HB957 - ATF response on TX made Suppressors

[tvc184]

Your opinion is bull**** on a technicality and you know it.

NFA items are LEGAL when they are registered. Well no ****ing ****. Illegal NFA items are illegal. What a *******!

I never said you had to be a federal agent to request to see them. I understand why that was brought up. And YOU are making it sound like you’re perfectly ok with an officer arresting a guy you more than likely know is in possession of a legal NFA item. He shows you his paperwork and you’re gonna leave him alone right?

Your responses are why people have an issue with police and showing them anything. And don’t take that as I’m not a Leo supporter. I support them ALL.



Here’s a question. Do you support and agree with citizens owning machine guns, suppressors, SBRs, destructive devices, etc so long as they are legal? If not then why? And don’t get back on the bull**** that they aren’t legal. That’s false and you know it. They are legal when registered. You admitted this. Article proves it.

I must admit, that is pretty funny. You start off by saying my opinion is ***** (whatever that is) on a technicality. Aren’t all laws technicalities? Basically it means you agree with me but you don’t like the answer.

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.

Technically only a federal agent. Might not get too far not showing an officer and might get denied use of range if not shown to the RO but legally only have to show a fed boy

Even through your emotions you should clearly see that this person stated that legally you only have to show a federal agent the stamp. That is not correct. That is what I responded to.

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.

[tvc184]

Hopefully you get to read my last response before the thread gets removed

[trophy8]

I must admit, that is pretty funny. You start off by saying my opinion is ***** (whatever that is) on a technicality. Aren’t all laws technicalities? Basically it means you agree with me but you don’t like the answer.

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.



Even through your emotions you should clearly see that this person stated that legally you only have to show a federal agent the stamp. That is not correct. That is what I responded to.

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.

Thanks for answering the question.

The state basically says “unregistered NFA items are illegal”. Was my point. Pretty obvious law. Prove ownership and then being legal and you’re golden. Pretty cut and dry. You drug that out like no other.

[M16]

I agree at the state level but with the FED it's a whole different ballgame. They never let go of any firearm related stuff and will go above and beyond to hang yo butt.

Really. Tens of thousands of felons have tried to buy firearms. Filled out the paperwork and were denied. Which is a criminal offense. **** few if any have been arrested and convicted.

[texasforever]

Let’s further stir the pot on this topic. So with the new law going into effect on Sept 1 does that mean state/local LEO no longer have “probable cause” over suppressors? As I read the bill that’s the way I interpret it and is also how I think this bill will open the door for many to suppressor ownership without worrying about sheriff John down the road hauling him off for no stamp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[muzzlebrake]

Really. Tens of thousands of felons have tried to buy firearms. Filled out the paperwork and were denied. Which is a criminal offense. **** few if any have been arrested and convicted.

Technicality

[Quackerbox]

Really. Tens of thousands of felons have tried to buy firearms. Filled out the paperwork and were denied. Which is a criminal offense. **** few if any have been arrested and convicted.

I stood and listened to the atf proceed a guy on a handgun purchase that put completely different SSN on his 4473 than the week before. Thankfully it was a small shop and caught it

Let’s further stir the pot on this topic. So with the new law going into effect on Sept 1 does that mean state/local LEO no longer have “probable cause” over suppressors? As I read the bill that’s the way I interpret it and is also how I think this bill will open the door for many to suppressor ownership without worrying about sheriff John down the road hauling him off for no stamp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a member if LE, and from experience, you don't want small town or big town Fife who doesn't know squat about suppressors finding yours

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[texasforever]

I stood and listened to the atf proceed a guy on a handgun purchase that put completely different SSN on his 4473 than the week before. Thankfully it was a small shop and caught itAs a member if LE, and from experience, you don't want small town or big town Fife who doesn't know squat about suppressors finding yours

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I believe this more than I’d like to admit, it’s the same way with AR pistols. Just wondering what law will be once it’s enacted if they would have probable cause just for seeing it like the man above me has stated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[camoclad]

Thanks for answering the question.

The state basically says “unregistered NFA items are illegal”. Was my point. Pretty obvious law. Prove ownership and then being legal and you’re golden. Pretty cut and dry. You drug that out like no other.

Lol. You beleive in innocent until proven guilty. So pre 2020....

[HTOWN]

This all gave me a effin headache, where is the Midol good lord.

[Drycreek3189]

So…..as I said in post #7……. business as usual !

[tvc184]

Let’s further stir the pot on this topic. So with the new law going into effect on Sept 1 does that mean state/local LEO no longer have “probable cause” over suppressors? As I read the bill that’s the way I interpret it and is also how I think this bill will open the door for many to suppressor ownership without worrying about sheriff John down the road hauling him off for no stamp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is a very good question. Here is my 2cents that’s worth about a penny.

If it isn’t against Texas law, in my opinion a Texas officer has no reasonable suspicion to detain someone. (Probable cause is not required)

So when the new law goes into effect, are suppressers legal? Are only some suppressors legal? If all suppressors are legal (which they won’t be) them an officer would have no authority…. Unless he is acting under the authority of a federal agent. The feds basically deputize some state licensed officers. I at one time carried US Customs authorization. Let’s stick with the state for now. Since probably only “some” suppressors will be legal under state law, I think any suppressors might easily ride to the level of reasonable suspicion.

According his this plays out, I think it will end up being a decision for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (Texas supreme court for criminal laws)

[texasforever]

That is a very good question. Here is my 2cents that’s worth about a penny.

If it isn’t against Texas law, in my opinion a Texas officer has no reasonable suspicion to detain someone. (Probable cause is not required)

So when the new law goes into effect, are suppressers legal? Are only some suppressors legal? If all suppressors are legal (which they won’t be) them an officer would have no authority…. Unless he is acting under the authority of a federal agent. The feds basically deputize some state licensed officers. I at one time carried US Customs authorization. Let’s stick with the state for now. Since probably only “some” suppressors will be legal under state law, I think any suppressors might easily ride to the level of reasonable suspicion.

According his this plays out, I think it will end up being a decision for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (Texas supreme court for criminal laws)

Taken directly from the bill

SUBCHAPTER C. ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS
PROHIBITED
Sec. 2.101. APPLICABILITY. This subchapter applies to:
(1) the State of Texas, including an agency,
department, commission, bureau, board, office, council, court, or
other entity that is in any branch of state government and that is
created by the constitution or a statute of this state, including a
university system or a system of higher education;
(2) the governing body of a municipality, county, or
special district or authority;
(3) an officer, employee, or other body that is part of
a municipality, county, or special district or authority, including
a sheriff, municipal police department, municipal attorney, or
county attorney; and
(4) a district attorney or criminal district attorney.
Sec. 2.102. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY REGARDING
ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARM LAWS. (a) An entity described by
Section 2.101 may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance, or policy
under which the entity enforces, or by consistent action allows the
enforcement of, a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation that
purports to regulate a firearm suppressor if the statute, order,
rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other
regulation that does not exist under the laws of this state.
(b) No entity described by Section 2.101 and no person
employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the
entity may enforce or attempt to enforce any federal statute,
order, rule, or regulation described by Subsection (a).



As I read this it does state that all local/state employed officers don’t have a stake in it anymore. Quite possibly could be wrong, but that is how it reads to the common person. Would be nice to have clarification on this aspect by someone who can interpret legal mumbo jumbo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tvc184]

Taken directly from the bill

SUBCHAPTER C. ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS
PROHIBITED
Sec. 2.101. APPLICABILITY. This subchapter applies to:
(1) the State of Texas, including an agency,
department, commission, bureau, board, office, council, court, or
other entity that is in any branch of state government and that is
created by the constitution or a statute of this state, including a
university system or a system of higher education;
(2) the governing body of a municipality, county, or
special district or authority;
(3) an officer, employee, or other body that is part of
a municipality, county, or special district or authority, including
a sheriff, municipal police department, municipal attorney, or
county attorney; and
(4) a district attorney or criminal district attorney.
Sec. 2.102. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY REGARDING
ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARM LAWS. (a) An entity described by
Section 2.101 may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance, or policy
under which the entity enforces, or by consistent action allows the
enforcement of, a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation that
purports to regulate a firearm suppressor if the statute, order,
rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other
regulation that does not exist under the laws of this state.
(b) No entity described by Section 2.101 and no person
employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the
entity may enforce or attempt to enforce any federal statute,
order, rule, or regulation described by Subsection (a).



As I read this it does state that all local/state employed officers don’t have a stake in it anymore. Quite possibly could be wrong, but that is how it reads to the common person. Would be nice to have clarification on this aspect by someone who can interpret legal mumbo jumbo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe that you misunderstood that law. That law says that a state licensed officer cannot enforce federal law. Like I said in my previous post, suppressors do not become legal in Texas. I haven’t read it in about a month but I believe the way the law reads is that a lawful suppressor has to be made in Texas and has to have the word Texas stamped on it.

A Texas police officer can check into a suppressor’s legality because I imagine there are thousands suppressors currently in Texas that do not comply with the new law.

So, suppressors do not become legal September 1. Certain suppressors may become legal. It will still be a crime under Texas law to possess a suppressor unless it meets the aforementioned qualifications.

[dphillips62]

Give it some time Paxton is asking for a federal judge ruling on the new law. Until then don't push your luck with Feds or local Leo