TexasCHLforum.com

I missed this one somewhere

The Senate pass HB 957 so it is on the way to Abbot's desk. If he signs, it appears it will still need to get through Federal court.

https://concealednation.org/2021/05/tex ... BQu8cwjBcc

Link doesn't work for me

Try this link

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB957

Corrected link

10th Ammendment FTW!

CATI

Have had customers talking excitedly about it and hate to throw cold water on their enthusiasm, but I'm not touching that one with a 10 ft pole. See the Kansas examples and folks in at least one other state, Utah or South Dakota maybe?

Again and again, they keep going about these things completely the wrong way. The right way would be to say that those laws will not be ENFORCED by state or local entities EXCEPT in conjunction with a violent crime such as murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. (Forgive me if I have used the wrong terms, I'm not attempting to cite specific laws but only to provide examples.) That way, if the Feds want to enforce those malam prohibitum laws, they'll have to expend THEIR resources to do so, except to catch actual violent criminals who have misused those items. Isn't that what California does in regards to illegal aliens?

K.Mooneyham wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 12:18 pm Again and again, they keep going about these things completely the wrong way. The right way would be to say that those laws will not be ENFORCED by state or local entities EXCEPT in conjunction with a violent crime such as murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. (Forgive me if I have used the wrong terms, I'm not attempting to cite specific laws but only to provide examples.) That way, if the Feds want to enforce those malam prohibitum laws, they'll have to expend THEIR resources to do so, except to catch actual violent criminals who have misused those items. Isn't that what California does in regards to illegal aliens?

Sounds like you're talking about something CLOSE to HB 2622

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... ill=HB2622

Scott B. wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:58 am Have had customers talking excitedly about it and hate to throw cold water on their enthusiasm, but I'm not touching that one with a 10 ft pole. See the Kansas examples and folks in at least one other state, Utah or South Dakota maybe?

Apparently, and I don't understand the legalize, HB 957 has wording to avoid the Kansas-type issues.

From the article:

"People who know much more about both of these laws than we do tell us that the Texas bill is far different from what passed in Kansas and will provide the basis for a very good argument for excluding Texas-made suppressors from NFA regulation. That said, the process still needs to play out and be decided in federal court. In the mean time, don’t do anything stupid."

https://concealednation.org/2021/05/tex ... BQu8cwjBcc

troglodyte wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 1:25 pm

Scott B. wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 8:58 am Have had customers talking excitedly about it and hate to throw cold water on their enthusiasm, but I'm not touching that one with a 10 ft pole. See the Kansas examples and folks in at least one other state, Utah or South Dakota maybe?

Apparently, and I don't understand the legalize, HB 957 has wording to avoid the Kansas-type issues.

From the article:

"People who know much more about both of these laws than we do tell us that the Texas bill is far different from what passed in Kansas and will provide the basis for a very good argument for excluding Texas-made suppressors from NFA regulation. That said, the process still needs to play out and be decided in federal court. In the mean time, don’t do anything stupid."

https://concealednation.org/2021/05/tex ... BQu8cwjBcc

It's my understanding that the bill includes a provision to go to Federal Court and get a declaratory judgement regarding legality under the Commerce Clause BEFORE anyone starts building a suppressor in Texas.

From the article —

Finally, the bill provides a path to secure a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of this law before someone manufactures “Made in Texas” suppressors.

So yeah, it's a bit early to head out to the shop and start grabbing tools.

troglodyte wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 5:45 pm I missed this one somewhere

The Senate pass HB 957 so it is on the way to Abbot's desk. If he signs, it appears it will still need to get through Federal court.

https://concealednation.org/2021/05/tex ... BQu8cwjBcc

Quoting the article:

People who know much more about both of these laws than we do tell us that the Texas bill is far different from what passed in Kansas and will provide the basis for a very good argument for excluding Texas-made suppressors from NFA regulation. That said, the process still needs to play out and be decided in federal court. In the mean time, don’t do anything stupid.

I had this discussion just last night with my son. The problem isn’t that the fedgov’t is going to go door to door searching for "illegal" suppressors. It’s not even that ATF agents are going to haunt gun ranges demanding to see paperwork for every suppressor they encounter. The real problem is two-fold……

1. Nosy Karens and anonymous call-ins to ATF, reporting their suspicion that you have an unregistered suppressor—whether you do or don’t.

2. Tacked-on federal charges for an unregistered suppressor if you are arrested (or even detained) by federal officers on unrelated or different charges.

For instance…. What if you (accidentally, I’m sure) stray into national park land while hunting down in the Big Bend area, and you’re caught using a rifle with an unregistered suppressor mounted?

• 36 CFR 2.4 (A) (1) (ii) using or discharging a firearm is prohibited.
• 36 CFR 2.2 (A) (1) Hunting, poaching or taking of wildlife is prohibited.
• 36 CFR 2.1 (a) (1) (i) Injuring, disturbing or destroying wildlife is prohibited.

SOURCE

Now you’ve just added a huge federal charge onto whatever else you’re charged with. I admit that the odds are probably low, particularly for most of us; but the article wisely tells us not to do anything stupid, and it would be REALLY stupid to get caught hunting on prohibited federal land—especially with an unregistered suppressor.

Personally, I’d like to see the entire NFA done away with. However, that’s just never going to happen as long as there are any living and breathing democrats or RINOs in federal elected office. There is a slightly less hopeless chance that suppressors could be delisted from the list of NFA-controlled items…but I’m not holding my breath.

So, I may buy or make some solvent traps between now and then, the same way that I keep stripped lower and upper receivers in my safe, but I won’t be drilling them out until HB957 survives scrutiny in the federal courts. OTH, if everything goes sideways and Big Momma President for Life Kamala Harris forces our hand and we have to secede to preserve our liberty, everything will be drilled out and ready within 24 hours.

under a truthful reading of the commerce clause, this is entirely legal. The battle is likely going to be over the federal court case which said that if a given item doesn't cross state lines, it by default effects commerce within another state owing to it not being available. Which is completely non-logical in the face of what the commerce clause says.

I don't remember what court case it was, I think it was two brothers, farmers of some sort, who brought the case all the way to SCOTUS and they reaffirmed the original ruling.

I suspect fedgov will use this as an excuse to try to shut it down should this go through the legal system.

wil wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 9:08 am under a truthful reading of the commerce clause, this is entirely legal. The battle is likely going to be over the federal court case which said that if a given item doesn't cross state lines, it by default effects commerce within another state owing to it not being available. Which is completely non-logical in the face of what the commerce clause says.

Well, not to change topics, but……if the fedgov’t uses that argument, then the very NEXT case should be getting rid of Obamacare by allowing insurance carriers to sell across state lines………since the fact that they’re NOT allowed to do so was part of the rationale used to justify Obamacare.

wil wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 9:08 am under a truthful reading of the commerce clause, this is entirely legal. The battle is likely going to be over the federal court case which said that if a given item doesn't cross state lines, it by default effects commerce within another state owing to it not being available. Which is completely non-logical in the face of what the commerce clause says.

I don't remember what court case it was, I think it was two brothers, farmers of some sort, who brought the case all the way to SCOTUS and they reaffirmed the original ruling.

I suspect fedgov will use this as an excuse to try to shut it down should this go through the legal system.

If we can get this issue revisited by the current SCOTUS, that in itself would be a win. The past case made a complete mockery of the commerce clause and basically said that the federal government can regulate all commerce, not just inter-state commerce.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 9:25 am

wil wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 9:08 am under a truthful reading of the commerce clause, this is entirely legal. The battle is likely going to be over the federal court case which said that if a given item doesn't cross state lines, it by default effects commerce within another state owing to it not being available. Which is completely non-logical in the face of what the commerce clause says.

Well, not to change topics, but……if the fedgov’t uses that argument, then the very NEXT case should be getting rid of Obamacare by allowing insurance carriers to sell across state lines………since the fact that they’re NOT allowed to do so was part of the rationale used to justify Obamacare.

Yes sir, that is one of the things that irritates me to no end. It either needs to be one way, or the other.