Texas Suppressor Law

[Axxe55]

Ok so you are not kidding.

The bullet touches nothing as it passes through the silencer. If it does it is a baffle strike and usually degrades accuracy and cannot be reproduced like a rifling can. There were some old styles that used wipes and it did touch on exit, but they did not add rifle marks.

Feel free to ignore anything I just posted then. But IMO, ballistic forensics science has come a long ways to the point I would not want to bet my freedom on what you just posted, that they couldn't prove a bullet was fired through a suppressor or not.

if you feel so sure of your opinions on this, then by all means be the test case to prove it. I'm not.

 

[Renegade]

Feel free to ignore anything I just posted then. But IMO, ballistic forensics science has come a long ways to the point I would not want to bet my freedom on what you just posted, that they couldn't prove a bullet was fired through a suppressor or not.

if you feel so sure of your opinions on this, then by all means be the test case to prove it. I'm not.

Was just trying to help you be more informed. Sheesh. Feel free to research it yourself. Plenty of science out there.

 

[John Galt]

It is extremely rare for even the largest departments to conduct ballistics tests on recovered bullets. Usually unnecessary, usually fruitless and always expensive.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I'm confused. Aren't drugs regulated on the federal level? How do states get to legalize them then?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The Cole Memo stated Justice Dept wasn’t going to deal with little fish. That was rescinded in 2018 by Sessions, but net effect is Cole Memo is de facto policy.

https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

 

[Axxe55]

Was just trying to help you be more informed. Sheesh. Feel free to research it yourself. Plenty of science out there.

Then disregard anything I have posted about suppressors.

Until federal gun laws change on suppressors, I think having one that is unregistered is just asking for a huge amount of legal headaches.

 

[Renegade]

Until federal gun laws change on suppressors, I think having one that is unregistered is just asking for a huge amount of legal headaches.

Agree, but nothing wrong with having a registered one that also complies with Texas Law.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

It's my understanding that the bullet should not touch anything inside the suppressor.
I know I sent my first can back to Silencerco because of a baffle strike.
It was one of the first .45 Ospreys, with a serial number below 10.

 

[Axxe55]

Agree, but nothing wrong with having a registered one that also complies with Texas Law.

If the suppressor is registered, there wouldn't be any need to remove the suppressor and hide if you made a justified shooting of an attacker or intruder with the gun and suppressor.

My point is, you can be cleared of charges or justified in one area of such circumstances, and guilty of other charges.

Hypothetical: A justified shooting of an attacker using an unregistered suppressor. You are cleared that the shooting was righteous and justified, but end up being convicted of violating federal gun laws because of the unregistered suppressor.

 

[Renegade]

If the suppressor is registered, there wouldn't be any need to remove the suppressor and hide if you made a justified shooting of an attacker or intruder with the gun and suppressor.

My point is, you can be cleared of charges or justified in one area of such circumstances, and guilty of other charges.

Hypothetical: A justified shooting of an attacker using an unregistered suppressor. You are cleared that the shooting was righteous and justified, but end up being convicted of violating federal gun laws because of the unregistered suppressor.

I think we can all agree unregistered NFA is a really bad idea.

 

[baboon]

How is taking the can off evidence tampering? What if the stereo was on loud and you turned it down after the shooting? If you got blood in your eye (yours or the perps) is it tampering to wipe your eye?

Would make for an interesting case to prove.

Remember people beat criminal charges only to face civil charges after killing douche bags. I can see a slimy personal attorney claiming real stupid shit like the person was an assassin for using a suppressor. What was the assssins “intent” for removing a suppressor?

Hopefully none if us ever have to kill someone in self defense. Even more so spend the time and money defending ourselves.

One just needs to look at Saint George of Fentanyl to see how fucked the courts are!

 

[Axxe55]

I think we can all agree unregistered NFA is a really bad idea.

I did consider another point as well. most people would probably be using some sort of self defense ammo in their pistol for such reasons. It's very possible that the bullet when or if recovered would be so damaged, that even matching it to the pistol may be difficult or even impossible, much less even being able to tell that it also was fired with a suppressor attached.

But, IMO it just doesn't seem smart to gamble your freedom of such things working out that way.

 

[baboon]

Renegade are H&K MP5SD not suppressed using the actual barrels being ported on the rifle grooves? My guess there has to be a few others that use this method.

 

[Renegade]

Renegade are H&K MP5SD not suppressed using the actual barrels being ported on the rifle grooves? My guess there has to be a few others that use this method.

Barrel is ported and then there are baffles after it exists the barrel.

 

[kenboyles72]

Simple. If you fire a bullet through a barrel, it will have rifling marks from the barrel. If it is fired through a suppressor, it will have additional markings from the suppressor.

So you're saying, that if a bullet passes through a hollow tube, without making contact with the sides, it creates marking on it? So the air creates markings on the bullet then?

 

[Axxe55]

So you're saying, that if a bullet passes through a hollow tube, without making contact with the sides, it creates marking on it? So the air creates markings on the bullet then?

Can you guarantee for a fact that the bullet will not make any contact with the suppressor?

Are you willing to gamble your freedom on your guarantee?

I'm not in the least concerned.

 

[Sasquatch]

Theoretically it would be a good reason to use a 5.56 caliber defensive arm with a load that would reach sufficient velocity to fragment. Hard to pull rifling marks off of teeny tiny fragments.

 

[kenboyles72]

Can you guarantee for a fact that the bullet will not make any contact with the suppressor?

Are you willing to gamble your freedom on your guarantee?

I'm not in the least concerned.

There is no guarantee on anything. I have shot a lot of firearms with cans on them and I can tell you this, unless the can is loose, the bullet will not hit a baffle. Even if it were loose, it would have to be extremely loose, as in flopping around when you shot. As far as extra markings go, it will merely look like it struck something, whether it was bone, wood, nail or other piece of metal. There would be zero evidence that it struck a baffle in a can.

 

[baboon]

There is no guarantee on anything. I have shot a lot of firearms with cans on them and I can tell you this, unless the can is loose, the bullet will not hit a baffle. Even if it were loose, it would have to be extremely loose, as in flopping around when you shot. As far as extra markings go, it will merely look like it struck something, whether it was bone, wood, nail or other piece of metal. There would be zero evidence that it struck a baffle in a can.

Only assuming everything is concentric!

 

[Axxe55]

There is no guarantee on anything. I have shot a lot of firearms with cans on them and I can tell you this, unless the can is loose, the bullet will not hit a baffle. Even if it were loose, it would have to be extremely loose, as in flopping around when you shot. As far as extra markings go, it will merely look like it struck something, whether it was bone, wood, nail or other piece of metal. There would be zero evidence that it struck a baffle in a can.

I am just pointing out some hypotheticals. They may or may not be valid. I just know that Mr. Murphy likes to stick his nose into things when it's less than optimum, and you just never know what might happen.

IMO, I'm not going to gamble my freedom on what-if's. I'm not telling anyone what they should, or shouldn't do either. Everyone is going to have make their own decisions as to what they do.

It's simply a discussion.

 

[acidfly]

Actually they would, because the rifling marks would be different on the bullet.

LMAO! WHAT??????????