Uhmmm, there are 25.4 mm per inch.
We are good up to 38.1 mm.
M-3 Antitank Gun 37mm
Posted on 01/31/2013 12:52:17 PM PST by TexasRedeye
Introduced Caption Text: Relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation.
I love Texas.....
Do you think Straus will allow it onto the floor for a vote eventually?
Or will he do all he can to bottle it up?
up to 1.5 inch bore diameter
Woo Hoo!!!
The TexasCowboy Memorial shoot is going to get a lot more interesting!!!
(I know, I’m dreaming...)
Sweet. No tax stamp for a intrastate suppressor if this passes.
“...which would exempt any firearm (up to 1.5 inch bore diameter) or related accessory and ammuntion from any and all Federal reglations.”
DAMN, no Vulcan cannons (20mm).
Oh, well, maybe it means full autos???? I’m sure that someone in Texas can make drop-in happy switches by the boatload for ARs and AKs.
OK, now I read the bill and it does NOT apply to full autos.
Of course, it doesn’t mention suppressors, so as long as they’re manufactured here in Texas, we’re OK.
Uhmmm, there are 25.4 mm per inch.
We are good up to 38.1 mm.
M-3 Antitank Gun 37mm
Why not? 1.5 inches converts to over to 38mm!
Me too, and I’ve never set foot there.
I think there was something about this in Montana a few months ago. When a firearm is manufactured and sold in the same state it’s none of the FedGov’s business. Once it crosses state lines they can get involved, as long as they stay within the constitution.
When you think about it, the FedGov, relative to the states, is kinda like the EU, relative to the member nations. They don’t try to tell France what speed limits they should have.
In Texas, suppressors were made legal for hunting starting with this year. There was no reason to exempt or restrict them.
I’m not really “into” guns. But I really see gun laws as indicative of the gov’s trust in it’s people. It’s hugely symbolic to me, a really great indicator.
If this does pass in Texas, I’m going to think about moving there in a very serious way.
What if you just want to have one use at the range? If would be nice to do target practice somewhere and protect your hearing or be able to use a weapon in self-defense and not have to lose your hearing in the process. Hopefully, this law will permit instate manufactured suppressors for other than hunting.
Happy-Happy-Happy!
It is up to the owner of the range whether to allow supressors (or anything else). The range I use permits their use. The owner says it drives his insurance company crazy but there is no restriction against supressors in his policy and since it is legal for game hunting in Texas for over a year now, there is no reason to disallow them on his range.
You are not alone.
Curious - why would the insurance company care about suppressors?
What added risk exposure would there be for the underwriter?
A letter from the Texas Attorney General for all thinking of moving to Texas:
Here in Texas, you will have the liberty and the opportunity to achieve your dreams. On top of that, we have no income tax, yet still manage to have a multi-billion dollar budget surplus.
We have right to work laws and a reasonable regulatory environment. Texas has created more than 275,000 jobs in the last year alone! And we’ll fight like hell to protect your rights.
You’ll also get to keep more of what you earn and use some of that extra money to buy more ammo.
I hope to see you soon in Texas. In the meantime, sign up to show your support for our second amendment rights.
Sincerely,
s/Greg Abbott
Any Class III item makes insurance companies nervous. They just can't find a way to logically restrcit supressors.
Put that together with H.B. No. 553 which makes it a crime to enforce any such federal laws. The nanny state feds can take a hike...
Section 1 (b)(6) That all federal acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, and rules or regulations of all kinds with the purpose, intent, or effect of confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore, infringes upon Texan's right to bear arms in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, any such law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution, is not authorized by the Constitution, and thus, is not the supreme law of the land, and consequently, is invalid in this State and shall be further considered null and void and of no effect in this State.
(e) An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by confinement for a term not to exceed one year, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both the confinement and the fine.
SECTION 6. REPORT. The Texas Department of Public Safety shall immediately report to the governor, attorney general, and the legislature any attempt by the federal government to implement or enforce any law in violation of this Act through the Texas Department of Public Safety, or any another state or local law enforcement agency.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB553
.
There is lots of precedent for this - not that I agree with the precedent, but bear in mind that law is based on brute force, not on logic or respect for tradition or agreement.
The Ninth Circuit, of all circuits, reversed a federal conviction, reasoning that the firearms in question never left California. The Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit to reinstate the conviction, using the Raich (marijuana) case for support of federal jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.
I ponder, from time to time, what it will take to constitute sufficient political pressure to get Congress and the federal Courts to back off.
I ponder, from time to time, what it will take to constitute sufficient political pressure to get Congress and the federal Courts to back off.
Similar united action from the majority of states backed up by their National Guards and local law enforcement.
Yes, I think a confrontation between a state and the feds would clarify which has more resolve and power. See Brown v. Board of Education and civil war.
I think the feds are acting outside of the constitution that created them, and my respect for the feds is like my respect for the Mafia. They are liars, cheats, and morally bankrupt. The only honor they have it to themselves - a federal omerta. They are beyond redemption. But, and this is a big "but," they are determined, and they are eager to use the force of violence to obtain compliance.
Anyway, when Wyoming passed its parallel act, it considered and rejected using Wyoming money to defend a Wyoming citizen in a relevant federal court action (crime of possession of a intrastate item, ostensibly under federal regulation). If the state won't defend its prerogative with lawyers, what makes you think they'd defend it with guns?
Thanks! Cannot wait...but so much to do.
Suppressors are a safety device. I would expect OSHA to approve them as an “engineering solution” to the dangerous decibel level.
Suppressors protect you from hearing loss in the same way mufflers are mandated for certain types of equipment where humans are intended to be nearby.
We don’t argue these point correctly.
Yeah, you guys are right...for some reason I was thinking that 12.5mm was an inch. I guess I just have Ma Deuce on the brain.
Not so. 1" = 25.4mm, so 1.5" = about 38mm!
Oh, no, that was actually several years ago, and while Montana was the first to enact this, the legislation is now law in something like 8 states. You can see a map with status of this legislation in the various states, as well as other information at FirearmsFreedomAct.com
WHY?? It makes no sense. If they had any opinion at all I'd think they'd prefer them so they don't get sued for hearing loss (though I'm sure you have to sign a waiver).
These laws do no more than point out federal overreach and state that the state will not comply. Some of them actually go so far as to criminalize federal LEO's for enforcing federal laws on guns to which they do not properly apply. Next step would be for the state saying its state LEO's will protect with force of arms any citizen of the state the feds want to prosecute for a "violation" of a federal law lacking jurisdiction. And mean it. There are I think 8 states that have passed some version of this, and so far only Wyoming's contains the prohibition of federal agents (Vermont's or New Hampshire's did too, but failed to be passed), but there have been no confrontations as yet, so it remains to be seen how serious the states were or if it was just symbolism.
See Texas HB553 which is introduced in this legislature. This is just such a bill for Texas.
Why continue to use the twisted logic of the Left RE: Regulate interstate commerce? The regulate: to make standard in conformity; NOT: to hold power power over.
Let alone follow with the 2nd faux pas, that the current ‘laws’ are Constitutional to begin with!
If our own here on FR can’t get it down correctly, what the hell does anyone expect from those in D.C. in front of the cameras?
Why continue to use the twisted logic of the Left RE: Regulate interstate commerce? The regulate: to make standard in conformity; NOT: to hold power power over.
I agree. However, that is one of the main reasons the FedGov exists: to protect states from each other, etc. I’m not saying that once something crosses state lines they should get involved. Rather, I’m saying that until it does, if it does not violate the US constitution, it’s none of their business.
Good to know! Thanks!
I prefer it not have to come to this. But I’m not surprised, either.
How about also specifying that attempts to enforce illegal federal statutes may be prosecuted under existing state laws against robbery, kidnapping, etc., and further specifying that since such illegitimate enforcement can by definition form no part of a federal official's legitimate duties, any statute which would seek to remand such prosecution to federal court shall be deemed inapplicable?
Okay then, I’ll be the first to say it...
Dang, no M203 Grenade Launchers then...
Well, as the rights thieves always say, "This bill is a good first step!"
And you get to vote Republican and be in the majority.
And you get to vote Republican and be in the majority.
Yes, I think a confrontation between a state and the feds would clarify which has more resolve and power. See Brown v. Board of Education and civil war.
Different issues, different times.
See Declaration of Independence.
“Me too, and I’ve never set foot there.”
Please move down here. You will be quite welcome.
Concur, even the field, protect our Rights and defend the borders....Can you tell me any of those the Fed., today, still does correctly?
Neither can I...
Well we are hoping to retire in another 10-12 years and planning to relocate to a warmer climate, and a red state for sure. With those guidelines, we think TX, GA, AL, SC, OK, UT maybe, but we don’t know any real details on ANY of them.
Utah is can be quite cold but it has other things that make it really nice. People and trout fishing to name two.
The other states you mention are really nice too. I live in and prefer Texas because of the people and the government (small). I just like their starch.
So research them and have fun visiting.
The 1.5 inch may be to protect those who have black powder field pieces. They usually are 1 inch rifles.
I would prefer that they also protect black powder mortars which can have the bore of a bowling ball, ‘cause that is what they shoot.
Thanks for the info...as I said we have a few years, and frankly we are stuck for awhile due to the housing market. My 10 year plan is to have the mortgage paid and be ready to retire in about 11 years (at 62). Plenty of time to research and make a nice choice, which may well be Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.