New Texas Suppressor Bill Signed by Gov. Abbott

Muddyboots

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,528
Location
Michigan
Then why hasn't the Feds gone after all the states that legalized pot? It is a very "wishy-washy" line................
Pretty easy, liberal politics! So who is smoking? Are they going to "bite' the hand that elects them? The whole issue is also what direction is the political wind blowing. The hole card on all of this is whether any legislation is constitutional and if we have sitting judges who will rule on constitution AS IT WAS Written and not direction of political wind.

Which is also why our forefathers wrote the Bill of Rights to protect us. It is up to all of us to stand up and say no even at risk of our own freedom and financial futures. Our forefathers did and I hope we have enough sack to do the same.
 

Hecouldgoalltheway

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
981
Location
Tennessee
Supremacy Clause (Article VI Clause 2) of the constitution states that federal law supersedes state law whether we like it or not.
I just spent about 90 minutes reading about how the suprememcy clause has been used and abused in the past. It isn't nearly as cut and dry as saying that federal law supersedes state law. It is the ultimate grey area and the source of endless debate. There seems to be no scholarly or legal consensus of where it places authority. It just depends on who is sitting on the Supreme Court when a matter makes it to them where this is the central argument. Dozens of cases have gone both ways. It has definitely been used in the past to attack what should have been clearly protected by the 10th. One interesting article I read claims that the original language was only in place because some states where literally violating US treaties at the time, and they wrote it to stop states from acting essentially as their own countries and interacting with foreign entities in opposition to the deals made by what we now call the "federal government". Of course, nothing in the constitution allows for the creation of agencies like the ATF, or their ability to enforce felonies on people for using a device with a 35db sound reduction. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out..
 

Muddyboots

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,528
Location
Michigan
This is when we ALL need to barrage our representatives whether they are Democrat or Republican, doesn't matter. We need to tell them we will not forget at election time and they will be replaced. We can also write to the Supreme Court to express our rights.

BUT here is a recent ruling on the 4th Amendment in May that was unanimous (9-0) on illegal search and seizure. And in this case, the Supreme Court sided unanimously with the Constitution, and upheld a significant citizen right. The case was Caniglia v. Strom whose house was searched by officers without a warrant. When they were there, the cops seized two firearms, and without a search warrant.

Caniglia then sued law enforcement, arguing that the police had violated his Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure. The police argued the search had been conducted lawfully under the “community caretaking” exception.

The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a so-called exception to the Fourth Amendment called ‘community caretaking’ does not permit police officers to enter and search your home without first obtaining a search warrant, even if doing so may be in the public’s interest. This is really a big deal since it eliminates the so called "in the public interest" wild card used to violate your rights.

We do have recourse with the Supreme Court and hopefully they will continue to uphold the Constitution as it was written!
 

cohunt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
2,850
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
This is when we ALL need to barrage our representatives whether they are Democrat or Republican, doesn't matter. We need to tell them we will not forget at election time and they will be replaced. We can also write to the Supreme Court to express our rights.

BUT here is a recent ruling on the 4th Amendment in May that was unanimous (9-0) on illegal search and seizure. And in this case, the Supreme Court sided unanimously with the Constitution, and upheld a significant citizen right. The case was Caniglia v. Strom whose house was searched by officers without a warrant. When they were there, the cops seized two firearms, and without a search warrant.

Caniglia then sued law enforcement, arguing that the police had violated his Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure. The police argued the search had been conducted lawfully under the “community caretaking” exception.

The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a so-called exception to the Fourth Amendment called ‘community caretaking’ does not permit police officers to enter and search your home without first obtaining a search warrant, even if doing so may be in the public’s interest. This is really a big deal since it eliminates the so called "in the public interest" wild card used to violate your rights.

We do have recourse with the Supreme Court and hopefully they will continue to uphold the Constitution as it was written!
Wonder if that would be useful against the "red flag" search and seizure of firearms
 

Arkansasdad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
Messages
97
I don’t think that will exempt us from federal law and I’m not going to be the test case. I seem to recall this was done in other states, anyone recall how it turned out?
Actually the states that decided to make smoking dope legal have done just that. As far as I know there is no mention of the "right to a pothead" in the Constitution but the right to bear is. It is about time conservatives started using common sense and not following along doing what their told like "good little children". Happy shooting.
 

cohunt

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
2,850
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
Even though pot is legal in CO, I know a guy who was arrested on other federal charges here in co and possession and distribution of pot were add on charges in his federal case -- he served 2 years in fed prison --- so even if the feds don't directly come after "non nfa Texas suppressors", it is definitely an add on charge for other federal offenses
 

GameSniperLR

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
4
Location
NewEngland
If I traveled through Texas, which I do quite often, would I be able to purchase one, as a non resident? If yes, the next question would be, could I then transport it home to my state of residence? I'm thinking my state laws would still be in lockstep with the fed, so the guinea pig analogy is at the front of my mind.
This sounds like a Texas resident only bill, inspite of the new Constitutional Carry bill being an actual CC for ALL law abiding, eligible US citizens.
 

Clem Bronkoski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
253
Location
Locust Gap, PA
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:



I wonder is this only for TX residents? If I visit my daughter there, being a PA resident, can I purchase a TX made supressdor and use it in PA?
 

Bullitthead

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
9
Location
shamrock tx
There are two terms “de jure and de facto” de jure means by law and de facto means in fact for example the de jure speed limit is 75 mph but de facto you can usually get away with 80. Prosecutorial discretion is how we get these immigration, antifa, blm and a host of other problems because the government doesn’t choose to enforce those laws however I can guarantee the ATF will be overzealous in there prosecution of any NFA violations. As far as the supremacy clause as long as the federal law is deemed to be constitutional it will supersede state law. This is all back ground noise in my opinion the real fight is going to be with the over reaching executive orders that will be coming down the pike from the Biden administration.
 

tribb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2011
Messages
376
There are two terms “de jure and de facto” de jure means by law and de facto means in fact for example the de jure speed limit is 75 mph but de facto you can usually get away with 80. Prosecutorial discretion is how we get these immigration, antifa, blm and a host of other problems because the government doesn’t choose to enforce those laws however I can guarantee the ATF will be overzealous in there prosecution of any NFA violations. As far as the supremacy clause as long as the federal law is deemed to be constitutional it will supersede state law. This is all back ground noise in my opinion the real fight is going to be with the over reaching executive orders that will be coming down the pike from the Biden administration.
Absolutely
 

Recent Posts

Top