Texas Suppressor Law

[Vaquero]

Interesting

What did they say?
I gave up.

 

[cycleguy2300]

What did they say?
I gave up.

Basically the feds know argument on 2A grounds will lose so they are arguing a can isnt a firearm and therefore taxable and since you cannot receive injunctive relief for taxes the suit is moot.

I think we have a really good chance of it succeeding and a chance the court will find any taxation is infringement and open the door to the NFA/GCA going away

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

What did they say?
I gave up.

Federal argument is sucky, but both sides will end up appealing to SCOTUS and NFA will get overturned*.

*Editorial comment: Or upheld.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Basically the feds know argument on 2A grounds will lose so they are arguing a can isnt a firearm and therefore taxable and since you cannot receive injunctive relief for taxes the suit is moot.

I think we have a really good chance of it succeeding and a chance the court will find any taxation is infringement and open the door to the NFA/GCA going away

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

In particular I like where they argued the suppressor isn't a firearm and can be taxed, but the document they use to justify taxing it declares it IS a firearm...

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

In particular I like where they argued the suppressor isn't a firearm and can be taxed, but the document they use to justify taxing it declares it IS a firearm...

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

Yep the gov isn’t going to give up that easily. What I see happening is that they may change the definition of it to no longer being a firearm, therefore no more 4473; which best case makes it so they can be purchased over the counter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Tnhawk]

Yep the gov isn’t going to give up that easily. What I see happening is that they may change the definition of it to no longer being a firearm, therefore no more 4473; which best case makes it so they can be purchased over the counter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The 4473 and tax stamp should be removed. If it isn't a firearm there should be no form or approval required to purchase or sell.

 

[gll]

The 4473 and tax stamp should be removed. If it isn't a firearm there should be no form or approval required to purchase or sell.

Except, not protected by 2A, they could be regulated/banned like lawn darts or 3-wheelers...

Probably wouldn't even require an act of congress, being administratively decided under chevron deference since it wouldnt involve a right.

Edit: I guess no law against owning lawn darts or 3-wheelers, just a ban on manufacture, but if not arms, it would still be easier for Fed to find a way to ban/regulate them.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Bumpstock, anybody? What about FRT triggers? Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Axxe55]

 

[Renegade]

I'll be looking forward to hear the SCOTUS ruling on this. It should be a slam dunk with Bruin decision, not to mention you can't tax a right.

Imagine if you had to pay a tax to cuss

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you cannot tax a right.

Media, gun companies and many others exercising 1st and 2nd amendment rights pay taxes. Consumers pay sales taxes to buy a gun, etc.

 

[motorcarman]

Already posted #239

 

[cycleguy2300]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you cannot tax a right.

Media, gun companies and many others exercising 1st and 2nd amendment rights pay taxes. Consumers pay sales taxes to buy a gun, etc.

Would taxing voting be considered an infringement of that unenumerated right?

If I must pay for permission it isnt a right.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Would taxing voting be considered an infringement of that unenumerated right?

If I must pay for permission it isnt a right.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

Paying for a right in any way makes it a privilege. and no longer a right.

 

[Renegade]

Would taxing voting be considered an infringement of that unenumerated right?

If I must pay for permission it isnt a right.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

Voting per se is not a Federal right.

In fact, for decades state legislatures determined who would serve in Congress, not the voters.

If a state does allow voting, then 26 amendment guarantees 18 year old the right to vote. And the 15th says you cannot deny it based on race etc., 19th on sex.

Today, only voting for Senators is a Federal right via the 17th.

eta

added some more context

 

[cycleguy2300]

Voting per se is not a Federal right.

In fact, for decades state legislatures determined who would serve in Congress, not the voters.

If a state does allow voting, then 26 amendment guarantees 18 year old the right to vote. And the 15th says you cannot deny it based on race etc., 19th on sex.

Today, only voting for Senators is a Federal right via the 17th.

eta

added some more context

Oh I hear ya.

I think the Senate should be elected by the legislature of the States they represent.

I am just saying a tax is by its nature and infringement (and not wrongly at times) and therefore a tax on a right is wrong.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Oh I hear ya.

I think the Senate should be elected by the legislature of the States they represent.

I am just saying a tax is by its nature and infringement (and not wrongly at times) and therefore a tax on a right is wrong.

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

IIRC, polling taxes were ruled to be unconstitutional in regards to voting.

Poll Taxes

americanhistory.si.edu

Poll taxes in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Otto_Mation]

A bit of an encouraging update. I find him difficult to listen to because of his repetitive cadence when he speaks but encouraging information never the less.

 

[benenglish]

A bit of an encouraging update. I find him difficult to listen to because of his repetitive cadence when he speaks but encouraging information never the less.

The expansion of powers under the Commerce Clause is so deeply rooted in the way this country works that rooting it out, if it happens, isn't something I'll live to see. He's being too positive when, at the end, he uses a basic throwaway line about how some justices want to see the Commerce Clause scaled back in effect.

 

[Gordo]

OK, so what happens now if Paxton is removed from office?
Will his replacement drop the the whole thing against the F-ing atf?
Is the case against Paxton a ploy to get him out of office just because of this whole suppressor deal?

 

[benenglish]

OK, so what happens now if Paxton is removed from office?

The names on top of the lawsuit paperwork filed in the future will change. That's about all I'd expect.