This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 07/31/2023 5:19:09 AM PDT by marktwain
On July 18, Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, ruled the plaintiffs in the case of Ken Paxton v. Gary M. Restaino (Previously Dettleback, the case name changes with the name of the head of the ATF) have no standing to pursue the lawsuit, because they have not suffered concrete harm. The case is dismissed without prejudice, which means it can be refiled with new evidence. The case is the result of the passage of Texas bill HB 957. The bill required the Attorney General of Texas to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal law governing the possession and regulation of silencers. On September 1, 2021, HB 957 became law.
The lawsuit was filed by Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, on February 24, 2022, as required by the passage of Texas Bill HB 957. The arguments in the lawsuit were bolstered by the Bruen decision published on June 22, 2022. Having a federal law declared unconstitutional is a difficult thing to do. It was easier before ideological Progressives took over the government, starting with President Theodore Roosevelt. The government was cut back a good bit with President Calvin Coolidge, ramped up with President Woodrow Wilson, and pushed into overdrive with the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration and World War II. Since the Progressive revolution in the Supreme Court in the 1930s, the Court has been far less willing to overturn federal laws. The court has assumed a new doctrine: laws are presumed to be constitutional if passed by the legislature.
Entities challenging laws must have “standing”. Standing means they have an actual “concrete injury to a legally protected interest.” But standing has become a way for judges to pick and choose
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
In other words some poor shmuck will have to be arrested, tried, and convicted before any Court will even consider the issue.
Which is, of course, completely ridiculous.
L
Thanks for the post.
I don’t own a silencer. If you hog hunt at night, they make a lot of sense.
It become more clear every day that the attacks on he 2nd Amendment are pure evil. And it is because of what the DC Cabal wants to force us to do next.
“because they have not suffered concrete harm”
Ear pain or hearing loss is not concrete harm?
It’s good to know that in this country, most of us don’t have “standing” in our sheddy “courts” so as far as justice goes, we’re just SOL.
1. They're not 'silencers': They're SUPPRESSORS.
2. If you hunt hog during the day and prefer to have your hearing at age 70, they make a lot of sense.
Don't fall into the left's traps; you suffered 2 in one post.
Carved in stone at the DOJ, “Where Justice Ends, Tyranny Begins”
pew pew ping
I'm 75. ehhh I can't hear you! hee hee hee
"Suppressors" Yes, I get the term.
That would be a criminal matter
Why can’t any hunter sue as a civil matter over any of several reasons?
“Why can’t any hunter sue as a civil matter over any of several reasons?”
Because that would make sense.
L
Hiram Maxim invented his silencer which he filed for a patent that was granted.
https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/1330486
Doesn’t the possibility of irreparable damage to a person’s hearing not count?
Folks hunt them with pellet rifles which can have silencers, or moderators on them as he rifles are not deemed as “guns” like powder burning rifles are. Youtube has a ton of videos showing hog hunts with air rifles. I own 2 that are fully capable of taking down hogs within about 100 yards. The moderators don’t make the guns totally silent, but they do help quite a lot. Some air rifles the moderators make them really close to silent.
Airrifles are also way cheaper to shoot (ammo is very inexpensive) but the rifles themselves can be expensive, and the compressors to fill them are expensive too. Its not a cheap hobby by any means, but as far as ammo goes, its 8nexpensive-
There are organized hunts shooting from helicopters for hogs in Texas. Full auto even.
I’ve not examined the law in Texas per “surpressors” but they are becoming common and I take that as saying they are legal.
Lately what is happening with the law from DC is “Illegal” as per Constitution. The #ComDem’s feel they are not bound by the chains placed upon the Fed Gov by the Constitution.
Oh, how I long for real Freedom Again.
Cool- hope they become legal for powerder guns. They really gotta do something about the feral hogs‐ it’s getting dangerous, especially for kids with dangerous pigs infesting places like they are now.
The good thing about air rifles is that while the hogs scatter when a shot is fired off, it’s not so loud that they remain scattered- the go back to their grain pile or waterhole pretty quickly. The great thing abput the rifles is that they are not subject to gun laws (but still must abide by hunting laws of course, and many states allow hunting with them- the only real restrictions are that certain calibers are needed for certain game, ie some states require a .357 or larger caliber for deer or bear, while a .177 and up can be used for things like squirrels and such
1. The laws which charter the ATF give the ATF authority to regulate firearms, NOT parts which can be added to firearms.
2. The Constitution restricts the federal government’s law enforcement powers to interstate commerce, and therefore prohibits the ATF from regulating goods such as suppressors which originate in one state and remain in that state.
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
I don’t hunt or even own firearms (yet), but it doesn’t make sense that it’s a crime to begin with. But if it is going to be a crime, how can an oil filter screwed to the end of a barrel be any more of a danger to the public than a broken or missing exhaust muffler on a vehicle?
I know the argument is going to be related to the shot detectors mounted on poles in urban shitholes. But why should that apply everywhere?
Why don’t they have standing? Or do they have to go out to buy one and then cannot because of federal law? How else beyond being a citizen do they establish standing?
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.