This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 05/26/2021 11:55:40 AM PDT by PROCON
To skirt the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, the bill would free suppressors made in Texas from federal regulation.
The Texas legislature has eased restrictions on firearm suppressors and paved the way for Texas-made suppressors to skirt Washington’s grasp.
House Bill (HB) 957 would trim away federal regulation around suppressors in Texas, forbidding cities and counties from enforcing federal suppressor laws and asserting that Texas-made suppressors are not subject to federal regulation. It has passed both chambers of the Texas legislature.
State Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), a physician, presented both medical and legal reasons for his bill. Oliverson said suppressors can help prevent hearing damage, a benefit especially for hunters that forego ear protection to better hear their surroundings.
The major regulation on suppressors comes from the National Firearms Act of 1934, motivated at least in part by gangland slaughters like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Under this law, suppressors must be approved and registered at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Suppressor buyers must also pay a $200 transfer fee to the ATF and provide their fingerprints and photograph, unless they form a trust to register, which can cost hundreds of dollars more.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetexan.news ...
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Capone's guys used suppressor that day?
Never heard that one before.
“Suppressor buyers must also pay a $200 transfer fee to the ATF and provide their fingerprints and photograph, unless they form a trust to register, which can cost hundreds of dollars more.”
Unfortunately, this is no longer true, as ATF Rule 41F now requires photos, fingerprints and background checks for all those listed on the trust. There are still good reasons for forming a trust, such as letting those listed take temporary possession without notifying ATF.
8^)
had lots of fun this year using a suppressed 22lr to hunt believe my tree dogs and decoy dogs like the sound too...
Nullification - its the way forward.
OSHA has been derelict in their duty to protect the hearing of not only firearms owners but bystanders, including those near police related shootings.
Most pathetically, you can buy suppressors in England off the shelf. They're not even serialized.
https://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/03/15/silencers-easy-get-uk-american-tourist-brings-home-goes-prison/
The root of the problem is the NFA and the GCA. These laws are expressly unconstitutional and the federal government has used their existence to justify decades of endless violations of the 2nd amendment. It's way past time the states put a permanent end to these abuses.
They did not. The NFA’s excuse was indeed the hoopla surrounding brazen violence, including the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, but the suppressors were added to the legislation during discussion in congress. There was very little discussion at the time, and no apparent tie to the excuse given for the NFA.
Texas-made suppressors are not subject to federal regulation.
= = =
Even home made in my Texas workshop? Sounds like it.
The NFA’s ridiculous licencing, registration and taxing of suppressors and Short Barreled Rifles is infringement. Not to mention the blue states that have gone even further and banned them outright.
I guess we’ll see what happens when feds charge a Texan with possession of an unregistered suppressor. We need more states to stand up to tyranny and reassert their rights.
Well, the Thompson did suppress all those ‘competitors’.
It sounds like in-state made suppressors have always been exempt from NFA law. Would that also be true of other NFA regs like the one requiring buyers to fill out the firearm transfer form? What if the firearm was made your state?
Any supporter of the 2nd Amendment should be very familiar with this case. The above link contains all documentation relative to the case that I've ever seen. I'd love to have a copy of the oral arguments if anyone might have access to that (if it even exists).
The most important portion of the decision IMO is the following:
=begin quote=
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
=end quote=
The court was not informed that sawed off shotguns were used extensively during WWI, (hence the use of the phrase 'absent any evidence') so the court ruled that the weapon wasn't something that a militia member might reasonably have. The court was flat out lied to, and because there was no one before the court to argue for Mr. Miller, it went without notice. Section 922(o) should have been stricken entirely.
IMO, the court was also incorrect in assuming that only military weapons were protected.
Great info, thanks.
Very cool.
Maybe the action by Texas will set up a court showdown between state and federal law, leading to overthrowing federal law on the matter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.