Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Texas House Bill 597

Had a buddy in Texas call and talk about the Texas House Bill 597 which states that suppressors, made in Texas, sold in Texas and stay in Texas, do not have to be regulated by the Federal Gov't thus you are not liable for a class III tax stamp . I think the bill is alittle " muddy " in the description but it shows to be there. I know there are some very savvy folks here on The Fire. What do you think? I apologize if this has already been discussed.

God Bless Texas if this is true.

Be safe,

Razorhog

Look up Jeremy Kettler, Shan Cox and the Kansas suppressor law.

I was talking to a FFL dealer friend about this a couple of day's ago, he is working with a local company that builds very good muzzle brakes, and they are excited about getting their suppressors on the market, that's all i know. Rio7

The legislation passed, but it's NOT a 'green light' to go ahead and make your own suppressors. But, whatever somebody does in their own garage/shop is their own business, just don't go talking about it to anybody.

I'm all for civil disobedience at this point, FedGov can shove the NFA and all their anti-gun bullschitt right up their azzes.

Amen

Well, that's 100% sound according to the plain meaning of the US Constitution. The Feds, however, claim power over such things by means of a twisted interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Theoretically, if an item never enters commerce between states, this places that item outside of Federal Government's regulatory authority.

However, the Supreme Court figured a work-around to that seemingly unassailable logic years ago. You see, they "reasoned" that even if it never enters interstate commerce, it's still affecting interstate commerce by requiring other states to manufacture it in order to satisfy their own state's demand. So "entering interstate commerce" became "affecting interstate commerce," as far as the Supreme Court was concerned, thus placing all items within the regulatory powers of the Federal Government that merely have some sort of affect on the flow of interstate commerce. In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government can regulate everything under the sun, whether or not it ever enters interstate commerce.

Basically, what happened was that the Federal Government wanted to be able to regulate everything, but the plain words of the Constitution actually didn't permit them to regulate much of anything. So, by progressively warping the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause (which was merely intended to allow the Federal Government to create some basic rules for dealing with disputes that might arise during the course of interstate commerce), to the point that not only could the Federal Government regulate lots of stuff the Framers never intended to allow them to regulate, but to the point, rather, that nothing is now outside the purview of Federal Regulation, even if you grow a vegetable garden on your property and eat all the vegetables yourself. The Feds say that, if they chose, they could even regulate that, based on the "reasoning" behind a series of Supreme Court Commerce Clause rulings. Nonsense, of course, but that's the world we live in since losing the Civil War.

The bill provides protections in Texas, in that Texas no longer considers them illegal to manufacture, use, or possess.

The Bill author clearly states that the bill provides a path to get a ruling in Federal Court about in state use and laws... Much like the legalized marijuana laws in other states.

It will still be illegal as far as federal law. They seek a court ruling about whether the Feds will give way to state law, as they have in marijuana legalization, or whether they will actively pursuit violations.


Another thing to note is that manufacturers of suppressors (in Texas, as well as everywhere else) are licensed by the BATFE to do so. If they sell a suppressor without the fed approved method, the BATFE will be on them quicker than scat. So those businesses will not sell you a suppressor like a lawn mower muffler at Ace Hardware.

I wouldn't run out and buy, or make a suppressor yet.

This is just getting started.

I went to a class on the Constitution and there is plenty of recent caselaw that supports the Texas view things like this. The Federalist Papers and the Constitution support the Texas view as well.

Basically, the States CAN tell the Feds to pound sand and the Feds are barred from retaliating by cutting off funding.

run.the fed would be at your door fast if your purchased one.

Nope dead in the water, been tried and denied more than once.

Texas isn’t the first state to pass a law designed to go around the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce “among the several states.” Both Montana and Kansas have passed Firearms Freedom Acts in recent years, but neither have survived legal challenges. The Ninth Circuit tossed out Montana’s law in 2013, and the Supreme Court chose not hear the appeal from Montana gun owners and 2A advocates. I

In 2018 the Tenth Circuit ruled that Kansas’ law was no protection from the federal government’s taxing authority. The following year the Supreme Court declined to hear that case as well, upholding the felony convictions of two Kansas residents who were convicted of illegally possessing Kansas-made suppressors without going through the NFA registration process.

Given the previous outcomes of these Tenth Amendment test cases, I think it’s fair to say that the new suppressor law in Texas faces some fairly long legal odds. At the same time, you can’t make progress unless you push for it, so I have no issue with Texas trying to expand the Tenth Amendment powers of the states. I’m just glad to see Second Amendment advocates make it clear that the new suppressor law won’t change anything on the ground right away. The last thing we want is for Texans to erroneously think they’re now able to bypass federal law, only to end up facing federal charges.

The Texas bill is different in that it seeks judgement before people get in trouble, or arrested, based on newer case law, and will provide a willing path clear to the Supreme Court by Texas.

Texas isn't trying to "expand" the 10th Amendment, as you put it. They are simply trying to get the Constitution adhered to as it applies to states rights.

There are several articles about how Justice Alito is frustrated with his colleagues for not taking a more constitutional position in recent cases. Justice Thomas shares his frustration. The most recent case involved the First Ammendment freedom of religion concerning placing children in homosexual homes. I think it was in Pennsylvania. From what I have read Gorsuch pretty much aligns with Alito and Thomas. Barrett and Kavanaugh are the holdouts. Maybe when this gets to the Supreme Court they will be willing to make a more constitutional ruling.

Optimists are often disappointed. Pessimists are seldom disappointed. Realists hope for the best but plan for worst.

If that suit works out its going to be good for a lot of things besides suppressors in scaling back the commerce clause. Current case law is that the ICC applies if even the raw materials to make something cross state lines or if a person purposely avoids interstate commerce.

I've been saying for years that if PSA built a full auto, integrally suppressed AR it could be sold to SC residents legally.
68 is an interstate commerce law.

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

It’s a good read. Check it out.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...f-suppressors-stay-away-from-it-n2591550

Analysis: The Real Danger of the New Texas Silencer Law

https://thereload.com/analysis-the-real-danger-of-the-new-texas-silencer-law/

Steve, all the above is well and good.

But unfortunately for some, they were the guinea pigs.

The difference is that the Texas law was passed with the full intent to get a federal court ruling before anyone has to go to jail...

And, Texas is fully willing and expecting to go all the way to the US Supreme Court to secure the law.

They aren't telling anyone to run buy a silencer and make a target of yourself. They are saying "Texas has made this legal, so let the state take it up with the federal govt.

They are using case law of federal authorities not pursuing charges on people in states who sell and use legal (per state law) marijuana. There's lots of argument for a positive ruling. But as we all know, the court system is corrupt too.

I think where we've gone wrong is in acceptance of the notion that the Supreme Court is the last word on the Constitution. The Court exists by virtue of the Constitution and as such is a child of it, just as the central government is a creature of the States and not the other way around. So, essentially the Supreme Court is a creature OF the States. When SCOTUS "rules" and defines the power of the central government, it amounts to the central government defining its own powers. And that is ludicrous.

The States must take their power back and tell DC to take a flyin f*** at a rollin donut.

That's pretty much where I am with it.

If Texas told them to GFT, and went on their own, and withheld all tax dollars, both business and citizen income tax, Texas could get along fine without them.

Others states would join too, I'm thinking.

It's coming down to Balkanization... Sooner or later.