Texas SOT

Texas files new suit regarding supressors/NFA - Feb 6th 2023

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!
  • etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Skip to 1:30 mark



    Asking for summary judgement is like showing up wearing a nice suit. It's pretty much standard stuff. Sometimes it's a crock of crap, a litmus test to see if the judge is so far on your side that the judge is willing to skip everything and just put the verdict on his/her shoulders right then and there.

    So this isn't super meaningful or surprising at all. And imo the phrasing of the portion of the motion shown starting at 1:30 was quite clumsy, which sort of exposes that even Paxton isn't taking that part of the summary judgement request too seriously. He says that there's no historical regulation of suppressors, so the regulation of suppressors is unconstitutional.

    Well of course there's no historical tradition, "silencers" didn't exist until 100 years after the USA was founded. And that's exactly how the opposition will respond, and that's why that part of the motion for summary judgement is kind of a joke. Other parts might be awesome, I haven't read the motion.

    We all know that suppressors are firearms under federal law, and while there certainly were some firearms regulations going back to the Founding era, but none of them resembles the NFA in the slightest, so by the Bruen test, the NFA should die a horrible death, and that's what the judge will probably say if he/she decides to take the opportunity afforded by the motion for summary judgement. So agreement with the part of the motion at 1:30 in the video is very likely not going to happen, but there is a chance that the motion will be granted, most likely for other reasons that those specifically mentioned at 1:30.

    Again, I haven't read the motion itself, just commenting on the tiny piece of it at the time stamp mentioned by vmax.
     

    vmax

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 15, 2013
    17,302
    96
    Asking for summary judgement is like showing up wearing a nice suit. It's pretty much standard stuff. Sometimes it's a crock of crap, a litmus test to see if the judge is so far on your side that the judge is willing to skip everything and just put the verdict on his/her shoulders right then and there.

    So this isn't super meaningful or surprising at all. And imo the phrasing of the portion of the motion shown starting at 1:30 was quite clumsy, which sort of exposes that even Paxton isn't taking that part of the summary judgement request too seriously. He says that there's no historical regulation of suppressors, so the regulation of suppressors is unconstitutional.

    Well of course there's no historical tradition, "silencers" didn't exist until 100 years after the USA was founded. And that's exactly how the opposition will respond, and that's why that part of the motion for summary judgement is kind of a joke. Other parts might be awesome, I haven't read the motion.

    We all know that suppressors are firearms under federal law, and while there certainly were some firearms regulations going back to the Founding era, but none f them resembles the NFA in the slightest, so by the Bruen test, the NFA should die a horrible death, and that's what the judge will probably say if he/she decides to take the opportunity afforded by the motion for summary judgement. So agreement with the part of the motion at 1:30 in the video is very likely not going to happen, but there is a chance that the motion will be granted, most likely for other reasons that those specifically mentioned at 1:30.

    Again, I haven't read the motion itself, just commenting on the tiny piece of it at the time stamp mentioned by vmax.
    Should I just delete the thread now?
     

    Eastexasrick

    Isn't it pretty to think so.
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2022
    3,500
    96
    Naples TX.
    Its a 100 to 1 shot, but its still a shot. I think it is important that every suit, motion, or MSJ that can be filed should be. Look at the deluge of anti 2A laws being pass in the goofy States. Match it 2 for 1 in the Red States just to keep an even footing. All the challenges go down stream to the Federal Courts of Appeal, and on the then SCOTUS if necessary.
     

    vmax

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 15, 2013
    17,302
    96
    Its a 100 to 1 shot, but its still a shot. I think it is important that every suit, motion, or MSJ that can be filed should be. Look at the deluge of anti 2A laws being pass in the goofy States. Match it 2 for 1 in the Red States just to keep an even footing. All the challenges go down stream to the Federal Courts of Appeal, and on the then SCOTUS if necessary.
    In other words break it off in their damned asses.
     

    Eastexasrick

    Isn't it pretty to think so.
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2022
    3,500
    96
    Naples TX.
    In other words break it off in their damned asses.
    Thats right to the point.
    sharp stick.jpg
     
    Top Bottom