Texas Exempting Suppressors From NFA Regulation

[AZ_Five56]

This is an interesting development. Texas Senate has passed HB 957 that will exempt Texas-made suppressors from NFA regulation. I hope we see similar bills coming to other states.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/texas-senate-has-passed-hb-957-exempting-texas-made-suppressors-made-from-nfa-regulation/

 

[tripletap]

that would be something

 

[EarlCordova]

That would almost entice me to move to Texas.

 

[AZ_Five56]

That would almost entice me to move to Texas.

:lol: That was my first thought, but I'd rather try to bring the same thing to AZ.

 

[QuietM4]

We did try this in AZ....passed it in 2010. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03114.htm

It applies to "firearms, firearm accessory or ammunition". I'm sure a suppressor would be considered a firearm accessory. And yet, good luck walking into an FFL/SOT dealer and walking out with a suppressor made in AZ.

Want to see the ATF truly crack down on gun owners?

Kansas tried this. ATF arrested, and CONVICTED a group of people for this exact thing. SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

Federal will ALWAYS trump the State.

 

[getsum]

Federal will ALWAYS trump the State.

A lot of potheads out there in deep doo doo...

 

[Cbvanb]

We did try this in AZ....passed it in 2010. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03114.htm

It applies to "firearms, firearm accessory or ammunition". I'm sure a suppressor would be considered a firearm accessory. And yet, good luck walking into an FFL/SOT dealer and walking out with a suppressor made in AZ.

Want to see the ATF truly crack down on gun owners?

Kansas tried this. ATF arrested, and CONVICTED a group of people for this exact thing. SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

Federal will ALWAYS trump the State.

Federal will USUALLY trump state. If an item is made in one state and sold there, without being involved in interstate commerce, Federal law has little jurisdiction. I have a friend who got into trouble as a youth and decades later ATF found him with an AR15. As it turns out the rifle was a Double D Law Enforcement lower, made here in Tucson. They kept the rifle but he couldn't be charged under Federal Law. I'm not certain that would apply to an NFA item but there is at least an argument to be made. I'm more inclined to think that if enough states enacted laws like this the FedGov might have to start paying attention. We are seeing a lot of political moves similar to things that happened before the civil war. The Feds didn't back down then either, but there are a lot more issues pissing off a lot more people this time around. Could be there will be a different outcome this time.

 

[hairygreek]

We did try this in AZ....passed it in 2010. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03114.htm

Nice. Of course they didn't include full auto...

 

[TheAccountant]

We did try this in AZ....passed it in 2010. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03114.htm

It applies to "firearms, firearm accessory or ammunition". I'm sure a suppressor would be considered a firearm accessory. And yet, good luck walking into an FFL/SOT dealer and walking out with a suppressor made in AZ.

Want to see the ATF truly crack down on gun owners?

Kansas tried this. ATF arrested, and CONVICTED a group of people for this exact thing. SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

Federal will ALWAYS trump the State.

Federal will USUALLY trump state. If an item is made in one state and sold there, without being involved in interstate commerce, Federal law has little jurisdiction. I have a friend who got into trouble as a youth and decades later ATF found him with an AR15. As it turns out the rifle was a Double D Law Enforcement lower, made here in Tucson. They kept the rifle but he couldn't be charged under Federal Law. I'm not certain that would apply to an NFA item but there is at least an argument to be made. I'm more inclined to think that if enough states enacted laws like this the FedGov might have to start paying attention. We are seeing a lot of political moves similar to things that happened before the civil war. The Feds didn't back down then either, but there are a lot more issues pissing off a lot more people this time around. Could be there will be a different outcome this time.

The Supremacy Clause would say differently. There’s no such thing as a “little” jurisdiction. There either is or isn’t, and if there is, federal law always wins. From a practical standpoint, good luck producing anything today that doesn’t move across state lines at some stage of the production cycle.

 

[QuietM4]

We did try this in AZ....passed it in 2010. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03114.htm

Nice. Of course they didn't include full auto...

Don't get excited. It's been a law for 11 years, and no one here can name one AZ manufacturer of firearms or ANY item covered by the law that is willing to let you walk out of their shop without completing a 4473.

Pistol braces have are now on the chopping block because people kept bothering ATF Tech Branch with stupid questions, such as dildos attached as pistol braces. After a few thousand stupid questions, the ATF is now cracking down. Stop poking the bear.

It's called a FEDERAL firearms license...not a state firearms license.

 

[QuietM4]

I have a friend who got into trouble as a youth and decades later ATF found him with an AR15. As it turns out the rifle was a Double D Law Enforcement lower, made here in Tucson. They kept the rifle but he couldn't be charged under Federal Law.

I'm guessing there is A LOT more to this story that you don't know. There is absolutely nothing stopping the ATF from prosecuting your friend. Fed's don't give a shit about AZ law.

 

[Cbvanb]

I have a friend who got into trouble as a youth and decades later ATF found him with an AR15. As it turns out the rifle was a Double D Law Enforcement lower, made here in Tucson. They kept the rifle but he couldn't be charged under Federal Law.

I'm guessing there is A LOT more to this story that you don't know. There is absolutely nothing stopping the ATF from prosecuting your friend. Fed's don't give a s*** about AZ law.

No, I was involved in the case on a professional level. The ATF has a history of stretching the law, as do many federal agencies, but they did not in this instance, precisely because the gun could not be proven to have crossed state lines. A review of the authority claimed by federal agencies always comes back to interstate commerce. Absent that, you have a defense. I’m not claiming your win would be automatic, but a big reason the feds always get away with this stuff is echoed in some of the posts on this thread; people won’t fight back, or think it’s futile because the feds always win. That isn’t always true.

 

[TheAccountant]

I have a friend who got into trouble as a youth and decades later ATF found him with an AR15. As it turns out the rifle was a Double D Law Enforcement lower, made here in Tucson. They kept the rifle but he couldn't be charged under Federal Law.

I'm guessing there is A LOT more to this story that you don't know. There is absolutely nothing stopping the ATF from prosecuting your friend. Fed's don't give a s*** about AZ law.

No, I was involved in the case on a professional level. The ATF has a history of stretching the law, as do many federal agencies, but they did not in this instance, precisely because the gun could not be proven to have crossed state lines. A review of the authority claimed by federal agencies always comes back to interstate commerce. Absent that, you have a defense. I’m not claiming your win would be automatic, but a big reason the feds always get away with this stuff is echoed in some of the posts on this thread; people won’t fight back, or think it’s futile because the feds always win. That isn’t always true.

The commerce clause hasn’t been that narrow since 1937.

 

[Cbvanb]

I'm guessing there is A LOT more to this story that you don't know. There is absolutely nothing stopping the ATF from prosecuting your friend. Fed's don't give a s*** about AZ law.

No, I was involved in the case on a professional level. The ATF has a history of stretching the law, as do many federal agencies, but they did not in this instance, precisely because the gun could not be proven to have crossed state lines. A review of the authority claimed by federal agencies always comes back to interstate commerce. Absent that, you have a defense. I’m not claiming your win would be automatic, but a big reason the feds always get away with this stuff is echoed in some of the posts on this thread; people won’t fight back, or think it’s futile because the feds always win. That isn’t always true.

The commerce clause hasn’t been that narrow since 1937.

I guess he just got lucky.

 

[YNOTAZ]

The “commerce clause” establishes federal rule over everything. If a suppressor is made in Texas and stays in Texas, according to SCOTUS if congress decided that the suppressor displaced the sale of a suppressor made in Kentucky and shipped to Texas, the Fed has jurisdiction.

While I think this is absolute Phu#@%ery by the Fed.

If you read up on Wickard v. Filburn you will see what I mean. In short, a farmer grew wheat to feed his own animals. Not only did it not leave the state but it didn’t leave his property. The case went to SCOTUS who ruled he grew more wheat than allowed and affected the national trade in wheat.

In Swift v. USA SCOTUS said congress can rule on things that MIGHT grow to become part of interstate commerce.

I don't think anyone here has enough money to be the test case.

 

[Crippledtrigger]

This is a great big show of a nothing burger. Waste of time.

 

[YNOTAZ]

This is a great big show of a nothing burger. Waste of time.

While I don't expect much out of this type of state legislation, I wouldn't go that far. Get 35-40 republican governors to sponsor the same legislation and you reach the average tipping point in the country. FEDS, cave at the tipping point or they lose elections, BADLY.

 

[Crippledtrigger]

It's not even a law till a fed judge says it is.

 

[YNOTAZ]

Interesting take on the 10th amendment.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

The “commerce clause” establishes federal rule over everything. If a suppressor is made in Texas and stays in Texas, according to SCOTUS if congress decided that the suppressor displaced the sale of a suppressor made in Kentucky and shipped to Texas, the Fed has jurisdiction.

While I think this is absolute Phu#@%ery by the Fed.

If you read up on Wickard v. Filburn you will see what I mean. In short, a farmer grew wheat to feed his own animals. Not only did it not leave the state but it didn’t leave his property. The case went to SCOTUS who ruled he grew more wheat than allowed and affected the national trade in wheat.

In Swift v. USA SCOTUS said congress can rule on things that MIGHT grow to become part of interstate commerce.

I don't think anyone here has enough money to be the test case.

Yep, that Wickard V Filburn should've been overturned years ago, much less been the decision. Many of the laws today utilize the precedent of that case :twisted:


Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day


Clyde