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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.