Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > The Other Side of the Ranch (Firearms)
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-01-2021, 11:10 AM   #51
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quackerbox View Post
Yes, but all those laws are federal. Ad mentioned, plenty of states go over that with weed

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
And that has been brought up time and time again. As you well know it is prosecutorial discretion. Because the DEA does not want to get tied up with a guy possessing a bag of marijuana, do you believe the United States government and in particular the current US Attorney General and president will overlook a firearms law and a tax law?

Can the US government ignore their own law? Absolutely.

Do you think the Biden administration and the current US Attorney General will do so?
tvc184 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 11:14 AM   #52
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muzzlebrake View Post
Feds don't enforce the Pot laws because there is nothing in it for them. NFA law is a tax and they never let a good tax get away from them. As I mentioned before IRS would also be all over this too and will never let up on getting their pound of flesh. IRS will prosecute a retired invalid on life support for a 5 dollar bill they think is owed and take his last possession to settle it.
Yes, it does not seem like a hard concept but apparently so.

Maybe the federal government will give in and say, we will just let Texas do what Texas wants to do. Heck, maybe the Texas legislature can say that we no longer have to pay federal income tax and the feds will simply go along with it.
tvc184 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 11:21 AM   #53
muzzlebrake
Pope & Young
 
muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Euless, Texas
Hunt In: Sterling County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvc184 View Post
Someone needs to step up, be convicted of the felony, probably go to prison and then see if they can get the case to the Supreme Court to overturn it.
Surely there is a bubba out there willing to test the water.
Getting it to the SCOTUS won't happen in my lifetime.
muzzlebrake is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 12:28 PM   #54
Quackerbox
Pope & Young
 
Quackerbox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Magnolia
Hunt In: The woods
Default

Even if someone got arrested. I don't see prison. We can't even keep murderers in jail

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Quackerbox is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 12:45 PM   #55
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quackerbox View Post
Even if someone got arrested. I don't see prison. We can't even keep murderers in jail

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
In the federal system?
tvc184 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 12:52 PM   #56
Quackerbox
Pope & Young
 
Quackerbox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Magnolia
Hunt In: The woods
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvc184 View Post
In the federal system?
Only testified in federal court once. It was an assault case that stemmed from a ship full of scrap metal that was bought and sold over the internet.

Never in fed Court for murder. 3 or 4 times a year locally

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Quackerbox is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 01:52 PM   #57
trophy8
Pope & Young
 
trophy8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Georgetown Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvc184 View Post
NFA items are not legal… UNLESS….. you have paid the required federal tax. Any police officer in Texas who sees a person in possession of an NFA item, on the face of it is witnessing a crime. The article you posted agrees with that. The headlines of the article do not but in the body of the report, it completely agrees that it is an incumbent upon the possessor of the NFA item, to produce the stamp.

In post #29 it says that law enforcement must have probable cause to see the text aunt. The NFA is a probable cause to see a tax stamp because Texas law says that it is illegal.

In post #31 it says that only a federal agent can ask for the tax stamp. The article that you posted from a gun rights organization overtuns that argument.

So I will stick with my opinion in post #36, you do not have to be a federal agent in order to ask to see a tax stamp that makes an NFA item legal. You do not have to be a federal agent to make an arrest for NFA irem because Texas law also has the same crimes listed.

NFA items are legal if you have the required tax stamp and a state licensed police officer has the authority to ask to see that stamp.
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.

Last edited by trophy8; 08-01-2021 at 01:55 PM.
trophy8 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 02:37 PM   #58
muzzlebrake
Pope & Young
 
muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Euless, Texas
Hunt In: Sterling County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quackerbox View Post
Even if someone got arrested. I don't see prison. We can't even keep murderers in jail

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
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.
muzzlebrake is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 02:52 PM   #59
Ætheling
Pope & Young
 
Ætheling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trophy8 View Post
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.
You know whats up. Obvious on every thread I have seen him/her post on. Chomping at the bit to exercise that authority.
Ætheling is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 02:53 PM   #60
trophy8
Pope & Young
 
trophy8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Georgetown Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ætheling View Post
You know whats up. Obvious on every thread.
Sarcasm gettin thick


Ah. Makes sense on the edit
trophy8 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 09:47 PM   #61
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trophy8 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasforever View Post
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 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 09:48 PM   #62
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

Hopefully you get to read my last response before the thread gets removed
tvc184 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 09:53 PM   #63
trophy8
Pope & Young
 
trophy8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Georgetown Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvc184 View Post
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.
trophy8 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-01-2021, 10:13 PM   #64
M16
Pope & Young
 
M16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Hunt In: Colorado, LaSalle, ,Menard Counties
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muzzlebrake View Post
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.
M16 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 07:48 AM   #65
texasforever
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: wharton
Hunt In: lavaca co.
Default

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
texasforever is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 08:18 AM   #66
muzzlebrake
Pope & Young
 
muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Euless, Texas
Hunt In: Sterling County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M16 View Post
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
muzzlebrake is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 08:42 AM   #67
Quackerbox
Pope & Young
 
Quackerbox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Magnolia
Hunt In: The woods
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M16 View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by texasforever View Post
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
Quackerbox is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 08:45 AM   #68
texasforever
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: wharton
Hunt In: lavaca co.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quackerbox View Post
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
texasforever is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 09:34 AM   #69
camoclad
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: fort worth
Hunt In: central tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trophy8 View Post
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....
camoclad is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 10:43 AM   #70
HTOWN
Eight Point
 
HTOWN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Texas city
Hunt In: ROCKSPRINGS
Default

This all gave me a effin headache, where is the Midol good lord.
HTOWN is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 11:37 AM   #71
Drycreek3189
Pope & Young
 
Drycreek3189's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Troup
Hunt In: Cherokee, Rusk Counties
Default

So…..as I said in post #7……. business as usual !
Drycreek3189 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 01:06 PM   #72
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasforever View Post
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)
tvc184 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 01:12 PM   #73
texasforever
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: wharton
Hunt In: lavaca co.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvc184 View Post
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
texasforever is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 02:48 PM   #74
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasforever View Post
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.
tvc184 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 03:34 PM   #75
dphillips62
Ten Point
 
dphillips62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Victoria
Hunt In: Mission Valley, Victoria, and anywhere else I can sling an arrow
Default

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
dphillips62 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 04:11 PM   #76
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

I think the way the law reads, it does not actually go into effect on September 1. I thought there was a provision in the law that says after September 1, if a person applies to the AG of Texas to manufacture a suppressor (anything previously made will not be legal), the AG will then get a ruling from a federal judge. I don’t think it will all of a sudden be legal to possess a Texas suppressor on September 1. That day or later will start the ball rolling but nothing will be legal until a judge rules that it is legal.

Even then I would not count my chickens because it will almost certainly be appealed immediately to the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans.
tvc184 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 05:38 PM   #77
muzzlebrake
Pope & Young
 
muzzlebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Euless, Texas
Hunt In: Sterling County
Default

Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans is probably the most conservative court in the land. Trump put a lot of picks in that court. Hope for the best.
muzzlebrake is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-02-2021, 10:01 PM   #78
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muzzlebrake View Post
Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans is probably the most conservative court in the land. Trump put a lot of picks in that court. Hope for the best.
The Fifth Circuit definitely seems in my opinion to be a Constitutional court. I am not sure if that makes them conservative or just following the Constitution.

Remember it was the FC that ruled that a prayer on the public address system at high school football games was unconstitutional (SFISD v. Doe) which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. I would tend to believe that the students (and not the school so not the government) voluntarily picking a student to say a prayer at a football game not during school hours and on public property, would be a conservative opinion. The FC struck that conservative issue down on constitutional grounds.

The question will be, does the federal government have the authority to tax? Clearly Article I of the Constitution says that they do. In my opinion the fight Texas will have to win is to have the NFA ruled as unconstitutional.

If nothing else what will harm the Texas case is that it is not interstate commerce so not under the authority of the US Congress. The Texas suppressor law however says that certain parts can come across state lines. That is interstate commerce. So the Texas argument will be that it is made completely within (and stays in) Texas so the federal Congress has no authority. The law itself however says certain parts can come from across state lines. That seems to me to negate the argument that it is completely within Texas. The law basically says, the suppressor is MADE COMPLETELY IN TEXAS….. except for certain parts.

I wish the NFA would be thrown out entirely but I think that would be a mighty big ruling by the Supreme Court. The problem is that the Supreme Court has tended to shy away from Second Amendment cases. They almost never rule on the 2A and when they have, they have issued very narrow rules not completely saying that any firearm are legal and not completely denying some government control.

Will this Supreme Court be the one that finally rules one way or the other on the 2A? Remember that a few months ago a potentially huge case was accepted by the Supreme Court over a New York City law that forbids transporting a firearm within city limits. New York seeing that they might lose big time, changed that law. The Supreme Court could have continued to hear the case that might have a huge impact on gun rights and completely negates states gun laws like in New York, New Jersey and and California.. but they didn’t. The Supreme Court dismissed the case saying that New York had rectify the problem. They again kick the can down the road. I think three of the justices wrote a blistering opinion that the case should have been continued no matter what New York did to try to stop it.

Here comes my opinion again. I read lots of Supreme Court cases and not just a conclusion but how they decide which cases to hear, how they were rule and why. Sometimes they are looking for a case to prove a point one way or the other and they are very selective in that case. In the case that they dismissed, it could have been again a very narrow ruling. In that New York law a New York City resident could’ve driven outside of the city limits and bought a handgun but could not bring it home with him. Even if he intended to have it only in his home he could not have actually brought it there because of New York law. Again the Supreme Court could have issued a very narrow ruling saying that yes they could transport the handgun to their house but never going farther than that. So why was the dismissal significant even though many people would love to have heard the outcome? Because I believe they just accepted another case from New York.

If this one goes through to a ruling, it might be really big. It is the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Corlett. We might soon see how conservative our constitutional this court is. New York has a law that says to get a license much like the Texas LTC, a person must demonstrate a need to even apply and naturally almost nobody ever meets that need. In this case the Supreme Court could rule that a state shall either make constitutional carry legal or shall give people the option to carry with a license. This would negate handgun laws in several states where they basically do not issue a license to carry such as in California and New York. This will have no bearing at all on Texas who has an LTC and our constitutional carry however the big deal aspect of it would be that the Supreme Court has finally said that the right to carry on your person, even if regulated with a license, it’s constitutional and mandatory. OR…. they could go as far as saying that Constitutional carry is mandatory across this country. That would be beyond huge but even a ruling that a state shall issue a handgun license will be very big if it happens.
tvc184 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-19-2021, 09:26 PM   #79
Saltaholic
Associate Sponsor
 
Saltaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Default

So what’s the verdict?? Anybody going to be selling these September 1??
Saltaholic is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-19-2021, 09:49 PM   #80
duckmanep
Pope & Young
 
duckmanep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northeast TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saltaholic View Post
So what’s the verdict?? Anybody going to be selling these September 1??
I haven't heard of any current manufacturers or dealers that are.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
duckmanep is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-20-2021, 07:14 AM   #81
Huntin
Ten Point
 
Huntin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Clear Lake City
Hunt In: Jasper, Ellinger & Madisonville
Default

Here is a Texas Dealer
http://www.texassilencercompany.com/
Huntin is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-20-2021, 09:56 AM   #82
duckmanep
Pope & Young
 
duckmanep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northeast TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntin View Post
and I bet ya a dollar they won't be selling them without a stamp.
duckmanep is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-20-2021, 10:43 AM   #83
El General
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Coke County
Default

If SCOTUS uses Heller to rule that Congress does not have the authority to tax in accordance to the NFA then that guts the NFA's authority. I don't see SCOTUS doing that.

If some brilliant lawyer can come up with an argument to use Heller to take a scalpel to the NFA and cut suppressors out, I could see a Supreme court ruling favorably in that case. I think that will be very hard to do.

Legislative action seems more likely to me, and it ain't very likely.
El General is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-20-2021, 10:52 AM   #84
tvc184
Pope & Young
 
tvc184's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Golden Triangle
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saltaholic View Post
So what’s the verdict?? Anybody going to be selling these September 1??
According to that law, it does not go into effect on September 1. It kind of does but you cannot buy a suppressor made in Texas on September 1.

The law says that if an American citizen who lives in Texas makes application to the Texas Attorney General to manufacture such a suppressor then the AG “shall” get a declaratory judgment from a federal judge.

By the way that I read the law, it is not going to affect until somebody applies to manufacture the suppressor in Texas under the new law and the AG then goes to Federal court and get a judgment that the law is Constitutional.

Looking at the law I do not think you can legally buy a suppressor in Texas until it goes to federal court. Even if the federal court was to uphold it, it will still take such a court ruling for the law to be valid.

Notwithstanding someone may have already filed under the new law and the AG might’ve already gone to federal court and gotten such a ruling. I do not know but if that was the case, I think it would be headline news no matter which way the federal court ruled.
tvc184 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-20-2021, 11:30 AM   #85
Dale Moser
Pope & Young
 
Dale Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wise Cty
Hunt In: Young Cty
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Moser View Post
Guinea pig here, who wants to sell me 3? I got cash!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still here, cash in hand….I don’t even need a receipt!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dale Moser is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com