislators are wiling to pass bold laws to advance the 2A, some are doom and gloom and say it'll never work.  

Link Posted: 11/4/2021 9:17:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: DogtownTom] [#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1stID:
..... when state legislators are wiling to pass bold laws to advance the 2A, ...  

View Quote

I would be more impressed with state legislators who get rid of laws, instead of passing new ones.
Instead of passing a simple, "NFA firearms are no longer restricted in Texas", they pass a law that also purports to eliminate federal law.

Ken Paxton could have gone to the federal courts anytime to seek a "declaratory judgement"......he didn't need to wait until HB957 was passed. Since he's been in office since 2005 he's had plenty of time.

It's not "doom and gloom" to point out the Supremacy Clause.

Texas state legislators aren't bold and certainly not very bright. Lets hope the USSC sees the idiocy of the Texas abortion law and smacks it down. If you don't know why that law is bad law, read what the Firearms Policy Coalition has to say.

Link Posted: 11/4/2021 9:26:08 AM EST
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DogtownTom:
Texas state legislators aren't bold and certainly not very bright. Lets hope the USSC sees the idiocy of the Texas abortion law and smacks it down. If you don't know why that law is bad law,
View Quote


I am in shock anti gun states have not yet passed an anti gun version of our abortion law.
Link Posted: 11/4/2021 9:40:56 AM EST
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:


I am in shock anti gun states have not yet passed an anti gun version of our abortion law.
View Quote

I'm no lawyer, but the first time I heard that this law allowed private citizens to sue anyone connected with an abortion.......I thought it was bad law.

I have no doubt the gov, LtGov, Speaker and every legislator that voted for this law knows damn well it would not pass judicial scrutiny. It's just another law to pander to certain constituents. It's about showing your base your bonafides.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
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.