I don’t know how we did it, but it’s official finally. This really flew under the radar.
“House Bill 957 (Oliverson/Springer) repeals the criminal offense of possessing, manufacturing, transporting, or repairing a firearm silencer. It also ensures that any firearm suppressor manufactured in Texas, and that remains in Texas, will not be subject to federal law or federal regulation.”
While our state has a law, it doesn’t mean you are protected. This is like legalizing weed, the feds were raiding people in legalized states well after the laws passed. Add the fact that your required to also carry an ATF license to sell suppressors federally, your violating the rules of 2 enforcement groups.
Here is a list of all the ATF offices within 500 miles of the geographic center of Texas.
https://www.atf.gov/contact/local-atf-offices?field_geofield_distance[distance]=500&field_geofield_distance[unit]=3959&field_geofield_distance[origin]=76872
I support the bill, but will not be among the first to flaunt it.
market pressures will push the prices down significantly before Sep.
1 as a result, which is great for human ears everywhere in our state.
I would not bet my freedom on this law. See Erik’s post above: Suspect it will meet the same fate as the Montana Firearms Freedom Act .
Person with Federally unlicensed suppressor, as handcuffs click shut while proclaiming “Texas law says it’s not a crime!”
ATF Agent “Oh, you miss understand, you’re being charged with Federal crimes, different laws, different jurisdiction, and nullification doesn’t apply. But, You do have the right to remain silent …”
All I know is buying Texans a suppressor is money better spent than you could ever spend on a NRA membership. I’m handing out suppressors to anyone who wants them within reason.
I recall some language in the bill - or at least some related guidance - to await its disposition in Federal court before acting upon it.
I found a brief article here.
Here, the bill directs the Texas attorney general to seek a judgment from a federal court that this section of the bill would not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
The process to seek this ruling would begin at the individual level. A private citizen would have to file a complaint with the attorney general that a government body has taken action to enforce federal suppressor laws.
Oftentimes not a good end being the test case.
All i know is, as soon as it’s kosher in the state of Texas, I will be putting a suppressor in every Christmas stocking as I hum silent night.
Sec. 2.054. 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.**
Law as currently written
The state is supposed to file for declarative statement on legality in federal court. I didn’t see where it stayed the law’s effective date of 9/1/2021 pending such a declaration. Also, what happens if the court declines to make such a ruling - since they are discretionary?
Love how law requires it to be stamped with “Made in Texas” on it.
Erik nailed it.
This is essentially more of my state tax dollars wasted in Austin followed by more of my federal tax dollars wasted processing and possibly locking up the folks who think state law will somehow take precidence over federal law. Just a waste all around really.
Ensures is a strong word. Does that mean the state of Texas will totally indemnify someone, pay for their federal defense and take up arms to prevent their incarceration under federal law? I rather doubt it.
When federal men with guns show up, these big-talking politicians will be nowhere to be found, as will their big-talking voters.
unlike cannabis grown in Colorado and stays in Colorado? I mean at some point states do things…
I get it. But weed is relatively harmless except it makes me not want to go to church (hypothetically speaking of course). And its legalization is largely supported by the left. Guns are an entirely different animal politically.
I want to know: what is the state going to do when one of its citizens relies on this law and ends up in federal court?
So this guy has no clue what he’s rambling about; the two probation cases were only granted probation because it was arguable that the defendants had been misled by the state law regardless of the state law’s invalidity. That doesn’t mean all cases go that way, but they were the first ones.
Secondly, he even mentions interstate commerce but immediately stops to argue that instead it’s about generally limiting freedoms. We’re a country with inordinate amounts of gun violence, and saying “it’s for kansas only” does not mitigate the fact that guns made in kansas would inherently end up out of state. That’s why interstate commerce still applies.
Third, the comparison to pot is significantly misleading. Pot has a lot of support on both sides of the political spectrum and the general public, something which no-background purchases of firearms does not in addition to one being simply substance which only affects ones’ self in the same way alcohol does and the other which is a larger source of actual violent crime.
More states doing it doesn’t make it somehow legal. People are still arrested related to pot from states that have legalised it, and the every state law attempt to evade federal regulation of firearms has been universally struck down in courts.
It sounds like you’re advertising a crime here.
Precisely. And I’m asking what the state will do when it has “ensured” that its citizens won’t be subject to federal law on the matter. The state needs to put up or shut up when the feds come calling.
I am not passing judgment on what the state wants to do. I’m all for it… But I might or might not have a zero or non-zero amount of marijuana candy somewhere I can access or might not be able to. I’m asking what the state, with all its bravado, intends to do when it hits the fan.
And I’m also sort of wondering why the state wants to legalize guns across the board (I’m a fan) but stubbornly resists a plant that in my limited experience, makes people peaceful.
I for one do not want to be ground up in the gears in the conflict between the Feds and States. Will wait until it is relatively more settled but until then won’t be buying my car fuel filters on Aliexpress
Pretty certain that Wickard vs Filburn set the precedent. TL;DR conclusion seems to be the fact that goods do not leave the state doesn’t matter if their production has an effect on interstate commerce.
One of my most hated SCOTUS decisions. Shocked (maybe not so?) it hasn’t been overturned, yet.
