Texas Suppressor Law

LaborLawPaul

Member
TGT Supporter
Jun 16, 2021
127
63
North Texas
Good we need a bonified lawyer back on this board. Are you ready to field all of our questions about the current state of Texas and Federal firearms laws? Cause we need someone that actually can speak to this.
I'm afraid I've already dug myself too deep a hole. That wheat case has always bothered me.
 

LaborLawPaul

Member
TGT Supporter
Jun 16, 2021
127
63
North Texas
Filburn has been getting whittled back.

The original Gun Free School Zone was thrown out over Interstate Commerce. It was re-written in such a manner "to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce". That is the goal here. As I already pointed out, it is a mistake to illegally make a silencer and then hope you do not get caught. You need to Go Tucker Act like Halbrook did.
Ah, I thought someone had mentioned it! It is a distinct exception to the general rule that darn near everything is interstate commerce. (Down to little things like whether a local delivery driver is delivering parts made out of State when considering FLSA overtime laws.)

And yes, I just want folks to know it is not safe to mess around outside the federal requirements for suppressors, new Texas law or not.
 

Renegade

SuperOwner
Mar 5, 2008
9,502
113
Texas
So, I all I mean to say is, that if the feds can regulate wheat, they can regulate your suppressors.
If you are caught with a registered suppressor made in Texas, never left texas, etc., in a school, do you think you can get a conviction under the Gun Free School zone?
 

cycleguy2300

Well-Known
Mar 19, 2010
2,157
113
Austin, Texas
Dunno? What’s the harm is submitting notification and if it gets shot down and you don’t manufacture the device?

On the other hand, I could see where an affirmative response could be appealed.
"Constructive intent"

Put away your shoelaces, plumbing supplies, and anything that could remotely resemble a suppressor, to probably include toiletpaper tubes...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
 

toddnjoyce

TGT Addict
Sep 27, 2017
11,337
113
Boerne
I'm afraid I've already dug myself too deep a whole. That wheat case has always bothered me.
Eh, no big deal. We had a great lawyer here who was probably the most experienced guy in the NFA space in the state and probably the US. Unfortunately, he left us (and his family) all too early.

There’s always value in a good discussion of the practical apsect of the law. For instance, there’s a recent discussion about the changes HB1927 makes to TPC 30.05. While the language change in the code says shop owners may provide notice…some groups are claiming a gunbuster icon fulfills the notice for trespass with a firearm.

I, and others, believe this is a too broad a view. My contention is TPC 30.05 clearly states notice is required, where notice is defined in the code as oral or written communication. If we’re going to debate shall/will vs may, then we sure as shît need to discuss whether or not an icon is considered written communication if there is no words or text involved.
 
Last edited:

Axxe55

MIA-BOLO.
Dec 15, 2019
19,964
113
Nowhere.....Just here in East Texas.
Thats called a baffle strike... nothing in a modern can should touch the bullet

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
I totally understand that. In a perfect world. I was dealing more in hypotheticals than what might actually happen.

I have not a clue that in the instance if a person uses a suppressor, (that isn't registered with the ATF.) and shoots an attacker, then removes the suppressor and hides it because technically the suppressor is illegal, just how much energy, time, and resources would be expended during the investigation as to determine a suppressor was mounted to the gun used to shoot another person.

As far as I know, such a case has never come up that I have heard of. I have read of cases where a person that was prohibited from possessing gun, used one in self defense, and they were found justified in the instance of using deadly force, but were convicted for possessing an illegal firearm.

It may be a case of if the investigation determines the shooting of an attacker was justified, that may be all that they care about. It may never go any further than that. But I'll assert again, I wouldn't want to gamble my freedom or rights on such thing myself.

Just as I have no plans on being a test case for this law either.
 

Axxe55

MIA-BOLO.
Dec 15, 2019
19,964
113
Nowhere.....Just here in East Texas.
"Constructive intent"

Put away your shoelaces, plumbing supplies, and anything that could remotely resemble a suppressor, to probably include toiletpaper tubes...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
Uh oh! Then the Feds are going have field day here at my house with all the empty two-liter soda bottles!
 

LaborLawPaul

Member
TGT Supporter
Jun 16, 2021
127
63
North Texas
If you are caught with a registered suppressor made in Texas, never left texas, etc., in a school, do you think you can get a conviction under the Gun Free School zone?
Lopez could be used to argue against federal authority over the matter; however, I do not think the Supreme Court will look at any of these cases any time in the near future because the Court recently refused to look at this issue. (Of course, the Court might pick this up if say perhaps the 5th Circuit argues that Lopez means that the feds do not have authority and reverses any suppressor-conviction that comes to it.) To me, the primary difference between Lopez (which remember is quite alone in this Commerce Clause context) and the sea of other Commerce Clause cases is that it is a stretch to argue that 1. not having guns near a school, somehow 2. impacts crime levels, which in turn 3. effects the economy between States.

It is more coherent to argue, in my opinion and even though I do not like it, that if you build your own suppressor, you will not need to buy one from someone who might be located out of your State, so you have impacted the "inter-State suppressor economy" as argued in Wickard. So if the Court ever did look at this issue and the arguments centered around Commerce Clause federal authority, I think it would come down on the side of Wickard and impose federal authority over suppressors.

I think the Wickard Court took federal authority too far and as I recall, this and other cases like it at the time, were the reaction of a Court frightened by FDR's threat to pack the Court.
 

Support

Sponsors

Greeneye Tactical
silencers
third coast
DK Firearms
Tyrant Designs
Ranier
Every Day Man
Shroud

Forum statistics

Threads
99,760
Messages
2,273,627
Members
31,585
Latest member
Cat Rotundo
Top Bottom