User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/17/2021 7:37:46 PM EDT
[#1]
This is just engineered for a legal challenge. Fed law is still in place.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2021 7:53:11 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2021 7:54:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Nothing yet.
Law doesn't go into effect (I think until 1 Sep). Authorizes the Texas AG to take the "Texas Only" suppressor concept to the courts for a decretory judgement on if this would be legal. Answer - who knows? But it also de-criminalizes suppressors in the state of Texas, so only NFA laws are in place concerning them. Will be interesting to see how this and Missouri's NFA law pan out in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2021 8:21:51 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nothing yet. Law doesn't go into effect (I think until 1 Sep). Authorizes the Texas AG to take the "Texas Only" suppressor concept to the courts for a decretory judgement on if this would be legal. Answer - who knows? But it also de-criminalizes suppressors in the state of Texas, so only NFA laws are in place concerning them. Will be interesting to see how this and Missouri's NFA law pan out in court. So what would be the best and most logical scenario if this came to pass and be left unchallenged? Tx suppressors purchased in TX without NFA paperworK? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2021 8:40:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what would be the best and most logical scenario if this came to pass and be left unchallenged? Tx suppressors purchased in TX without NFA paperworK? I'm only guessing here, but I would think the Justice Department, under President Depends especially, will challenge the law, taking it to the pretty conservative 5th Circuit (the one Texas is in). There's a long discussion I go into on another post about the Commerce Clause and its impact on NFA items, how likely a lower court is to overlook it for a suppressor, and other semi-legal rubbish. Best case - a Federal court says yes, Texas only suppressors do not fall under the NFA provision, and can be made / sold in Texas without NFA aspects. Unlikely, but as I wrote before, dude marriage went from the theme of buddy comedy movie to a hitherto unknown but now cherished aspect of the 14th Amendment - which was written about slaves. You never know what will happen in court, and anyone who thinks they do is a fool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2021 11:24:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Feel good law for now. You would end up in jail like the guys in KS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2021 1:05:32 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what would be the best and most logical scenario if this came to pass and be left unchallenged? Tx suppressors purchased in TX without NFA paperworK? FFL/SOTs are still licensed by the Feds and subject to Federal regulation. No FFL/SOT will sell you a suppressor out of fear of their license being pulled and or violating federal law. Your options are basically to: Not give a shit and do it anyway (something you could have honestly always done with assumed risk) or just pay the $200 stamp and buy a suppressor. Honestly, no F1 can comes close to the performance of most manufactured suppressors anyway, like Dear Air, Surefire, SiCo, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2021 7:40:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Whoever intentionally lets themselves be criminal-case-law for this I'll send them a gift card for dinner that night after their frist night in jail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2021 8:14:55 AM EDT
[#9]
PLEASE READ THE BILL, WHAT MANY OF YOU POSTED IS COMPLETELY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU CAN NOT MAKE A SUPPRESSOR WITHOUT A FEDERAL TAX STAMP, SAME WITH BUYING A SUPPRESSOR!! IF YOU WANT A SHORT AND SWEET LAY OUT OF WHAT THE BILL SAYS, GO TO THE TEXAS GOA WEBSITE AND READ THE HB 957 HAND OUT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2021 8:28:35 AM EDT
[#10]
It was a worthless bill and was only meant to thumb our nose to the Feds.
Don't make or buy a suppressor without getting a tax stamp first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2021 8:33:07 AM EDT
[#11]
Whoever does it, make sure you live-stream your arrest!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2021 4:39:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Regardless of the legal aspect surrounding this subject; who are "Made in Texas" silencer manufacturers?
Here are some I'm aware of: https://torrentsuppressors.com/ https://txsilencers.com/home http://texassilencercompany.com/ https://www.larue.com/category/parts-accessories/suppressors/ https://www.radicalfirearms.com/product-p/sts762.htm Additional Texas manufacturers and user comments requested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2021 6:59:56 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Regardless of the legal aspect surrounding this subject; who are "Made in Texas" silencer manufacturers? Here are some I'm aware of: https://torrentsuppressors.com/ https://txsilencers.com/home http://texassilencercompany.com/ https://www.larue.com/category/parts-accessories/suppressors/ https://www.radicalfirearms.com/product-p/sts762.htm Additional Texas manufacturers and user comments requested. Witt Machine They are originally from Colorado but a few years ago moved to Childress |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 3:31:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Regardless of the legal aspect surrounding this subject; who are "Made in Texas" silencer manufacturers? Here are some I'm aware of: https://torrentsuppressors.com/ https://txsilencers.com/home http://texassilencercompany.com/ https://www.larue.com/category/parts-accessories/suppressors/ https://www.radicalfirearms.com/product-p/sts762.htm Additional Texas manufacturers and user comments requested. So with FFLs avoiding this like the plague - understandable - would you basically have to just buy direct from the manufacturers? Personally I'm not gonna go near this until it's all hashed out in the court, but it's an interesting concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 4:00:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So with FFLs avoiding this like the plague - understandable - would you basically have to just buy direct from the manufacturers? Personally I'm not gonna go near this until it's all hashed out in the court, but it's an interesting concept. Again, you would just make it yourself. Buying directly from the manufacturer is a no go, as they would never void any federal regulation and sell one to you. It could compromise their FFL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 5:50:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So with FFLs avoiding this like the plague - understandable - would you basically have to just buy direct from the manufacturers?. Quote HistoryQuoted: So with FFLs avoiding this like the plague - understandable - would you basically have to just buy direct from the manufacturers?. Manufacturers ARE FFL's......07FFL (Manufacturer) And they would be insanely stupid to sell an NFA firearm without following federal law. Personally I'm not gonna go near this until it's all hashed out in the court, but it's an interesting concept A concept that hasn't worked yet. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 6:04:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Is there such a thing as an 80% suppressor?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 6:22:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Manufacturers ARE FFL's......07FFL (Manufacturer) And they would be insanely stupid to sell an NFA firearm without following federal law. A concept that hasn't worked yet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So with FFLs avoiding this like the plague - understandable - would you basically have to just buy direct from the manufacturers?. Manufacturers ARE FFL's......07FFL (Manufacturer) And they would be insanely stupid to sell an NFA firearm without following federal law. Personally I'm not gonna go near this until it's all hashed out in the court, but it's an interesting concept A concept that hasn't worked yet. So, you don't think we will ever be able to actually buy supressors (same day cash and carry @ retail) per the bill that went through? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 6:24:24 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is there such a thing as an 80% suppressor? Solvent traps are as close as you can kit to an 80% suppressor. A potato is a suppressor on a .22. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 6:26:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So with FFLs avoiding this like the plague - understandable - would you basically have to just buy direct from the manufacturers? I will not be avoiding it. In fact I am going to back-engrave any silencer I have made with "MADE IN TEXAS" so it is 100% in compliance. And it will be cool too. Shoulda been doing that already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 6:28:09 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Buying directly from the manufacturer is a no go, as they would never void any federal regulation and sell one to you. It could compromise their FFL. How many you want? Folks seem to think you cannot make a Fed Legal silencer AND also stamp it "MADE IN TEXAS" so it also complies with Texas Law. You can unless I missed something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 6:47:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Solvent traps are as close as you can kit to an 80% suppressor. A potato is a suppressor on a .22. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Is there such a thing as an 80% suppressor? Solvent traps are as close as you can kit to an 80% suppressor. A potato is a suppressor on a .22. You can buy oil filter adapters on amazon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 6:53:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Anyone seen this portion of the bill:
Sec.A2.054. ATTORNEY GENERAL. On written notification to the attorney general by a United States citizen who resides in this state of the citizen ’s intent to manufacture a firearm suppressor to which Section 2.052 applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution. How nice if he got 87 Zillon written notifications on 9/1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 8:04:58 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone seen this portion of the bill: Sec.A2.054. ATTORNEY GENERAL. On written notification to the attorney general by a United States citizen who resides in this state of the citizen ’s intent to manufacture a firearm suppressor to which Section 2.052 applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution. How nice if he got 87 Zillon written notifications on 9/1. Translation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 8:45:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Translation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anyone seen this portion of the bill: Sec.A2.054. ATTORNEY GENERAL. On written notification to the attorney general by a United States citizen who resides in this state of the citizen ’s intent to manufacture a firearm suppressor to which Section 2.052 applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution. How nice if he got 87 Zillon written notifications on 9/1. Translation? Basically the AG and his office become your attorney to file against the Fed. Now the other half of the bill, just removes all Texas laws against suppressors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 9:07:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you don't think we will ever be able to actually buy supressors (same day cash and carry @ retail) per the bill that went through? Of course not. Not legally anyway, per federal law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2021 10:10:46 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone seen this portion of the bill: Sec.A2.054. ATTORNEY GENERAL. On written notification to the attorney general by a United States citizen who resides in this state of the citizen ’s intent to manufacture a firearm suppressor to which Section 2.052 applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution. How nice if he got 87 Zillon written notifications on 9/1. seemingly the best part of this bill, if the Texas AG would actually follow through on this in a diligent and timely manner |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 12:05:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you don't think we will ever be able to actually buy supressors (same day cash and carry @ retail) per the bill that went through? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So with FFLs avoiding this like the plague - understandable - would you basically have to just buy direct from the manufacturers?. Manufacturers ARE FFL's......07FFL (Manufacturer) And they would be insanely stupid to sell an NFA firearm without following federal law. Personally I'm not gonna go near this until it's all hashed out in the court, but it's an interesting concept A concept that hasn't worked yet. So, you don't think we will ever be able to actually buy supressors (same day cash and carry @ retail) per the bill that went through? Not until Federal law changes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 1:42:02 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Translation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anyone seen this portion of the bill: Sec.A2.054. ATTORNEY GENERAL. On written notification to the attorney general by a United States citizen who resides in this state of the citizen ’s intent to manufacture a firearm suppressor to which Section 2.052 applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution. How nice if he got 87 Zillon written notifications on 9/1. Translation? It will be like writing 87 billion "opinion" letters to the ATF for clarification and then black helicopters will circle and kill your dogs and children out of the blue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 3:42:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not until Federal law changes. It's interesting that the federal government is not enforcing marijuana laws or immigration laws. Marijuana is now cash and carry in several states. Under Biden (Obama 2.0) I'm sure they will enforce suppressor laws while ignoring others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 1:29:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone seen this portion of the bill: Sec.A2.054. ATTORNEY GENERAL. On written notification to the attorney general by a United States citizen who resides in this state of the citizen ’s intent to manufacture a firearm suppressor to which Section 2.052 applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution. How nice if he got 87 Zillon written notifications on 9/1. Yes, and this is why this bill is so much better than the ones other states passed, that de-criminalized suppressors but then left citizens to themselves to try to make it work in court. Here, a judgement can be issued prior to anything being made, and using the State's dime to fight the case. Plus, it's far easier for a Federal judge to have an esoteric discussion about the reach and limit of the Commerce Clause (which is how the Federal Government passes laws that impact issues in one state), than it would be for them to overturn a conviction. Will it work - no way to know - this issue hasn't gone before the 5th Circuit before, and this is one of the more conservative Circuit's in the country. We'll see soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 2:50:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, and this is why this bill is so much better than the ones other states passed, that de-criminalized suppressors but then left citizens to themselves to try to make it work in court. Here, a judgement can be issued prior to anything being made, and using the State's dime to fight the case. Plus, it's far easier for a Federal judge to have an esoteric discussion about the reach and limit of the Commerce Clause (which is how the Federal Government passes laws that impact issues in one state), than it would be for them to overturn a conviction. Will it work - no way to know - this issue hasn't gone before the 5th Circuit before, and this is one of the more conservative Circuit's in the country. We'll see soon. Remember this........absolutely nothing has prevented the Texas Attorney General from seeking a "declaratory judgement" on silencers anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 3:04:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Why would he have done that - until HB957 becomes law, possession of suppressors in Texas is illegal without NFA authorization, correct? Until Texas state law has different standards than Federal law, there's no point of a "Texas only" suppressor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 5:37:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Basically the AG and his office become your attorney to file against the Fed. Now the other half of the bill, just removes all Texas laws against suppressors. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anyone seen this portion of the bill: Sec.A2.054. ATTORNEY GENERAL. On written notification to the attorney general by a United States citizen who resides in this state of the citizen ’s intent to manufacture a firearm suppressor to which Section 2.052 applies, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution. How nice if he got 87 Zillon written notifications on 9/1. Translation? Basically the AG and his office become your attorney to file against the Fed. Now the other half of the bill, just removes all Texas laws against suppressors. My take: It's all good...until Texas AG decides not to, or the new Texas AG decides not to, because of whatever reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 5:43:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My take: It's all good...until Texas AG decides not to, or the new Texas AG decides not to, because of whatever reasons. The law states: the attorney general shall seek a Shall means has to in contracts, not to say some leftist wouldn't say it's meanie or racialist or some such and refuse to do so, needing a court ruling just to get them to do it. But AG Paxton is a great defender of 2A so no issues from him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 5:49:43 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The law states: the attorney general shall seek a Shall means has to in contracts, not to say some leftist wouldn't say it's meanie or racialist or some such and refuse to do so, needing a court ruling just to get them to do it. But AG Paxton is a great defender of 2A so no issues from him. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My take: It's all good...until Texas AG decides not to, or the new Texas AG decides not to, because of whatever reasons. The law states: the attorney general shall seek a Shall means has to in contracts, not to say some leftist wouldn't say it's meanie or racialist or some such and refuse to do so, needing a court ruling just to get them to do it. But AG Paxton is a great defender of 2A so no issues from him. Like Shall Not Be Infringed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 5:53:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Exactly. But at a lower level, courts generally rule that shall means they have to, while the Supreme Court can make up the law as they see fit or ignore it as well.
In any case, with Paxton as AG, there will be no issues in his office taking this law to court. From there - who knows? Tell me what judge is going to hear it and I'll take a guess, as that's the most important thing in any gun case, not the words on paper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:02:25 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. But at a lower level, courts generally rule that shall means they have to, while the Supreme Court can make up the law as they see fit or ignore it as well. In any case, with Paxton as AG, there will be no issues in his office taking this law to court. From there - who knows? Tell me what judge is going to hear it and I'll take a guess, as that's the most important thing in any gun case, not the words on paper. Who wants to risk getting their asshole used daily? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:08:40 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who wants to risk getting their asshole used daily? I have no idea what that means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:22:33 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have no idea what that means. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Who wants to risk getting their asshole used daily? I have no idea what that means. Well if ya don't win in court then 10 years in federal pound you in the ass prison for NFA violation |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:36:17 PM EDT
[#41]
1. That's why HB957 is different than other state's laws as it directs the AG to seek a judgement from a Federal court prior to any suppressor manufacture. So there's no risk if the case doesn't win. No one has made anything so there's no violation of law.
2. I don't understand the seeming glee that some pro-gun people seem to have when discussing fellow gunners going to prison for non-violent, victimless weapons violations that shouldn't be violations in the first place. Lots of talk about rape, assholes, pound me, etc. Do these people want to think they're smarter than others who have been convicted on gun charges? Is it joy in that its not happening to them? Hard to tell the difference in tone between these people and some anti-gunner relishing sending their opponents to prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:42:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. That's why HB957 is different than other state's laws as it directs the AG to seek a judgement from a Federal court prior to any suppressor manufacture. So there's no risk if the case doesn't win. No one has made anything so there's no violation of law. 2. I don't understand the seeming glee that some pro-gun people seem to have when discussing fellow gunners going to prison for non-violent, victimless weapons violations that shouldn't be violations in the first place. Lots of talk about rape, assholes, pound me, etc. Do these people want to think they're smarter than others who have been convicted on gun charges? Is it joy in that its not happening to them? Hard to tell the difference in tone between these people and some anti-gunner relishing sending their opponents to prison. I'm hoping we can win this battle and have TX suppressor industry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:47:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not until Federal law changes. I think the big picture plan here is to get a favorable ruling on the interstate commerce clause. All the pieces are falling into place, and I while I think it is a long shot, the make-up of SCOTUS has changed significantly in the last few years, and I think there is a hope the more conservative new justices will side with the older justices to reign in some govt overreach. Obviously though that did not happen with the recent ObamaCare case 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:47:19 PM EDT
[#44]
So do I. It would be fantastic to have "Texas Only" suppressor that can be bought without NFA issues.
It has a long tough road to hoe, but so did Constitutional Carry, for different reasons, yet that goes into effect in 2+ months. If a 9th Circuit judge can find CA rifle ban un-constitutional, who's to say a 5th Circuit judge won't find Texas only suppressors not bound by the NFA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:52:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The law states: the attorney general shall seek a Shall means has to in contracts, not to say some leftist wouldn't say it's meanie or racialist or some such and refuse to do so, needing a court ruling just to get them to do it. But AG Paxton is a great defender of 2A so no issues from him. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My take: It's all good...until Texas AG decides not to, or the new Texas AG decides not to, because of whatever reasons. The law states: the attorney general shall seek a Shall means has to in contracts, not to say some leftist wouldn't say it's meanie or racialist or some such and refuse to do so, needing a court ruling just to get them to do it. But AG Paxton is a great defender of 2A so no issues from him. Not saying Paxton won't defend a Texan(s). It might be an AG after who might not sympathetic to our cause. It's just a new and uncharted territory bill that we all need to aware of before jumping in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:56:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the big picture plan here is to get a favorable ruling on the interstate commerce clause. All the pieces are falling into place, and I while I think it is a long shot, the make-up of SCOTUS has changed significantly in the last few years, and I think there is a hope the more conservative new justices will side with the older justices to reign in some govt overreach. Obviously though that did not happen with the recent ObamaCare case It's also possible that the Federal government, if it lost in district and / or appeals court in the 5th, might not even appeal it to the SC, for fear of a loss that would have national impacts. Similar to how DC of all places has Shall issue carry permits, as the leftist didn't want to appeal the case and risk a SC ruling that would have thrown out restrictive carry laws elsewhere. This is a much different situation than the Kansas case, where the state had no role, and the first time the law was tested in court was in a criminal case. As before, it's much more likely to get a judge to agree with an esoteric discussion on ICC than to throw out a criminal case or overturn a conviction. Interesting times. Not sure how this or say Missouri's NFA law will play out - no one does. But these laws and 2A Sanctuary State laws are forward progress, and pretty bold moves against Federal gun laws. They and the bill authors should be applauded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 6:57:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not saying Paxton won't defend a Texan(s). It might be an AG after who might not sympathetic to our cause. It's just a new and uncharted territory bill that we all need to aware of before jumping in. The law goes into effect 1 Sep, so anytime after that the case can be filed. I'd expect at least a district hearing before the next AG term in Jan of 2023. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 7:03:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. That's why HB957 is different than other state's laws as it directs the AG to seek a judgement from a Federal court prior to any suppressor manufacture. So there's no risk if the case doesn't win. No one has made anything so there's no violation of law. Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. That's why HB957 is different than other state's laws as it directs the AG to seek a judgement from a Federal court prior to any suppressor manufacture. So there's no risk if the case doesn't win. No one has made anything so there's no violation of law. I'm not sure how the AG goes about seeking a decalatory judgement. As evidenced by the USSC case on Obamacare last week, the plaintiff must have standing. "Standing" Standing in Federal Court At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy). In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue: The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury 2. I don't understand the seeming glee that some pro-gun people seem to have when discussing fellow gunners going to prison for non-violent, victimless weapons violations that shouldn't be violations in the first place. Lots of talk about rape, assholes, pound me, etc. Show the post where anyone in this thread exhibited anything of the sort. Warning about the consequences or mentioning facts involving previous criminal cases isn't "seeming glee"......it's warning the fucking ignorant. Whether nonviolent or victimless, a violation of federal NFA laws will ruin your day. That there shouldn't be violations in the first place is wishful thinking. The reality is get caught and you'll never touch a gun again. But go ahead, be brave. Ken Paxton has your back. And he may wind up being your cellie. Do these people want to think they're smarter than others who have been convicted on gun charges? Is it joy in that its not happening to them? Hard to tell the difference in tone between these people and some anti-gunner relishing sending their opponents to prison. "Smarter" isn't the same as "better informed". I've had a dozen phone calls this week asking "can I really build a silencer without $200 tax?"  Of course its a joy not to be charged with a crime, spend $$$$ on an attorney and have ones life ruined. So your fucking right I'm glad its not happening to me. But yeah, Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler were dumbasses. As is the Kansas legislature. Be smarter than them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 7:08:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's also possible that the Federal government, if it lost in district and / or appeals court in the 5th, might not even appeal it to the SC, for fear of a loss that would have national impacts. Similar to how DC of all places has Shall issue carry permits, as the leftist didn't want to appeal the case and risk a SC ruling that would have thrown out restrictive carry laws elsewhere. This is a much different situation than the Kansas case, where the state had no role, and the first time the law was tested in court was in a criminal case. As before, it's much more likely to get a judge to agree with an esoteric discussion on ICC than to throw out a criminal case or overturn a conviction. Interesting times. Not sure how this or say Missouri's NFA law will play out - no one does. But these laws and 2A Sanctuary State laws are forward progress, and pretty bold moves against Federal gun laws. They and the bill authors should be applauded. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think the big picture plan here is to get a favorable ruling on the interstate commerce clause. All the pieces are falling into place, and I while I think it is a long shot, the make-up of SCOTUS has changed significantly in the last few years, and I think there is a hope the more conservative new justices will side with the older justices to reign in some govt overreach. Obviously though that did not happen with the recent ObamaCare case It's also possible that the Federal government, if it lost in district and / or appeals court in the 5th, might not even appeal it to the SC, for fear of a loss that would have national impacts. Similar to how DC of all places has Shall issue carry permits, as the leftist didn't want to appeal the case and risk a SC ruling that would have thrown out restrictive carry laws elsewhere. This is a much different situation than the Kansas case, where the state had no role, and the first time the law was tested in court was in a criminal case. As before, it's much more likely to get a judge to agree with an esoteric discussion on ICC than to throw out a criminal case or overturn a conviction. Interesting times. Not sure how this or say Missouri's NFA law will play out - no one does. But these laws and 2A Sanctuary State laws are forward progress, and pretty bold moves against Federal gun laws. They and the bill authors should be applauded. Interesting times, for sure. It probably comes down to State Rights. Interstate commerce clause is just an excuse for the Fed to have a favorable ruling from SC....And I don't even trust USSC, nowadays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2021 7:10:17 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure how the AG goes about seeking a decalatory judgement. As evidenced by the USSC case on Obamacare last week, the plaintiff must have standing. Hopefully he doesnt. Instead he outsources it to Stephen Halbrook, Who uses the same tactic (Respondent paid the $200 tax levied by § 5821 upon anyone "making" a "firearm" and filed a claim for a refund. When its refund claim proved fruitless, respondent brought this suit under the Tucker Act.) he used in US vs. Thompson-Center Arms. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
