Ya gotta love Texas

[727Sky]

7 new gun rights bills were signed into law...all good except I have a question with the new suppressor law which basically says if made in Texas it stays in Texas so no $200 fed tax stamp is needed. My understanding is the ATF/feds will and have gone after people so by the time it is all said and done $200 is the least of your worries.  Maybe someone else will know better than me as I am not around any stateside LEOs or government officials who can explain how this law can keep the feds off your back and out of your wallet ?

Anyway I have a warm spot in my heart for my birth state even though many many Californians have moved there and are trying to make the place as messed up as California.. Austin Texas is a fine example of which I speak and Houston ain't far behind IMO.. !!

[727Sky]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/...t-n2591550

Texas Passed a New Law on Suppressors. Stay Away from It.


Source: AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane


When we use to do range day at the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of my favorite firearms the organization provided to us was a suppressed 1911. The suppressor is not a "silencer," and it won't turn you into a hitman, despite the anti-gun Left's very silly propaganda on this subject. If anything, this item should be stripped from the National Firearms Act. 
To purchase one, you need to pay the tax stamp, go through a lengthy and arduous background check process, and have your name added into a federal database managed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). It shouldn't have to be this way, but the regulation exists, and while states are passing suppressor laws of their own, gun owners should be very cautious when thinking about dabbling in purchases that are outside of federal regulations, according to Stephen Gutowski of The Reload. 
And by very cautious, he means to stay clear of it—totally. 
Some have tried to purchase a silencer and then found themselves ensnared in a years-long legal fight that ended with devastating convictions. Gutowski added that the legal basis for these state laws conflicting with federal law has been shredded at every level of the judiciary, so unless you want to go to jail for an extended period of time, Texans—don't try it (via The Reload): 

In 2014, Cox sold Kettler an unregistered silencer after Kansas passed its own law purporting to put the devices beyond federal reach. The sale tangled the two men in a years-long ordeal that ended with life-altering federal convictions for both. And, in 2019, the Supreme Court left those convictions in place when it declined to hear their case.
“I was just collateral damage in this dispute between the state and federal government,” Kettler, now a federal felon serving three years on probation, said after the Court’s decision. He blamed Kansas lawmakers for setting up residents like him to be prosecuted by passing a misleading law.
Anyone telling Texans a state silencer law will protect them from federal prosecution without giving them fair warning of the likely outcome is merely leading them into the same trap, with a lifetime ban on gun ownership waiting at the end of the line.
[…]
Texas lawmakers don’t agree there should be a registry and tax on silencers. And they don’t think the federal government should have a say over commerce that happens entirely within their borders. So, in a move that’s becoming a bit of a trend in red states, they passed a bill claiming Congress has no power to regulate silencers made and sold inside the state.
[…]
The theory is an appealing one: Commerce that takes place entirely within a state’s boards and among its residents doesn’t fall under Congress’s authority to regulate commerce between the states. As Kevin Williamson recently argued in National Review, adopting that reading of the Constitution could even lessen polarization in American politics.
“Resurrecting a more robust model of federalism — recognizing that New Jersey can be New Jersey while Texas is Texas — could help to dissipate some of the culture-war energy that has made our politics, especially our presidential elections, such a horror-show in recent years,” he wrote.
Unfortunately for proponents of this argument, as Williamson notes, it has a terrible track record in court. About a decade after the NFA passed, the Supreme Court decided Wickard v. Filburn. It upheld a conviction against Roscoe C. Filburn for violating federal restrictions on wheat production based on the idea that even growing wheat for his own use on his own farm meant Filburn was impacting interstate commerce. The Court hasn’t backpedaled since, and even conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia used similar reasoning in 2005’s Gonzales v. Raich to uphold federal prohibitions against marijuana grown and sold entirely within California.

It's not worth the risk. This is going to be a long fight. All fights centering on gun rights tend to be lengthy duels, but going about this way, albeit tedious, avoids jail time and the loss of your gun rights. 

Recommended
Attorneys Pick Apart NSA Statement About Tucker Carlson
Katie Pavlich
For now, the ATF and the federal government are dead set in keeping the suppressor regulation in place, even conservative judges aren't really looking to rock the boat. And we shouldn't be looking to the courts to change this aspect of gun law. This is a legislative fight. Passing a new federal law, however, is the best route. It's been attempted but fallen way short in years past. As the late Justice Scalia often said about people clamoring for change, just pass a law. Elections and ballot boxes are where the change comes from, not judges. It's a winnable fight. It just might take some time.

[Ninurta]

There are several states passing internal laws regarding suppressors, some (Montana among them) have passed laws regarding protected machine guns that fall under the same criteria - manufactured within a state, and never crossing it's borders - and marijuana use entirely within a states's borders. For example, in Virginia, this very day, marijuana possession becomes legal under state law - kinda sorta. In the case of VA, the marijuana laws are a hodgepodge of conflict, even within just state law, not accounting for the discrepancy between that and Federal law. So starting today, in VA, one may legally possess pot, and one may legally grow up to 4 plants for personal use, but one may still not BUY or receive pot in any manner to be able to possess it. One may grow the plants, but it is illegal to get the seeds to grow it from. And, Federally, it's still illegal as hell.

The suppressor and machine gun laws and increasingly, marijuana laws, even if internally consistent within a state's legal framework, are still at odds with the Federal law. State level law and Federal level law are two entirely separate bodies of law. One may be in a situation where he can legally do something in a state that he cannot legally do Federally. The state won't prosecute for something legal under state law, bu if the Feds get wind of it, they have no compunction against prosecuting under federal law, in Federal court.

In some cases, it falls down to which cops know what. Local law enforcement may or may not work with Federal law enforcement. Federal money is sometimes the bribe to get them to do so. Some states, Missouri among them, have passed state laws that make it illegal for local LE to work with Federal LE to enforce Federal law, and theoretically those laws are correct, because local LE is not bound to enforce a Federal jurisdictional matter that is not also a state jurisdictional matter. they work for the state, not the Feds. BUT - I'm not aware of any legal cases where that has been tested in court... yet. it's probably coming at some point, though.

So, if local cops know you have a suppressor in Texas, but the Feds DON'T know it, and the locals don't tell them, how do the Feds know that a Federal Law is being broken?

Federally, there have been two legal theories brought into play to deal with local situations that never "leave the farm" and aren't violations of local law. They have made extensive use of the Constitution's Commerce Clause to poke around in purely local business on the theory that ANY action "affects interstate commerce" - in the wheat example cited in your post, the theory is that if Farmer Jones grows and consumes his own wheat in Kansas, he may be putting a strain on another wheat farmer in Iowa by NOT buying Iowan wheat products... which they interpret as "affecting interstate commerce" for purposes of extending Federal over-reach, and to Federally violate state jurisdiction. That's why "machinegun states", and now Texas as a "suppressor state" include language in their laws specifying that if an item is made in that state and never crosses state lines, it's none of the Fed's business, since it is not "affecting interstate commerce".

The other legal theory that is increasingly being brought into play is the Tenth Amendment, which makes Federal law applicable across all states superseding conflicting state laws. So, if the good ol' "Commerce Clause" argument ever fails them, they have a fallback position in the Tenth Amendment to violate States Rights, to govern their own citizens, with.

The Tenth Amendment, however, cuts in two directions. It is coming into use now to apply the Second Amendment across all states, and deflate state laws that make firearms possession illegal or state-wise more burdensome than Federal law.

So, my advice to folks contemplating breaking Federal Law while remaining within the limits of more local laws is to just keep your own business under your hat. They cannot prosecute what they don't know exists to be prosecuted. If NO law men know about it, how can ANY of them prosecute it?

These suppressor laws are probably destined for testing. Nowadays, one can buy a "fuel filter" that looks suspiciously suppressor-like direct from China. They are all over the internet. Now, the Chinese are wondrous smugglers, and can get damned near anything direct to your door for a price. To get to your door from China, it has to cross usually several state lines as well as at least one national border... but at the point it's crossing, it's not, technically, a suppressor. It is declared, to my understanding, as a "metal tube", which in reality is all it is. Once you have it in hand, it's up to you whether to manufacture a suppressor from it by drilling various holes for bullet passage. Under Federal law, that then becomes "manufacturing a suppressor". So it is manufactured locally, and Federally illegally. This law stipulates that it's not Federal business if it never crosses state lines after manufacture. You just KNOW the Feds are gonna have to test that, and they have a pretty good track record when it comes to lowering the boom on folks who have displeased them.

There have also been moves Federally to remove suppressors from the ATF ban registry, making them Federally legal, but so far no luck in actually passing such laws. It remains to be seen whether the ATF wants to push that by testing local suppressor laws.

So, caveat emptor, and keep your own business under your own hat. If you intentionally poke the lion in it's own den, it has a bad habit of swiping back with a clawed paw.




.

[ABNARTY]

Sounds like this really is a mess with the commerce clause. Not sure if I would do it. And I don't see the current SCOTUS drastically changing course anytime soon. 
(https://buildingblocksforliberty.org/thr...ce-clause/)

Don't get me wrong. The NFA is simply another tool to attack the 2A. And make some money. The $200, back in the day, was a means to limit who was willing to forfeit the money to have an NFA item. Today that $200 is painful but not a show stopper. I heard they want to "modernize" that tax stamp charge in order to rejuvenate it's intended purpose. 

Myself, I am a Form 1 guy. Don't bother with Form 4's. Way quicker and I have had no problems so far. I don't like the dance but I do not choose the music.

[Ninurta]

Sounds like this really is a mess with the commerce clause. Not sure if I would do it. And I don't see the current SCOTUS drastically changing course anytime soon. 
(https://buildingblocksforliberty.org/thr...ce-clause/)

Don't get me wrong. The NFA is simply another tool to attack the 2A. And make some money. The $200, back in the day, was a means to limit who was willing to forfeit the money to have an NFA item. Today that $200 is painful but not a show stopper. I heard they want to "modernize" that tax stamp charge in order to rejuvenate it's intended purpose. 

Myself, I am a Form 1 guy. Don't bother with Form 4's. Way quicker and I have had no problems so far. I don't like the dance but I do not choose the music.

As far as full-auto goes, the point is kinda moot now. No new manufacture of civilian machine guns has been allowed since around 1986, so theoretically the ones in circulation now are all there will ever be - which has pushed the prices through the roof. I have a friend who has an M-60 machine gun that he gave around 20k for. When you're talking numbers that high for a mere gun, the transfer tax is just an afterthought. But you've got to be as rich as 3 feet up a bull's ass to buy one to begin with.

Right now, suppressor manufacture is still legal, so more new ones can be made to be taxed. If they were to outlaw manufacture, you would see prices rise exponentially... but as long as Lowes and Home Depot exist, banning manufacture of suppressors is an exercise in futility. They're not nearly as hard to make from scratch with just a hacksaw and ingenuity as a machine gun is. The only critical tolerance in one is the bullet path itself.

Possession of one does not make one an instant assassin as the Left would have folks believe. They are far, far more useful to keep from annoying neighbors when you are at target practice, preventing spooking of all game in a 5 mile radius when hunting, and of course in preserving hearing, as a health measure.

In my opinion, which if spent together with a buck thirty five will get you a coffee at mcDonalds, the use of a punitive tax to restrict firearms ownership to the average common man violates not only the letter but the spirit as well of the Second Amendment - it sort of defines the term "infringement".

.

[ABNARTY]

Sounds like this really is a mess with the commerce clause. Not sure if I would do it. And I don't see the current SCOTUS drastically changing course anytime soon. 
(https://buildingblocksforliberty.org/thr...ce-clause/)

Don't get me wrong. The NFA is simply another tool to attack the 2A. And make some money. The $200, back in the day, was a means to limit who was willing to forfeit the money to have an NFA item. Today that $200 is painful but not a show stopper. I heard they want to "modernize" that tax stamp charge in order to rejuvenate it's intended purpose. 

Myself, I am a Form 1 guy. Don't bother with Form 4's. Way quicker and I have had no problems so far. I don't like the dance but I do not choose the music.

As far as full-auto goes, the point is kinda moot now. No new manufacture of civilian machine guns has been allowed since around 1986, so theoretically the ones in circulation now are all there will ever be - which has pushed the prices through the roof. I have a friend who has an M-60 machine gun that he gave around 20k for. When you're talking numbers that high for a mere gun, the transfer tax is just an afterthought. But you've got to be as rich as 3 feet up a bull's ass to buy one to begin with.

Right now, suppressor manufacture is still legal, so more new ones can be made to be taxed. If they were to outlaw manufacture, you would see prices rise exponentially... but as long as Lowes and Home Depot exist, banning manufacture of suppressors is an exercise in futility. They're not nearly as hard to make from scratch with just a hacksaw and ingenuity as a machine gun is. The only critical tolerance in one is the bullet path itself.

Possession of one does not make one an instant assassin as the Left would have folks believe. They are far, far more useful to keep from annoying neighbors when you are at target practice, preventing spooking of all game in a 5 mile radius when hunting, and of course in preserving hearing, as a health measure.

In my opinion, which if spent together with a buck thirty five will get you a coffee at mcDonalds, the use of a punitive tax to restrict firearms ownership to the average common man violates not only the letter but the spirit as well of the Second Amendment - it sort of defines the term "infringement".

.

You read my mind. I like my peace and quiet. And I like to shoot. A suppressor is perfect to solve the problem. Like I said, it makes no sense. It's simply another avenue to attack the 2A.

Although I did become an international assassin the minute I screwed it on. The James Bond music kicked in and everything.

[Ninurta]

Although I did become an international assassin the minute I screwed it on. The James Bond music kicked in and everything.

For the price of a joint of PVC pipe and a couple pipe caps to fit it, a roll of fiberglass screen, and some lithium grease, all bought in a single stop at Lowes or Home Depot, you too can become a man of international mystery...

It's kinda a dunbass move to outlaw suppressors in the first place when one can cook up a half dozen of his own in an afternoon and dispose of them when they need to be disposed of a damned sight quicker... and just make more whenever he needs 'em...

.

[guohua]

@"Ninurta" 
Mr.G here, Hi everyone and Happy 4th of July.
Now, I know for a fact (and don't ask) that a 1 liter plastic bottle of your favorite beverage works to muffle the sound from a Beretta 9 mm.

I never spent any time on the Riviera, Tel Aviv, Bangkok, Kiev, Moscow, Hanoi and a great number of South American Banana Republics with my 36 years in the agency.

I will tell you though, be careful of that Beautiful Woman whom you want to ask for a Date, she may be your future wife, but then She Might Just Shot YOU First.

[Ninurta]

@"Ninurta" 
Mr.G here, Hi everyone and Happy 4th of July.
Now, I know for a fact (and don't ask) that a 1 liter plastic bottle of your favorite beverage works to muffle the sound from a Beretta 9 mm.

Fun fact: you can actually get adapters that mount to the muzzle of a firearm and are properly threaded to mount soda bottles...


.