Capitol Armory ad

Texas Suppressor Law

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • LaborLawPaul

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2021
    193
    46
    North Texas
    Filburn has been getting whittled back.

    The original Gun Free School Zone was thrown out over Interstate Commerce. It was re-written in such a manner "to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce". That is the goal here. As I already pointed out, it is a mistake to illegally make a silencer and then hope you do not get caught. You need to Go Tucker Act like Halbrook did.

    Ah, I thought someone had mentioned it! It is a distinct exception to the general rule that darn near everything is interstate commerce. (Down to little things like whether a local delivery driver is delivering parts made out of State when considering FLSA overtime laws.)

    And yes, I just want folks to know it is not safe to mess around outside the federal requirements for suppressors, new Texas law or not.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,747
    96
    Texas
    So, I all I mean to say is, that if the feds can regulate wheat, they can regulate your suppressors.
    If you are caught with a registered suppressor made in Texas, never left texas, etc., in a school, do you think you can get a conviction under the Gun Free School zone?
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Dunno? What’s the harm is submitting notification and if it gets shot down and you don’t manufacture the device?

    On the other hand, I could see where an affirmative response could be appealed.
    "Constructive intent"

    Put away your shoelaces, plumbing supplies, and anything that could remotely resemble a suppressor, to probably include toiletpaper tubes...

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    I'm afraid I've already dug myself too deep a whole. That wheat case has always bothered me.

    Eh, no big deal. We had a great lawyer here who was probably the most experienced guy in the NFA space in the state and probably the US. Unfortunately, he left us (and his family) all too early.

    There’s always value in a good discussion of the practical apsect of the law. For instance, there’s a recent discussion about the changes HB1927 makes to TPC 30.05. While the language change in the code says shop owners may provide notice…some groups are claiming a gunbuster icon fulfills the notice for trespass with a firearm.

    I, and others, believe this is a too broad a view. My contention is TPC 30.05 clearly states notice is required, where notice is defined in the code as oral or written communication. If we’re going to debate shall/will vs may, then we sure as shît need to discuss whether or not an icon is considered written communication if there is no words or text involved.
     
    Last edited:

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Thats called a baffle strike... nothing in a modern can should touch the bullet

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

    I totally understand that. In a perfect world. I was dealing more in hypotheticals than what might actually happen.

    I have not a clue that in the instance if a person uses a suppressor, (that isn't registered with the ATF.) and shoots an attacker, then removes the suppressor and hides it because technically the suppressor is illegal, just how much energy, time, and resources would be expended during the investigation as to determine a suppressor was mounted to the gun used to shoot another person.

    As far as I know, such a case has never come up that I have heard of. I have read of cases where a person that was prohibited from possessing gun, used one in self defense, and they were found justified in the instance of using deadly force, but were convicted for possessing an illegal firearm.

    It may be a case of if the investigation determines the shooting of an attacker was justified, that may be all that they care about. It may never go any further than that. But I'll assert again, I wouldn't want to gamble my freedom or rights on such thing myself.

    Just as I have no plans on being a test case for this law either.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    "Constructive intent"

    Put away your shoelaces, plumbing supplies, and anything that could remotely resemble a suppressor, to probably include toiletpaper tubes...

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

    Uh oh! Then the Feds are going have field day here at my house with all the empty two-liter soda bottles!
     

    LaborLawPaul

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2021
    193
    46
    North Texas
    If you are caught with a registered suppressor made in Texas, never left texas, etc., in a school, do you think you can get a conviction under the Gun Free School zone?

    Lopez could be used to argue against federal authority over the matter; however, I do not think the Supreme Court will look at any of these cases any time in the near future because the Court recently refused to look at this issue. (Of course, the Court might pick this up if say perhaps the 5th Circuit argues that Lopez means that the feds do not have authority and reverses any suppressor-conviction that comes to it.) To me, the primary difference between Lopez (which remember is quite alone in this Commerce Clause context) and the sea of other Commerce Clause cases is that it is a stretch to argue that 1. not having guns near a school, somehow 2. impacts crime levels, which in turn 3. effects the economy between States.

    It is more coherent to argue, in my opinion and even though I do not like it, that if you build your own suppressor, you will not need to buy one from someone who might be located out of your State, so you have impacted the "inter-State suppressor economy" as argued in Wickard. So if the Court ever did look at this issue and the arguments centered around Commerce Clause federal authority, I think it would come down on the side of Wickard and impose federal authority over suppressors.

    I think the Wickard Court took federal authority too far and as I recall, this and other cases like it at the time, were the reaction of a Court frightened by FDR's threat to pack the Court.
     

    LaborLawPaul

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2021
    193
    46
    North Texas
    Eh, no big deal. We had a great lawyer here who was probably the most experienced guy in the NFA space in the state and probably the US. Unfortunately, he left us (and his family) all too early.

    There’s always value in a good discussion of the practical apsect of the law. For instance, there’s a recent discussion about the changes HB1927 makes to TPC 30.05. While the language change in the code says shop owners may provide notice…some groups are claiming a gunbuster icon fulfills the notice for trespass with a firearm.

    I, and others, believe this is a too broad a view. My contention is TPC 30.05 clearly states notice is required, where notice is defined in the code as oral or written communication. If we’re going to debate shall/will vs may, then we sure as shît need to discuss whether or not an icon is considered written communication if there is no words or text involved.

    I skimmed through those new carry law provisions. I read some of them three times and still did not know what they mean. I'll have to look at the impact on 30.05. My initial thought was much of this will wind up getting clarified in the courts.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    I skimmed through those new carry law provisions. I read some of them three times and still did not know what they mean. I'll have to look at the impact on 30.05. My initial thought was much of this will wind up getting clarified in the courts.

    Other than the skim part, I’m of much the same opinion. I’m slowly merging the changes, section by section, so I can read it all in context.

    1927 was a battlefied victory that’s going to expand the war, unfortunately.
     

    LaborLawPaul

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2021
    193
    46
    North Texas
    Eh, no big deal. We had a great lawyer here who was probably the most experienced guy in the NFA space in the state and probably the US. Unfortunately, he left us (and his family) all too early.

    There’s always value in a good discussion of the practical apsect of the law. For instance, there’s a recent discussion about the changes HB1927 makes to TPC 30.05. While the language change in the code says shop owners may provide notice…some groups are claiming a gunbuster icon fulfills the notice for trespass with a firearm.

    I, and others, believe this is a too broad a view. My contention is TPC 30.05 clearly states notice is required, where notice is defined in the code as oral or written communication. If we’re going to debate shall/will vs may, then we sure as shît need to discuss whether or not an icon is considered written communication if there is no words or text involved.

    Looks like new sign requirements have been added to that criminal trespass statute, so I don't see how a gunbuster icon would comply:


    SECTION 17. Section 30.05, Penal Code, is amended by adding
    Subsections (c) and (d-3) and amending Subsections (d) and (f) to
    read as follows:
    (c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited
    on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property
    that:
    (1) includes language that is identical to or
    substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05,
    Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this
    property with a firearm";
    (2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1)
    in both English and Spanish;
    (3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters
    at least one inch in height; and
    (4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly
    visible to the public.
     

    Wolfwood

    Self Appointed Board Chauvinist
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 12, 2009
    7,547
    96
    If we could make them biodegradable and nature safe and super cheap you could buy one before a hunt and bury it with the guts of the kill. Could use some kind of wipe system even.

    Disposable suppressors 3d printed out of compostable plastic good for 1-3 shots for 20 bucks right before you get to the hunting ground.

    ----
    Edit- not sure where I was planning on posting this, but I don't think it was here...
     
    Last edited:

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Looks like new sign requirements have been added to that criminal trespass statute, so I don't see how a gunbuster icon would comply:




    [TD] (c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited [/]

    [TD] substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, [/TD]

    So Law Shield’s position is that may is not legally binding like shall or will is. You and I disagree with that for similar reasons of written communication is required.
    ac9cb2f35a6c748fa6582cbdc0bd4263.jpg




    And we’ll have to see what the courts determine “substantially similar to” means in practicality.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    No such thing (intent is a thought crime, Constructive possession, what you probably meant, is having the parts unassembled)

    Again, you are supposed to notify the AG BEFORE you make.

    This is not the same as the Kansas Law.
    It was tongue-in-cheek... the ATF likes the idea of Constructive possession (I mis-spoke and said intent)
    d896fd21856b0db91868fd711c2015d8.jpg


    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,108
    Messages
    2,952,940
    Members
    34,935
    Latest member
    LandenR
    Top Bottom