Lynx Defense

Texas AG files suit as per Texas Silencer 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!
  • toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    an as-applied challenge based on the 2A in the first count, that's good, it avoids getting crushed like Montana
    but then in the second count they're right back on that Commerce Clause horse -- I don't get it. How is there any hope down that path?

    Interestingly, they are the first suit of which I'm aware that is practically begging for intermediate scrutiny
    Justice Thomas is not a fan of levels of scrutiny....

    Praying for a victory, it'll be interesting to watch
     
    Last edited:

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    What if 5000 Texans joined their names to that intent... ?

    Not a question of numbers, even if all 30 million Texans signed their names. Either SCOTUS believes we have a right to "silencers" or we're back to having to ask and pay. We've already seen that SCOTUS believes the Commerce Clause to give the feds enough power to override any arguments about the parts only coming from one state and being used only in one state, and I personally think even trying that argument is just going to irritate SCOTUS, but we'll see.

    Where it does become a question of numbers is in the election of Congresscritters. If enough Americans were willing to vote for decent politicians who respected our civil rights (such as those in the Second Amendment), those politicians would happily repeal the NFA/GCA and we wouldn't have to beg SCOTUS for anything.
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Is there a process? What happens if the case is lost?

    There is a potential downside, depending on how the case is "lost"

    If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, they could then send down a decision stating that suppressors and similar firearm accessories are not protected by the 2A or any other mechanism, which would open the door for a full ban, even confiscation.

    Still, it's probably worth the gamble. Given that our next SCOTUS Justice is an affirmative-action moron chosen only for skin color and gender, not for competency, and given the fact that millions of children in leftist states like CA and NY are being brainwashed with critical race theory and similar leftist, anti-American values, the current SCOTUS is possibly the most favorable SCOTUS we will ever see in our lifetimes. Sure, it's possible all the conservative Justices will hang on, we'll win in 2024, and all the leftist Justices will immediately "retire" (please God make it so), but the odds are against us.

    It therefore makes sense to send everything up the flagpole ASAP.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,749
    96
    Texas
    There is a potential downside, depending on how the case is "lost"

    If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, they could then send down a decision stating that suppressors and similar firearm accessories are not protected by the 2A or any other mechanism, which would open the door for a full ban, even confiscation.

    Constitutionality is not before the court. So zero chance that can happen in this case.

    But yeah they could rule that way, in any of the *dozens* of other NFA cases that come before the court each year, and there is nothing we can do to prevent those cases. Th closest opportunity was the Kansas case, but they passed.

    We could win this at the district, then upheld at the 5th, and then SCOTUS declines to here is as they avoid gun cases like the plague.
     

    Grumps21

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 28, 2021
    4,032
    96
    Houston
    Q: what happens when something is banned and confiscated? Is the holder reimbursed for the loss? Say suppressors get banned. Would it owners be compensated for the $ paid for the stamp + cost of suppressor?
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,617
    96
    hill co.
    Q: what happens when something is banned and confiscated? Is the holder reimbursed for the loss? Say suppressors get banned. Would it owners be compensated for the $ paid for the stamp + cost of suppressor?

    You’ll destroy it at your own cost and be happy. And you will lick the jackboot of the thug who comes to ensure it’s been destroyed.

    (At least, that’s what’s expected of you)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Constitutionality is not before the court. So zero chance that can happen in this case.

    But yeah they could rule that way, in any of the *dozens* of other NFA cases that come before the court each year, and there is nothing we can do to prevent those cases. Th closest opportunity was the Kansas case, but they passed.

    We could win this at the district, then upheld at the 5th, and then SCOTUS declines to here is as they avoid gun cases like the plague.

    Not sure why you'd say constitutionality is not before the court -- if Paxton didn't put constitutionality before the Court, he'd be breaking the law. Putting Constitutionality before the Court is required by the Texas law itself, which says:
    ... the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in this state that Section 2.052 is consistent with the United States Constitution.”

    (emphasis mine)

    And that's what's really happening here, Paxton is obeying the law which requires him to seek a judgement that Section 2.052 is Constitutional.

    Agree that they can go any way they want regardless, and your scenario ending in SCOTUS declining to overturn a victory in the 5th is a good, realistic (not optimal, but realistic) scenario for victory. I'm sure that's why the law was written -- we get our best chances for a win at the District level, and after that it forces the anti-2A crowd to get a higher court to overturn the decision, which can be a very tough (and costly) row to hoe.

    I think it's a reasonable template for securing as much of our 2A rights as possible. Hopefully there's more to come on other fronts.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: gll

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,749
    96
    Texas
    Not sure why you'd say constitutionality is not before the court -- if Paxton didn't put constitutionality before the Court, he'd be breaking the law. Putting Constitutionality before the Court is required by the Texas law itself, which says:


    (emphasis mine)

    And that's what's really happening here, Paxton is obeying the law which requires him to seek a judgement that Section 2.052 is Constitutional.

    Agree that they can go any way they want regardless, and your scenario ending in SCOTUS declining to overturn a victory in the 5th is a good, realistic (not optimal, but realistic) scenario for victory. I'm sure that's why the law was written -- we get our best chances for a win at the District level, and after that it forces the anti-2A crowd to get a higher court to overturn the decision, which can be a very tough (and costly) row to hoe.

    I think it's a reasonable template for securing as much of our 2A rights as possible. Hopefully there's more to come on other fronts.
    Whether silencers are Constitutionally protected or not is not before the court.

    Of course Texas Law has to be Constitutional.
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    So, could we realistically expect a federal agency or court to respond appropriately to demonstrable facts and logical reasoning ?

    Depends on your definition of "appropriately"
    It seems appropriate to me that scum like AOC are tried for treason based on demonstrable facts and logical reasoning, ymmv

    Whether silencers are Constitutionally protected or not is not before the court.

    Of course Texas Law has to be Constitutional.

    Ah, now I gotcha. Thanks for the clarification
     

    leVieux

    TSRA/NRA Life Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Depends on your definition of "appropriately"
    It seems appropriate to me that scum like AOC are tried for treason based on demonstrable facts and logical reasoning, ymmv



    Ah, now I gotcha. Thanks for the clarification


    "Appropriately" in that case means following the clear terms of the U S Constitution and not finding some weasel way out of it !
     
    Top Bottom