Originally posted by trophy8
View Post
But let’s move along…
Next and more important, I was not responding to you on the federal agent thing. Here is the quote that I responded to.
Originally posted by texasforever
View Post
The article that you cited says exactly the same thing. So if you think my opinion is **** ***** ****** (or however many disguised profanities you want to add), you need to say the same thing about your reference article.
NFA firearms and accessories are illegal in Texas as the basic law. There was a defense to prosecution that if you possess a tax stamp, you can overcome this law. For about 99.99% of people in Texas, owning any NFA item is a crime.
By your rationale, murder is legal in Texas. Why? Because there is a defense of prosecution in Texas if you kill someone. So if you kill someone, it is legal? The answer is no. It might very well be legal if it was in self-defense but the burden is on you to show that. The basic law in Texas says that if you kill someone intentionally, it is murder. It is the exact same way with an NFA item. The basic law says that it is a crime but just like murder there is a defense available if you can show that defense.
Officers at the moment of a detention or an arrest, do not have to deal at all with a defense to prosecution. The law states (and your article concurs) that a defense to prosecution has to be brought up court. The police or the DA are not required to bring up anything. What the article implies about court is incorrect however. It says that in a defense to prosecution has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the state. That is not “technically” correct (remember all laws are technicalities) because the law on defense to prosecution says that the defendant has to bring up evidence of the defense at a trial. IF….. (here comes another technicality)…. IF The defendant brings up evidence of a defense to prosecution, THEN The state has to disprove the defense be all day reasonable doubt. The burden is on the defendant to bring up some evidence however.
So going back to my original statement that apparently caused this sidebar, a Texas police officer can lawfully ask to see your NFA stamp or make a lawful arrest. The DA can bring you to trial and convict you of a crime unless you can show that stamp. Under those “technicalities”, the statement that you only have to show a federal tax stamp to a federal agent (made by someone other than you) is incorrect.
Oops, I forgot to answer your closing questions.
I have possessed and carried NFA items such as machine guns and suppressors and short barrel rifles. I have absolutely no issue with anyone having them and I have no problem with them changing the law to where it is not required.
IN FACT (hoping you don’t miss this), if you go back to post #43 on the previous page in this very thread, you will see my legal argument that can maybe defeat the NFA entirely in front of the Supreme Court. I use prior caselaw to show that the Supreme Court in a recent decision overturned the NFA rationale from an earlier decision. (Heller in my opinion overturns the premise of Miller which is what is currently relied upon to make the NFA legal)
It would be entirely wrong to say that I am against NFA items and that I do not support private ownership of them.
I generally try to answer legal questions in my opinion in a non-emotional response. I do not always agree with the laws that I cite however they are the law. I am fairly confident where I stand “legally” when I ask questions.
Comment