Texas leads the way

[Dave686]

Both Tennessee and Montana did this in 2009. I wish Texas better luck than we had.

12 years later and nothing has changed on the firearms/suppressors manufacturing or purchasing in Tennessee.
The Montana case went before a Federal District Court, it was shot down. But I don’t remember the particulars.

Part of the problem with this is that you would need a test dummy. No FFL is going to risk their license, especially a manufacturer. A private individual or company would need the resources to defend themselves on Federal Weapons Charges, and if they lost, they would be facing prison.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Peace out. We all have different points of view on this. Some of us have actual practical experience in enforcing these these, and others have plenty of real anecdotal experience. We're never going to agree on this.

We've strayed way beyond the constraints of the 2nd Amendment Forum rules, and I probably helped, and for that I apologize to the moderator. Everyone enjoy what's left of their Memorial Day weekend . . .

 

[retrieverhunter]

I won’t be the test dummy, but if the suppressor thing really passes in TX, I might get one. I’m absolutely not paying $200 and waiting a year for one though.

 

[LVSteve]

What if the Texas AG said he will back you versus the Feds come the day?

 

[4barrel]

They are good for shooting hogs at night. Other than that ?

 

[Justin T]

They are good for shooting hogs at night. Other than that ?

What does this have to do with the discussion?

 

[SchemaEnigma]

What if the Texas AG said he will back you versus the Feds come the day?

1. AGs are politicians.
   
2. He won't be the one in Federal prison.

 

[Dave686]

What if the Texas AG said he will back you versus the Feds come the day?

If a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office says he won’t charge you; you walk free. Since they (Feds) are not impacted by state law, and the charges would be Federal; the state AG has no say.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we should be able to have what we want. But in the past few years people have been quick to jump on BATF decisions they like. Even though the BATF tells you they don’t carry the weight of law. Also, people are thinking that 2nd amendment sanctuary Cities/Counties/states will protect them from the Feds. Nothing could be farther from the truth; it can land the uniformed in prison.

 

[SchemaEnigma]

If a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office says he won’t charge you; you walk free. Since they (Feds) are not impacted by state law, and the charges would be Federal; the state AG has no say.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we should be able to have what we want. But in the past few years people have been quick to jump on BATF decisions they like. Even though the BATF tells you they don’t carry the weight of law. Also, people are thinking that 2nd amendment sanctuary Cities/Counties/states will protect them from the Feds. Nothing could be farther from the truth; it can land the uniformed in prison.

If there is no interstate commerce involved, what is the Federal jurisdiction?

That is where the state AG would become involved. This would need to be a lawsuit filed in Federal court.

The problem is (among several) that the poor sap who becomes the test case has already been charged and convicted to provide the grounds for the lawsuit.

 

[Dave686]

If there is no interstate commerce involved, what is the Federal jurisdiction?

That is where the state AG would become involved. This would need to be a lawsuit filed in Federal court.

The problem is (among several) that the poor sap who becomes the test case has already been charged and convicted to provide the grounds for the lawsuit.

The following pertains to this discussion as it is what happened to Montana.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a decision issued on August 23, 2013, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the U.S. District Court erred in concluding that the Plaintiff's lacked standing but, after considering the merits of the case, affirmed the dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim. Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and the court's own precedent in United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally. A majority of the panel, over the dissent of Judge Bea, went further to hold that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act was preempted by the federal licensing law. Two petitions for a writ of certiorari sought to bring the matter before the United States Supreme Court, but the writ was denied in both instances.

However…. The SCOTUS may hear another case if they have Federal District courts in dispute. Maybe that’s what they are thinking may happen.

When it happened here in Tennessee I didn’t understand why someone had to be arrested to test the BATF interpretation. But nothing has ever happened. Maybe no one wanted to finance the case after the Montana ruling?

 

[SchemaEnigma]

...the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit...

That's all that needed to be said.

...When it happened here in Tennessee I didn’t understand why someone had to be arrested to test the BATF interpretation. ...

Perhaps (?) it has to do with a lawsuit can only be brought in Federal Court by someone with standing?

 

[Dave686]

For comparison of what we are discussing, the following is what Tennessee passed 12 years ago. I haven't seen any suppressors for sale or new firearms that don't require a background check if sold by a dealer or manufacturer.....

Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-54-104

4-54-104. Firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition manufactured in this state not subject to federal regulation under interstate commerce clause.

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains within the borders of this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured in this state from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.

Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition, and their importation into this state and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition manufactured in this state does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition to federal regulation.

It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition.

The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition made in this state from those materials.

Firearms accessories that are imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in this state.

 

[Dave686]

That's all that needed to be said.

And…. maybe Texas thinks the 5th may rule differently??

Perhaps (?) it has to do with a lawsuit can only be brought in Federal Court by someone with standing?

Could be?? I don’t think someone should have to be arrested to have standing. I would think a manufacturer that wants to manufacture and sell suppressors in Tennessee would have standing??
I always assumed it came down to money, as all things do. But I could be wrong.

 

[SchemaEnigma]

...
I always assumed it came down to money, as all things do. But I could be wrong.

You're probably right about that.

 

[4barrel]

What does this have to do with the discussion?

ladder13-is one of my favorite posters. Some of my better friends are class 111. Welcome to the forum.

 

[CALREB]

There are already a couple of silencer manufacturers in Texas.
I aways think its funny that in almost 40 years of police work, I never heard of a silencer being used in any crime, other than possession of an illegal silencer. Twice unfortunately by dumb policemen.
Where as the legal sale of marijuana causes a boatload of crimes wherever they open a storage or sale place. Bad guys know that at those locations there are at least 2 things, drugs and money that they want also people going there have money and leave with drugs so they become potential victims also. Also those living in the area become victims of thefts, burglaries etc. so they can acquire money to buy the dope. All around bad deal...
I doubt if the legal sale and use of silencers would impact the safety of the community nearly as bad if any.

 

[steelslaver]

Main point on these laws is the BATF or the rest of the federal government ignore the fact that they actually are limited to regulating commerce between the states and not what happens within the state borders;

Silencers had a shot at becoming a non issue with H.R.367 — 115th Congress (2017-2018) Hearing Protection Act of 2017, unfortunately the nit wit in the Las Vegas Hotel shooting killed it right along with the victims. It gets reintroduced each year, but right now with the make up of the government there is no chance of it becoming law.

 

[TexasArmed]

1. AGs are politicians.
   
2. He won't be the one in Federal prison.

I no longer would convict anyone of any federal crime unless
they murdered someone. Once the Federal law enforcement
became involved politically in our elections to determine outcomes I no longer trust them or convict anyone they try
on a federal jury. Actions have consequences. Consequences
for political involvement in outcomes results in loss of respect
for the institution involved.

 

[snuffy51]

Who needs a suppressor? I ruined my hearing years ago.

 

[Racer X]

There are already a couple of silencer manufacturers in Texas.
I aways think its funny that in almost 40 years of police work, I never heard of a silencer being used in any crime, other than possession of an illegal silencer. Twice unfortunately by dumb policemen.
Where as the legal sale of marijuana causes a boatload of crimes wherever they open a storage or sale place. Bad guys know that at those locations there are at least 2 things, drugs and money that they want also people going there have money and leave with drugs so they become potential victims also. Also those living in the area become victims of thefts, burglaries etc. so they can acquire money to buy the dope. All around bad deal...
I doubt if the legal sale and use of silencers would impact the safety of the community nearly as bad if any.

it's the completely unrealistic portrayal on TV and in movies that cause pretty much everyone who hasn't been in the presence of one being used to believe they are magic. Criminals will just make something if they want to be quiet. Outlaw pillows!