What if 5000 Texans joined their names to that intent... ?
That is what we said we needed to do back in August. Hopefully a lot more than 5000.What if 5000 Texans joined their names to that intent... ?
What happens if the case is lost?
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.
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?
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.
... 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.”
Whether silencers are Constitutionally protected or not is not before the court.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.
So, could we realistically expect a federal agency or court to respond appropriately to demonstrable facts and logical reasoning ?
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
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