Quoted:
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.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:


This is Texas, not Kansas.

Quoted:



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

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

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.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:


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.

Quoted:


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.

Quoted:
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.....

Quoted:
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.....

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:
ATF is sending letters to FFLs telling them not to do it...

Quoted:


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.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:


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.

Quoted:


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.

Quoted:
..... when state legislators are wiling to pass bold laws to advance the 2A, ...  

Quoted:
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,

Quoted:


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