Hurley's Gold

New Texas Gun 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!
  • GM.Chief

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 16, 2009
    1,449
    31
    I like it!!! The problem is this, it'll end up like Commiefornia and their "legal pot" system. California says you can get a cannabis card and go to their distribution center (regulated by the county), pick up some pot, go home and smoke it. Federal law says this is a big no no. So now, these people who are "legally" smoking pot get picked up and arrested by DEA under Federal drug laws. The feds will enforce the laws of the federal government regardless of what the state says is ok. The only two things that will ensure our 2A rights are either having a federal government that wants to protect our rights (good luck in this day and age) or secession from the union. As far as I am concerned...GOOD BYE USSA.
     

    Ron

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 21, 2009
    4
    1
    States Rights

    The bill is interesting and like the old saying, " "there is strength in numbers"!
    I believe anyone that lives in Texas that reads about this needs to contact their state Legislator and voice their loud support for this Bill.
    State Representative Leo Berman introduced this bill labeled HB1863 .
    Montana is testing this very law and if Texas does it , it sends a stronger signal to Washington .
    Maybe the leader of the pack will get the message that he is messing with something he has no business with.
    Ron
     

    ReVrEnD_0341

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 22, 2008
    204
    1
    Austin, TX
    I like it!!! The problem is this, it'll end up like Commiefornia and their "legal pot" system. California says you can get a cannabis card and go to their distribution center (regulated by the county), pick up some pot, go home and smoke it. Federal law says this is a big no no. So now, these people who are "legally" smoking pot get picked up and arrested by DEA under Federal drug laws. The feds will enforce the laws of the federal government regardless of what the state says is ok. The only two things that will ensure our 2A rights are either having a federal government that wants to protect our rights (good luck in this day and age) or secession from the union. As far as I am concerned...GOOD BYE USSA.


    Not like the legal pot law at all. Pot is illegal, period, it is not regulated with interstate commerce. It's just illegal.

    The subject here is that gun control legislation is all wrapped up in interstate commerce laws. If there is no interstate commerce going on, then federal restrictions do not apply. And they are right. A good lawyer for the states will win the ATF case when it is brought to court. Montana will be the first put to the test. I am watching this with great interest.
     

    Dog

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 29, 2008
    85
    1
    Central TX
    God bless Texas.
    takin this to work, gonna send some calls to Austin in support of this bill.

    WE STAND NOW OR KNEEL LATER.


    watch the Lou Dobbs report on Obamas international gun treaty. link on CNN.
     

    Zen

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 6, 2009
    74
    1
    Kingwood, Tx
    If I'm correct, Montana's Governor has signed theirs into law. From The New American - "According to an Associated Press article entitled "Montana gun law targets states' rights clash," the drafters of the bill aim to test the law with a single-shot .22 caliber rifle. The plan is to have a “squeaky-clean” Montanan send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (ATF) threatening to manufacture and sell 20 of the youth-model rifles without a federal permit. If the ATF tries to claim it is illegal, they hope to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."

    So what this raises for me is, if the ATF says NO and it does go to the Supreme Court and the current Solicitor General has been placed on the bench giving a strong 5-4 Tyranny Count, we can guess which way the Supreme will rule. THEN it gets interesting. If Montana says, Screw You to the Feds, what then? Federal Invasion? Disallowance of Federal Money? We forget about it and go on about our lives?

    This will be very interesting to watch and I LOVE that Texas is finally looking like she's in the fight, despite having Rick Perry at the helm.
     

    Big country

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 6, 2009
    4,318
    21
    Cedar Park,TX
    This is going to be interesting to see how all this plays out. I think it would do one of three things. One, it will cause the Texas manufacturers to sell more guns. Two, it will cause an unfair advantage to Texas gun makers. Three, it will cause more "big Names" (like Glock, Springfield, Kimber etc....) to open plants in Texas. Also I have to agree with GM.Chief that this could wind up being bad if the state decided to start acting like Commiefornia.
     

    TexasT

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 20, 2009
    37
    1
    NE Texas
    There are reciprocating laws in the USA such as my Texas DL is accepted by all other states, as do some states with CHL's. if the gun is stamped 'Made in Texas" can it be taken into Montana under the same regs? Do we need one gun to carry under federal regs in other states that accept our CHL and another made in Texas for Texas CHL free from federal regs.

    I realize Most people dont see things as analytical as I do thats just my nature, I really am for this legislation, but the people in charge of making laws cant always see past their noses...leaving loopholes.
     

    Zen

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 6, 2009
    74
    1
    Kingwood, Tx
    TexasT,
    Your CHL isn't carried, issued or approved by the Feds - that's a state matter. If you're thinking about reciprocity then that's not governed by the Feds either as, even if you cross State Lines with the weapon FOR commerce, it isn't a vehicle in regards to that Commerce so their jurisdiction still doesn't apply. The states decide which other chl's they'll recognize and which they won't.

    What's interesting is the Gun Free Zones - do unfunded mandates count as "Federal Regulations"? I'm assuming the big aim for the legislation is the Background Checks, Unofficial BATFE registration etc. Unfortuantely, Texas might implement their own system there but who knows.

    Also, as I posted about earlier, Dealer Licensing. No more Federal Firearms Licenses required for guns manufactured solely in Texas. What about SBR's, AOW's and Suppressors? I didn't see an exemption in there for the rest of the NFA bullshit, just select fire.

    But you're right, there absolutely is some clarity that needs to be discussed as the devil is in the details.
     

    Zen

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 6, 2009
    74
    1
    Kingwood, Tx
    What else is interesting is what this will do TO reciprocity. Will all the states currently respecting our CHL continue to once we declare Texas Weapons free from Federal Tyranny? I'd assume some, yes, but some others might not be too approving.
     

    PhoenixTX

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 29, 2008
    6
    1
    North Dallas
    What about SBR's, AOW's and Suppressors? I didn't see an exemption in there for the rest of the NFA bullshit, just select fire.



    That's going to be a problem. I've had a fairly extensive email conversation with the bill's author, Rep Leo Berman, about this. I don't think he really understands the overall scope of this law with respect to NFA items, even though the bill actually mentions 'sound suppressors' by name. A portion of my conversation after he asked me about obtaining a copy of the law when I tried to get some details about NFA items:
    Yes sir, I absolutely do have a copy and I have read through it several times attempting to determine how this will affect some of us that are not only interested in firearms, but specifically firearms and 'firearms accessories' that are currently restricted due to the NFA.

    Texas Penal Code 46.05 states that these items (short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, sound suppressors, etc..) are prohibited in Texas unless they are also registered with the BATF.

    In part:
    *****************************
    Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:

    (3) a short-barrel firearm;

    (4) a firearm silencer;

    (c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor's possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended.

    ******************************

    Currently HB 1863 only has text that amends Title 99 of the Business and Commerce Code. Since the text of HB 1863 specifically names 'sound suppressors' I am wondering how that will be affected by Penal Code 46.05. Without modification of PC 46.05, Texas residents that possess or manufacture a sound suppressor in Texas will be in violation of Texas law (PC 46.05) even though they are completely following the the Business and Commerce Code as amended by HB 1863. A sound suppressor will be 'legal' under one code when manufactured and kept within the state of Texas, but still prohibited by another Texas law and subject to prosecution (unless exempted by Federal registration).

    If I am reading and understand our state laws correctly, I believe that Penal Code 46.05 may need to be amended as well or some of HB 1863's intent may be lost due to an existing requirement that these same firearms and firearms accessories that we are attempting to exclude from federal registration will still need to be registered or the owner will be subject to prosecution by Texas law.


    His response:

    Dear Christopher:

    I'm not an attorney and cannot answer your question at this time. The wording of this bill is exactly the same as the wording of the Montana Bill that passed and was signed by the Montana Governor just today. The Montana bill goes into effect on October 10, 2009 and Montana intends to test their bill in federal court shortly after.

    Leo Berman



    I don't believe our legislators completely understand their own laws and therefore are going to leave us in a grey area (similar to Texas Penal Code 46.02 concerning carrying a loaded handgun while "traveling", but never defining what traveling actually means.) leaving someone to fight the federal govt in court to set a precedent on this.
     

    TexasT

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 20, 2009
    37
    1
    NE Texas
    TexasT,
    Your CHL isn't carried, issued or approved by the Feds - that's a state matter. If you're thinking about reciprocity then that's not governed by the Feds either as, even if you cross State Lines with the weapon FOR commerce, it isn't a vehicle in regards to that Commerce so their jurisdiction still doesn't apply. The states decide which other chl's they'll recognize and which they won't.

    What's interesting is the Gun Free Zones - do unfunded mandates count as "Federal Regulations"? I'm assuming the big aim for the legislation is the Background Checks, Unofficial BATFE registration etc. Unfortuantely, Texas might implement their own system there but who knows.

    Also, as I posted about earlier, Dealer Licensing. No more Federal Firearms Licenses required for guns manufactured solely in Texas. What about SBR's, AOW's and Suppressors? I didn't see an exemption in there for the rest of the NFA bullshit, just select fire.

    But you're right, there absolutely is some clarity that needs to be discussed as the devil is in the details.

    Good points...sounds like were on the same wavelength.
    so by this line of thought all states could do this independantly and circumvent the feds all together, and rely on state to state reciprocity.
     

    Texan2

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 8, 2008
    7,932
    21
    South of San Antonio
    Not like the legal pot law at all. Pot is illegal, period, it is not regulated with interstate commerce. It's just illegal.

    The subject here is that gun control legislation is all wrapped up in interstate commerce laws. If there is no interstate commerce going on, then federal restrictions do not apply. And they are right. A good lawyer for the states will win the ATF case when it is brought to court. Montana will be the first put to the test. I am watching this with great interest.

    I believe that his point was that while pot is illegal in Texas, it is legal under certain circumstances in other states (medical marijuana laws). Despite those state laws, the DEA still arrests and charges these folks with Federal crimes from time to time, despite the fact that there is no interstate commerce or state law being broken

    Using that comparison, would they still try to enforce Fed. law despite the fact that they shouldn't be doing so in respect to these proposed gun laws....???
     

    popo22

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 1, 2009
    174
    11
    Agreed, like so many other areas of the law, it will be so convoluted and subject to interpretation that it may all be lost in the minutia of the wording, leaving us to have to depend on case law and attorney's to give us an "unclear" answer. Unfortunately, my experience in dealing with law as a LEO for the past 20+ years leaves me skeptical, although hopeful. Good Luck.
     
    Top Bottom