New Texas Suppressor Bill Signed by Gov. Abbott

ndking1126

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
401
Following. I am one of those who believe the federal government currently has significantly more power than the founding fathers intended. They would have said yhe state of Texas should be able to make this law, and as long as the suppressor is never taken on federal land the citizen should be fine. As many others have said, I'm not willing to be the guinea pig cause that's not how things are right now. I can't think of any reason the comparison to not pursuing states allowing marijuana or shielding illegal immigrants isn't applicable (although I am certainly not a lawyer). This could end up being a huge court case that applies to the broader issues of states rights. I'd love to see the pendulum start to swing back away from the federal gov.
 
Last edited:

Pdyson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
155
Location
Brownwood Texas
I can’t wait to start building suppressors but until the Governor throws the ATF out of the state….I don’t see me starting anytime soon. It’ll will be fun shooting AR-15s with “made-in Texas” (non-NFA) suppressors alongside DPS Troopers and other state and local LEOS. It will be one hell of a BAR-B-Q and you are all invited!
 

Hecouldgoalltheway

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
1,070
Location
Tennessee
Bottom line is that federal law supersedes state law and the ATF doesn’t play games. Play with your right to own a gun at your own risk because a felony conviction for an illegal suppressor will cost you that right.
Federal law doesn't supercede state law..

There is this inconvenient document called the constitution that makes this point very clear.

If it didn't, we'd all be California by now..
 
Last edited:

Bullitthead

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
9
Location
shamrock tx
Federal law doesn't supercede state law..

There is this inconvenient document called the constitution that makes this point very clear.

If I'd didn't, we'd all be California by now..
Federal law doesn't supercede state law..

There is this inconvenient document called the constitution that makes this point very clear.

If I'd didn't, we'd all be California by now..
Supremacy Clause (Article VI Clause 2) of the constitution states that federal law supersedes state law whether we like it or not.
 

Muddyboots

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,958
Location
Michigan
Supremacy Clause (Article VI Clause 2) of the constitution states that federal law supersedes state law whether we like it or not.
Unfortunately this is correct. State law can be MORE stringent but it cannot be LESS stringent than Federal law. The only recourse is for a State to take it to Supreme Court for constitutional ruling.
 

lobo56

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
122
Location
Heart of Texas
Unfortunately this is correct. State law can be MORE stringent but it cannot be LESS stringent than Federal law. The only recourse is for a State to take it to Supreme Court for constitutional ruling.
Then why hasn't the Feds gone after all the states that legalized pot? It is a very "wishy-washy" line................
 

mnoland30

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
273
They quit teaching the constitution about the time they stopped following it. The Commerce Clause has been used and abused by the feds. Hopefully, someday, the SCOTUS will correct some of that. But big city folk watch too many movies where only assassins use "silencers" that are quieter than my pellet gun. When Rick Perry was running for president and they asked him which federal agency he would abolish, my answer would have been "so many, and so littel time". I'd start with Education, the ATF, Health & Human Services....
 

762x51

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
456
Location
NC
"The second bill, which Abbott signed on Tuesday, according to the state Legislature's webpage, exempts Texas-made suppressors, also known as silencers, from the National Firearms Act, a body of laws that in part require gun owners to register NFA items, including suppressors and short-barreled rifles, with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives before paying a $200 tax."


now that is cool - i hope NC follows suit soon. why a suppressor is treated as some dangerous device is absolutely beyond me. i blame hollywood for constantly portraying them as being absolutely silent which as we all know on here, they are not. i can't have a suppressor on my gun, but it's fine to put a bayonet on there that i could stab somebody with?
 

DWier

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
238
Location
Orlando, Florida
Be careful basing any protection from prosecution on the 10th ammendment. You are standing on the San Andreas fault during a tremor. Too much room for interpretation.
 

CombatDiver

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
8
Location
Utah
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed two bills this week that will allow Lone Star State residents to carry handguns without a permit and loosen regulations surrounding suppressors.

The Republican signed permitless carry legislation on Wednesday after it cleared the state Senate in early May by an 18-13 vote and the state House with an 84-56 vote. The law, which implements what is commonly referred to as "constitutional carry," allows Texans over 21 to carry their firearms if they're not precluded from owning weapons due to prior criminal history.

The second bill, which Abbott signed on Tuesday, according to the state Legislature's webpage, exempts Texas-made suppressors, also known as silencers, from the National Firearms Act, a body of laws that in part require gun owners to register NFA items, including suppressors and short-barreled rifles, with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives before paying a $200 tax.

Bill:



According to a lawyer friend it doesn't require a sacrificial patriot to test the law. Just patience while it goes through the legal process. It should be evaluated by the higher courts upon request to see if it has merit and whether or not it will protect citizens. This seems strange for something that the Constitution was clear about not being infringed.
 

griz375

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
23
This passed in Alaska with 100% support of both the House and Senate.

HB0069b -1- CSHB 69(JUD)
New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
28-LS0290\P
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 69(JUD)
IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
TWENTY-EIGHTH LEGISLATURE - FIRST SESSION
BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Offered: 2/20/13
Referred: Rules
Sponsor(s): REPRESENTATIVES CHENAULT, Millett, Johnson, Tammie Wilson, Hawker, Olson, Feige,
Peggy Wilson, Thompson, Keller, Gattis, Lynn, Saddler, Higgins, LeDoux, Foster, Hughes, Stoltze, Reinbold,
Tuck, Neuman, Isaacson
A BILL
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED
1 "An Act exempting certain firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in this state
2 from federal regulation; declaring certain federal statutes, regulations, rules, and orders
3 unconstitutional under the Constitution of the United States and unenforceable in this
4 state; providing criminal penalties for federal officials who enforce or attempt to enforce
5 a federal statute, regulation, rule, or order regulating certain firearms and firearm
6 accessories in this state; and providing for an effective date."
7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
8 * Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section
9 to read:
10 FINDINGS. The legislature finds that
11 (1) a statute, regulation, rule, or order that has the purpose, intent, or effect of
12 confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm,
13 imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, or requiring the
28-LS0290\P
HB0069b -3- CSHB 69(JUD)
New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
1 is possessed in this state or manufactured in this state from basic materials and that
2 can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from
3 another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or
4 consumer product applications are not firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition,
5 and their importation into this state and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm
6 accessory, or ammunition manufactured in this state does not subject the firearm,
7 firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. Basic materials, such as
8 unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearm accessories, or
9 ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearm
10 accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually
11 firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. The authority of the United States
12 Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority
13 to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition possessed in this state or
14 made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are imported into this
15 state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate
16 commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce
17 because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in this state.
18 * Sec. 4. AS 44.99.500(d) is amended to read:
19 (d) The attorney general may defend a citizen of this state who is prosecuted
20 by the government of the United States under the congressional power to regulate
21 interstate commerce for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale,
22 transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition possessed in
23 this state or manufactured and retained within this state.
24 * Sec. 5. AS 44.99.500 is amended by adding new subsections to read:
25 (f) A federal statute, regulation, rule, or order adopted, enacted, or otherwise
26 effective on or after the effective date of this Act is unenforceable in this state by an
27 official, agent, or employee of this state, a municipality, or the federal government if
28 the federal statute, regulation, rule, or order attempts to
29 (1) ban or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or a magazine
30 of a firearm; or
31 (2) require a firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be,
1 registered.
2 (g) An official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or
3 attempts to enforce a federal statute, regulation, rule, or order unenforceable under (f)
4 of this section is guilty of a class C felony and may be punished as provided in
5 AS 12.55.
6 * Sec. 6. This Act takes effect immediately under AS 01.10.070(c
 
Top