Gun Zone Deals

Texas Suppressor 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!
  • smschulz

    Paid for CUT
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 13, 2008
    546
    11
    Houston, Texas
    Seems like there are a few that don't like it that Texas just signed this law and by that I mean all of those that willfully submit to the Government tyranny by paying the $200, waiting for ever to have permission and living in fear if they do not comply.
    Not saying those aren't valid but unless we stand up then all we can to is submit and comply.

    So the question is are there going to be Texas Suppressor makers and sellers willing to sell to the Texas General Public?

    Is the game warden going to hunt you down and ask for papers when you are out hunting with these?

    Are there going to be Fed's staked out at the shooting ranges?

    If all we ever do is slice off a portion of the Second Amendment then sooner or later nothing will be left and I for one am glad Texas is taking a bite back.
    Military Camp
     

    gll

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 22, 2016
    4,812
    96
    We'll just have to wait and see what this new law means for the future... Hopefully, it will end up reigning in the Fed!

    I think the best first test of it would be individuals registering their intent with the AG to manufacture their own. I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen on Sept. 1st.
     

    V-Tach

    Watching While the Sheep Graze
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Sep 30, 2012
    8,899
    96
    Texas
    I don't dislike the law that was passed.....I already own several suppressors....Having an FFL, I will not forego the tax stamp.....

    I doubt many completed suppressor "manufacturer's" will spring up..as soon as some dipshit gets caught with one in another State from that manufacturer...The Fed's will jump on them hot and heavy......
     

    gll

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 22, 2016
    4,812
    96
    Keyboard commandos again. It's always easy for someone to tell others what they should be doing, or how to lead their lives, or how to throw away their rights and freedoms and to call them weak for complying with federal gun laws.

    Fact of the matter, how many people want to be the test cases to find out how much authority the new Texas law has? How many people have the money and resources to fight such a case all the way to the Supreme Court?

    Fact of the matter, is that several of these cases have already resulted in convictions, and the convictions upheld in higher courts when they were appealed.

    Pretty easy to criticize others from the keyboard.
    Won't be me..., but I do hope there are some who step up to test the new law. Great thing is, you won't actually have to build a silencer to register your intent to build one, and that intent is what the AG will act on, if I understand correctly. I expect it will still take money to advance the cases...
     

    gll

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 22, 2016
    4,812
    96
    You seem to be missing the point that no silencer has to be manufactured or possessed for this new law to be tested, thus there will be no case to be brought against the individual pursuing it.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,749
    96
    Texas
    Not saying those aren't valid but unless we stand up then all we can to is submit and comply.

    This law is how we are "standing up." You do not lose your gun rights all on one day, and you do not get them back all on one day either.

    The progress that has been made since that old hag lost re-election is enormous. In 1995 if I told you in less than 26 years, we will have not only CHL, but CHL with OC, PermitLess Carry, and silencers would no longer be illegal under Texas Law, you would have laughed and stopped serving me. Never mind all the other great things like MPA, etc.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,749
    96
    Texas
    So the question is are there going to be Texas Suppressor makers and sellers willing to sell to the Texas General Public?

    Is the game warden going to hunt you down and ask for papers when you are out hunting with these?

    Are there going to be Fed's staked out at the shooting ranges?

    F1 is the way to go. It takes effect 9/1 so you have immediate benefits. You make your silencer in Texas, stamp it accordingly, and YES the Game Warden has nothing to say.

    Anyone making an unregistered silencer before this has been allowed by the courts is a fool.

    But there has been plenty of push back on commerce clause. Recall one of the first prosecutions of the Gun Free School Zone law was overturned on commerce clause over reach.
     

    Sand Hills

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    106
    26
    Seguin
    You seem to be missing the point that no silencer has to be manufactured or possessed for this new law to be tested, thus there will be no case to be brought against the individual pursuing it.

    Just from reading the text of the law it does seem that it was explicitly written to a) not put an individual at jeopardy from the Feds, and b) put the resources of the Attorney General of Texas into tackling the "magic words" of "interstate commerce." I don't think actually building suppressor is the actual intent of the law, for now.
     

    smschulz

    Paid for CUT
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 13, 2008
    546
    11
    Houston, Texas
    Anyone making an unregistered silencer before this has been allowed by the courts is a fool.

    Are suppressors after Sept. 1, 2021 need to be registered? (Texas)
    Or are you saying this all has to go through the Supreme Court?
    On the latter if that is the case then you might as well forget that this law has any meaning, IMO.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,749
    96
    Texas
    Are suppressors after Sept. 1, 2021 need to be registered? (Texas)
    Or are you saying this all has to go through the Supreme Court?
    On the latter if that is the case then you might as well forget that this law has any meaning, IMO.

    Texas does not register silencers (or any guns), but it does require Federal Registration for NFA.

    After 9/1 Federal registration is not required if it complies with bill requirements.

    SCOTUS not required. For example, if District judge agrees and .gov does not appeal, we win.
     

    acidfly

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 4, 2021
    92
    26
    Kanagawa Japan
    I see this new law as nothing different than state legal marijuana and sanctuary cities for illegals. Focusing on state legalized marijuana, in Washington there are many grow businesses that are approved by the state and they sell to the state approved pot stores (sodas, candy, gummies, liquid THC, salve balms). This is all against the federal law but the feds arn't doing anything about it. So the million dollar question is will the Feds also turn a blind eye on Texas made suppressors?
     

    LaborLawPaul

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2021
    193
    46
    North Texas
    We live in a tyrannical nation state. This is evidenced by the arbitrary and capricious manner in which written law is enforced and the fact that the 10th Amendment is now largely ignored. This is nothing new, but it is getting harder and harder to ignore. So, with the current crop of persons running the executive and judicial branches of the federal government, do you think federal law will be applied with equal vigor to marijuana shops as it will be against those involved with anything firearm related? It seems to me that the folks in charge prefer We the People good and doped up but are not inclined to let us remain armed.

    By the way, States essentially lost their sovereignty in 1942 when the Supreme Court used the Commerce Clause to opine that a Kansas farmer, growing wheat in Kansas, for his own personal use in Kansas, impacted interstate commerce to such an extent that the federal and not State government had the right to tell him what he could and could not grow. See Wickard v. Filburn, 37 US 111 (U.S. 1942).

    But in regards to silencers, we do not have to guess what will happen. There are people in prison right now because they had the audacity to rely on similar State laws that allowed in-State only manufacture and possession. The Supreme Court declined to hear a recent case, indicating that it has no intention to enforce State's rights in this area. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/b...nt-hear-case-challenging-silencer-regulation/ ("President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place.") So if the Trump administration was happy to let these citizens rot in prison, what do you think the current administration will do?

    Paxton and Abbott are aware of all of this. I can only figure the interstate silencer law is for re-election points, with Abbott in particular probably feeling a little Less-Than-DeSantis these days.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    ..Wickard v. Filburn, 37 US 111 (U.S. 1942).
    …There are people in prison right now because they had the audacity to rely on similar State laws..

    Are you a lawyer?

    The facts in Wickard don’t mesh with your narrative and neither Cox nor Kettler mentioned in the TTAG article are in prison right now. Both were sentenced to probation only and those sentences have been completed. They are however, both convicted felons and prohibited persons absent a Presidential pardon.
     

    LaborLawPaul

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2021
    193
    46
    North Texas
    Are you a lawyer?

    The facts in Wickard don’t mesh with your narrative and neither Cox nor Kettler mentioned in the TTAG article are in prison right now. Both were sentenced to probation only and those sentences have been completed. They are however, both convicted felons and prohibited persons absent a Presidential pardon.

    Yes, I am a lawyer.

    In regards to Wickard, what do you mean? Is this not an extension of federal power based upon the Commerce Clause? "The wheat marketing quota and attendant penalty provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by the Act of May 26, 1941, when applied to wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress. P. 317 U. S. 118." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/ (emphasis added).

    As to Cox and Kettler, I was unaware they were not imprisoned, but are just labeled felons for life. I have not researched the other convictions I have casually come across. Have you?

    So, other than incarceration status, where have I erred? My narrative is provided to illustrate the power of our federal government and to caution anyone against trusting their freedom with this State law. Do you propose otherwise?
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Yes, I am a lawyer.

    In regards to Wickard, what do you mean?
    To begin with Wickard took place in Ohio; all your references were to Kansas. Made me do a double take when reading the opinion.

    I also had a hard time seeing the line between 10A or intrastate commerce arguments in a case where the defendant intentionally and specifically stated his part of his excess crops were destined for interstate commerce.

    I’m not a lawyer…just a dude with some experience.
     

    Darkpriest667

    Actually Attends
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 13, 2017
    4,489
    96
    Jarrell TX, United States
    Yes, I am a lawyer.

    In regards to Wickard, what do you mean? Is this not an extension of federal power based upon the Commerce Clause? "The wheat marketing quota and attendant penalty provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by the Act of May 26, 1941, when applied to wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress. P. 317 U. S. 118." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/ (emphasis added).

    As to Cox and Kettler, I was unaware they were not imprisoned, but are just labeled felons for life. I have not researched the other convictions I have casually come across. Have you?

    So, other than incarceration status, where have I erred? My narrative is provided to illustrate the power of our federal government and to caution anyone against trusting their freedom with this State law. Do you propose otherwise?


    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.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,749
    96
    Texas
    By the way, States essentially lost their sovereignty in 1942 when the Supreme Court used the Commerce Clause to opine that a Kansas farmer, growing wheat in Kansas, for his own personal use in Kansas, impacted interstate commerce to such an extent that the federal and not State government had the right to tell him what he could and could not grow. See Wickard v. Filburn, 37 US 111 (U.S. 1942).

    But in regards to silencers, we do not have to guess what will happen. There are people in prison right now because they had the audacity to rely on similar State laws that allowed in-State only manufacture and possession.

    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.
     

    LaborLawPaul

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2021
    193
    46
    North Texas
    To begin with Wickard took place in Ohio; all your references were to Kansas. Made me do a double take when reading the opinion.

    I also had a hard time seeing the line between 10A or intrastate commerce arguments in a case where the defendant intentionally and specifically stated his part of his excess crops were destined for interstate commerce.

    I’m not a lawyer…just a dude with some experience.

    When I think of that case I mis-remember it being Kansas. You have corrected me again. Thank you.

    The States are sovereign, having taken their power from the King of England. The federal government was intended to be a body of limited powers. The 10th Amendment is intended to recognize this distinct difference.

    What we have seen is the federal government continually taking more and more power from the States. One way of doing so is by claiming that a certain matter is governed by the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause was designed to provide the federal government with authority over matters involving other nations and between the States - not matters within a State. That is why the new Texas suppressor law goes to great pains to describe how everything must stay in Texas. We see this intra v. inter State thread through all kinds of federal law.

    It is from Wickard that much of federal authority has blossomed using the Commerce Clause. Where the wheat was actually used was not at issue in the case (which you think it would be!) " The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated." In other words, the Court really did not care, it was going to find federal authority over crops.

    Instead, the Court opined that any production of wheat, whether in a State or among States, would impact the overall wheat economy and therefore the federal government had Constitutional authority to regulate it. In essence, the Court found a Commerce Clause exception to the 10th Amendment and have continued to do so in the vast majority of related cases.

    There is a firearm related exception in US v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995), which I believe someone referred to earlier. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/ Here, the Court found that the Commerce Clause did not extend to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. But Rehnquist and Scalia are no longer with us and as stated earlier, the Court has already passed on weighing in on suppressor convictions. The case remains a good reference when considering direct and indirect effects on commerce. (The government argued that the law did effect interstate commerce because it would reduce crime and crime impacts the overall economy.)

    The Lopez Court discussed Wickard quite a bit, here is a quote related to the discussion:

    "In Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942), this Court sustained the application of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to wheat that Filburn grew and consumed on his own local farm because, considered in its totality, (1) homegrown wheat may be "induced by rising prices" to "flow into the market and check price increases," and (2) even if it never actually enters the market, homegrown wheat nonetheless "supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market" and, in that sense, "competes with wheat in commerce.""

    So, I all I mean to say is, that if the feds can regulate wheat, they can regulate your suppressors.
     
    Top Bottom