Suppressor Bill

[AndiTurner]

I say this as respectful as possible but the one thing politicians need to do is stop with the career lip service. Things are so bad we don’t need more laws or promises. We need people who will publicly refuse to acknowledge the feds; to call them unconstitutional thugs.

Guns, taxes, spending, its time to leave the union.

I'm not sure why you think *I* would be offended! I listen to all points of view! How would I learn otherwise? That said, Rep Oliverson had a whole plan before the legislation was even passed but I'll let him talk about it.

And the other point I'll make is, not every politician is bad or makes promises they don't keep. I get wholly frustrated by the one's that don't stand up for what I believe in but I judge each one individually. Just as I would anyone.

But gosh, I have no problem with you having a point of view on something! Rock on, it's the American way!

 

[Sam7sf]

I'm not sure why you think *I* would be offended! I listen to all points of view! How would I learn otherwise? That said, Rep Oliverson had a whole plan before the legislation was even passed but I'll let him talk about it.

And the other point I'll make is, not every politician is bad or makes promises they don't keep. I get wholly frustrated by the one's that don't stand up for what I believe in but I judge each one individually. Just as I would anyone.

But gosh, I have no problem with you having a point of view on something! Rock on, it's the American way!

No worries. Just making sure I came off right as I have a lot of negative things to say about politicians. As I mentioned plenty of times elsewhere on tgt politicians are equal to a car salesmen.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Yes it does. I guess I've been suppressed for too long and I'm down-playing the amount of flash that comes out the end of a barrel. And yes, your eye would pick up on that pretty quick.

Thanks Todd.

Wish I had thought of it sooner, but thunder/lightning is the easiest analogy I can think of.

 

[Southpaw]

Too bad the average person don't realize that suppressors aren't "JOHN WICK" quiet.

You mean like this idiot?



David Harris from Austin-“I think I would have heard gunshots next door if she was using a 9mm, so the shooter must have used a suppressor,”

Neighbors suggest silencer may have been used in cyclist Moriah Wilson’s killing

Cyclist Anna Moriah “Mo” Wilson was allegedly killed at her Austin, Texas home on the evening of May 11.

nypost.com

 

[AndiTurner]

Too bad the average person don't realize that suppressors aren't "JOHN WICK" quiet.

I ran across a version of this awhile back where they did the movie clip vs reality and now I can't find it. Here's another version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws8LAfD_3BA&t=1s

 

[etmo]

not every politician is bad or makes promises they don't keep. I get wholly frustrated by the one's that don't stand up for what I believe in but I judge each one individually.

This is much more true than many people realize. Our government was designed to make passing laws difficult. Gridlock in Congress is a feature of our system, not a problem. The Founders wanted it to be tough to change the system of protected liberties they established, so that if a change was made, we could be assured that the change was favored by most.

Politicians say they will work to do X, and most of them do, but a politician alone can never pass a law -- the system is supposed to be too hard for any single person to change it. So we can't always blame a politician for not changing this or that. Perhaps they tried their very best! It requires coalition-building, horse-trading and all kinds of unholy "you vote for my bill, and I'll back yours" alliances to have any chance of even getting into a committee, and eventually, when if a bill is lucky enough to make it to a floor vote, if any Congresscritter so much as sniffs a chance that taking a position on a bill will hurt their chances of re-election, they'll drop it like a hot potato.

Getting elected to a Congressional seat takes years of hard work, and piles of money, most of which comes from people and companies you care about. We're all pro-2A here, so if we ran for office, we'd get money from pro-2A people and pro-2A corporations. It's natural to want to help those people, and if you lose re-election, you can't help anyone, can you? You just tossed all that support and time into the garbage. So it's a different perspective than most of us have. The politicians want to help, but they don't want to lose their chance to help. They want to be around so that when the time is right, they can be part of the solution, not commit suicide trying to roll a boulder uphill all by themselves.

Getting laws passed requires a team effort, that's just the way our system was designed, and most Americans are such spoiled brats that if they don't get whatever they're crying for within 90 seconds they throw a hissy fit. Effecting political change is not for such people.

Anyways, the Texas Suppressor law is, in the end, a Good Thing. You just have to understand what it is really intended to do. It was intended to serve as a vehicle to transport a legal challenge before SCOTUS, nothing more. This legal challenge will have the weight of States rights behind it, and if the pro-Federalism decision rumored to be forthcoming regarding abortion is any indication, then it might be a challenge that meets with a favorable SCOTUS.

The current administration in Texas obviously likes this strategy. They had success with this strategy as we saw in the abortion lawsuit law -- think about it from a State perspective (in the case of the abortion lawsuit law, the thought was to keep all representatives of the State out of the equation, and it stood up to all legal challenges).

In fact, they had so much success that now anti-2A crapholes like NY are using it as a template. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

So we know this administration is thinking from a Federalist perspective, state vs fed. Plus, they had the advantage of seeing Montana fall on its face, so they were able to add a tweak. This bill will expedite a challenge before SCOTUS and it won't require a Texan to spend a decade of his/her life, end up in the crosshairs of the government, and have to find huge $$$ to fund a legal challenge all the way up the ladder.

None of that changes the fact that this challenge faces long odds. It'll probably get crushed. But it's one of the few avenues available to us (unless you think you can convince enough Americans to elect Congresscritters in sufficient numbers to repeal the NFA/pass the Hearing Protection Act/etc), so it's worth trying.

 

[AndiTurner]

This is much more true than many people realize. Our government was designed to make passing laws difficult. Gridlock in Congress is a feature of our system, not a problem. The Founders wanted it to be tough to change the system of protected liberties they established, so that if a change was made, we could be assured that the change was favored by most.

Politicians say they will work to do X, and most of them do, but a politician alone can never pass a law -- the system is supposed to be too hard for any single person to change it. So we can't always blame a politician for not changing this or that. Perhaps they tried their very best! It requires coalition-building, horse-trading and all kinds of unholy "you vote for my bill, and I'll back yours" alliances to have any chance of even getting into a committee, and eventually, when if a bill is lucky enough to make it to a floor vote, if any Congresscritter so much as sniffs a chance that taking a position on a bill will hurt their chances of re-election, they'll drop it like a hot potato.

Getting elected to a Congressional seat takes years of hard work, and piles of money, most of which comes from people and companies you care about. We're all pro-2A here, so if we ran for office, we'd get money from pro-2A people and pro-2A corporations. It's natural to want to help those people, and if you lose re-election, you can't help anyone, can you? You just tossed all that support and time into the garbage. So it's a different perspective than most of us have. The politicians want to help, but they don't want to lose their chance to help. They want to be around so that when the time is right, they can be part of the solution, not commit suicide trying to roll a boulder uphill all by themselves.

Getting laws passed requires a team effort, that's just the way our system was designed, and most Americans are such spoiled brats that if they don't get whatever they're crying for within 90 seconds they throw a hissy fit. Effecting political change is not for such people.

Anyways, the Texas Suppressor law is, in the end, a Good Thing. You just have to understand what it is really intended to do. It was intended to serve as a vehicle to transport a legal challenge before SCOTUS, nothing more. This legal challenge will have the weight of States rights behind it, and if the pro-Federalism decision rumored to be forthcoming regarding abortion is any indication, then it might be a challenge that meets with a favorable SCOTUS.

The current administration in Texas obviously likes this strategy. They had success with this strategy as we saw in the abortion lawsuit law -- think about it from a State perspective (in the case of the abortion lawsuit law, the thought was to keep all representatives of the State out of the equation, and it stood up to all legal challenges).

In fact, they had so much success that now anti-2A crapholes like NY are using it as a template. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

So we know this administration is thinking from a Federalist perspective, state vs fed. Plus, they had the advantage of seeing Montana fall on its face, so they were able to add a tweak. This bill will expedite a challenge before SCOTUS and it won't require a Texan to spend a decade of his/her life, end up in the crosshairs of the government, and have to find huge $$$ to fund a legal challenge all the way up the ladder.

None of that changes the fact that this challenge faces long odds. It'll probably get crushed. But it's one of the few avenues available to us (unless you think you can convince enough Americans to elect Congresscritters in sufficient numbers to repeal the NFA/pass the Hearing Protection Act/etc), so it's worth trying.

You are so very right on how the system works! I wrote about getting bills passed in Austin recently for the TSRA magazine -the next edition actually. You put this so well and I wish I had hammered the point about Gridlock being a good thing home in my article. Kudo's to you, Sir!

 

[V-Tach]

Long story short............ATF/DOJ motion to dismiss Texas lawsuit over Texas made suppressors is denied. Texas AG lawsuit against ATF/DOJ is still alive.....

 

[Vaquero]

Yee haawww!!!

 

[Vaquero]

He said "mute" a lot.
Heh

 

[AndiTurner]

Long story short............ATF/DOJ motion to dismiss Texas lawsuit over Texas made suppressors is denied. Texas AG lawsuit against ATF/DOJ is still alive.....

Quick question--is this gentleman a lawyer? I knew about the status of the case but he presents this case as if ATF sued Texas.

I *BELIEVE* this is case required under HB 957 where the first start for building a Texas made suppressor is for the state of Texas to seek a declaratory judgement. (Meaning that, it gives the state standing in the case.)

Also, do keep in mind that if we make the legal hurdle, the suppressor has to be wholly made of Texas materials unless it is a part in common use--like a screw that could be used in a chair or a desk).

He is definitely right about one thing for sure--don't go making them until this is all done or you could be in large trouble!!!!

 

[jak]

Isn't there a US law against marijuana but it's "legal" in some states?
How would this be different?

THC ... towards higher conciseness
BTW I just purchased legal MJ in Tx. For my terminally ill sister. You have to be dieing to be approved.

 

[Darkpriest667]

THC ... towards higher conciseness
BTW I just purchased legal MJ in Tx. For my terminally ill sister. You have to be dieing to be approved.

Yes and as a libertarian marijuana laws are ridiculous (most laws are.) I haven't touched the stuff in 15 years, but if people want to do drugs it's their business as long as they are not committing offenses against other folks.

Frankly the Federal government has no business regulating drug laws or most laws.

The NFA is unconstitutional and hopefully the politicians in texas get some guts and challenge it.

 

[etmo]

Quick question--is this gentleman a lawyer? I knew about the status of the case but he presents this case as if ATF sued Texas.

Yes he is, but he is not licensed in Texas, only California. Anyways, if you listen at about 36 seconds into the video he says, "The State of Texas is suing the ATF..." and he repeats it at 7:30 "so this lawsuit by the state of Texas against the ATF is going to proceed forward..."

He makes it clear that the ATF filed a motion to dismiss in response to Texas' lawsuit. Not sure how you got the idea that he's presenting this as if the ATF has sued Texas, can you cite a time in the video where he says something along those lines?

 

[AndiTurner]

Yes he is, but he is not licensed in Texas, only California. Anyways, if you listen at about 36 seconds into the video he says, "The State of Texas is suing the ATF..." and he repeats it at 7:30 "so this lawsuit by the state of Texas against the ATF is going to proceed forward..."

He makes it clear that the ATF filed a motion to dismiss in response to Texas' lawsuit. Not sure how you got the idea that he's presenting this as if the ATF has sued Texas, can you cite a time in the video where he says something along those lines?

Just saw this. I'm out of town on a family matter at the moment. Let me review the video again but I feel like what I was thinking at the time was that this was being confused with another case.

I could very well be mistaken in my thoughts--I am not perfect nor do I pretend to be!

 

[DestroyerTDS]

Long story short............ATF/DOJ motion to dismiss Texas lawsuit over Texas made suppressors is denied. Texas AG lawsuit against ATF/DOJ is still alive.....

This seems to be the latest forum for this topic, did this case ever get decided? Can we go out and get a suppressor without ATF approval?

 

[candcallen]

This seems to be the latest forum for this topic, did this case ever get decided? Can we go out and get a suppressor without ATF approval?

No.

No one will sell you one. One can make one probably and being that it's illegal to do without atf approval I'll donate a few bucks to your defense for being another test case. That person who is then a felon deserves something for taking one for the home team.

I am in no way suggesting you do this as it's illegal and as such suggesting you do is against forum rules and possibly conspiracy laws.

So again the answer is no it's illegal.

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

This seems to be the latest forum for this topic, did this case ever get decided? Can we go out and get a suppressor without ATF approval?

IF this ever gets through the courts and approved it will be years from now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Skeezix]

No.

No one will sell you one. One can make one probably and being that it's illegal to do without atf approval I'll donate a few bucks to your defense for being another test case. That person who is then a felon deserves something for taking one for the home team.

I am in no way suggesting you do this as it's illegal and as such suggesting you do is against forum rules and possibly conspiracy laws.

So again the answer is no it's illegal.

Still illegal and still a no.

 

[Gordo]

Need a quarterly update on this s#it.
It's tormenting that I sit here with equipment that I could use to roll my own, but can't.

And it's bull that they can't be made 'John Wick' quiet.
Stop putting pellet gun size cans on 308s.
Seen a .22 can once, that all you would hear were the mechanical noises (hammer, firing pin spring), and the bullet hitting the target.