Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill to exempt guns introduced into Texas Legislature
Texas Legislature ^ | 01/31/13 | laubenburg

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.


TOPICS: Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: accessories; ammo; banglist; guncontrol; guns; manufacture; secondamendment
Texas House of Representative bill (HB872) introduced which would exempt any firearm (up to 1.5 inch bore diameter) or related accessory and ammuntion from any and all Federal reglations.
1 posted on 01/31/2013 12:52:23 PM PST by TexasRedeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

I love Texas.....


2 posted on 01/31/2013 12:55:57 PM PST by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

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?


3 posted on 01/31/2013 12:56:31 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye; humblegunner; Eaker; TheMom

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...)


4 posted on 01/31/2013 12:56:37 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

Sweet. No tax stamp for a intrastate suppressor if this passes.


5 posted on 01/31/2013 1:01:33 PM PST by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

“...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.


6 posted on 01/31/2013 1:01:53 PM PST by Ancesthntr (Banning guns to prevent crime is like banning cars to prevent drunk driving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye
Several states have introduced similar legislation now.

Senate Bill 63 and House Bill 4099: Assert immunity of “Michigan-made” firearms from federal gun bans (“Firearms Freedom Act”)

Introduced by Sen. Phil Pavlov (R) and Rep. Greg MacMaster, respectively to establish that firearms which are completely made in Michigan and remain within its borders may be possessed and sold in this state, notwithstanding any potential federal gun bans that claim authority based on the U.S. constitution’s interstate commerce clause. The Senate version was approved 3-1 by the Judiciary Committee and sent to the full body for consideration. Republican Sens. Jones, Schuitmaker and Rocca voted “yes” and Democrat Sen. Bieda voted “no.” Meanwhile, House Speaker Jase Bolger told Mirs News the House will go slow on taking up gun bills given that emotions are still raw after the horrific Newtown school shooting in December.

7 posted on 01/31/2013 1:06:19 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

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.


8 posted on 01/31/2013 1:07:02 PM PST by Ancesthntr (Banning guns to prevent crime is like banning cars to prevent drunk driving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
DAMN, no Vulcan cannons (20mm).

Uhmmm, there are 25.4 mm per inch.

We are good up to 38.1 mm.

M-3 Antitank Gun 37mm


9 posted on 01/31/2013 1:11:15 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
DAMN, no Vulcan cannons (20mm).

Why not? 1.5 inches converts to over to 38mm!

10 posted on 01/31/2013 1:11:23 PM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

Me too, and I’ve never set foot there.


11 posted on 01/31/2013 1:12:26 PM PST by Mich Patriot (PITCH BLACK is the new "transparent")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

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.


12 posted on 01/31/2013 1:13:06 PM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Of course, it doesn’t mention suppressors, so as long as they’re manufactured here in Texas, we’re OK.

In Texas, suppressors were made legal for hunting starting with this year. There was no reason to exempt or restrict them.

13 posted on 01/31/2013 1:14:10 PM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

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.


14 posted on 01/31/2013 1:23:56 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

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.


15 posted on 01/31/2013 1:25:31 PM PST by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

Happy-Happy-Happy!


16 posted on 01/31/2013 1:29:24 PM PST by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas
What if you just want to have one use at the range?

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.

17 posted on 01/31/2013 1:31:29 PM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gaijin
I’m going to think about moving there in a very serious way.

You are not alone.

18 posted on 01/31/2013 1:31:34 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

Curious - why would the insurance company care about suppressors?

What added risk exposure would there be for the underwriter?


19 posted on 01/31/2013 1:33:40 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MarMema

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


20 posted on 01/31/2013 1:34:41 PM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Curious - why would the insurance company care about suppressors?

Any Class III item makes insurance companies nervous. They just can't find a way to logically restrcit supressors.

21 posted on 01/31/2013 1:36:15 PM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye
which would exempt any firearm (up to 1.5 inch bore diameter) or related accessory and ammunition from any and all Federal regulations.

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

.

22 posted on 01/31/2013 1:37:26 PM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas
Should the feds take an interest in your intrastate suppressor, that lacks the federal tax stamp, you will find that the federal courts will uphold the federal law against an object that never left the state of Texas.

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.

Wiki on US. V. Stewart (2003)

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.

23 posted on 01/31/2013 1:37:33 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

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.


24 posted on 01/31/2013 1:44:48 PM PST by ZULU (See video: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-siege-of-vienna.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
-- 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?

25 posted on 01/31/2013 1:58:33 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TLI

Thanks! Cannot wait...but so much to do.


26 posted on 01/31/2013 2:18:18 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

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.


27 posted on 01/31/2013 2:36:42 PM PST by Tenacious 1 ("The Brittish are Coming (to confiscate weapons)" - Paul Revere (We know how that ended))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye; thackney

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.


28 posted on 01/31/2013 3:40:44 PM PST by Ancesthntr (Banning guns to prevent crime is like banning cars to prevent drunk driving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
DAMN, no Vulcan cannons (20mm).

Not so. 1" = 25.4mm, so 1.5" = about 38mm!

29 posted on 01/31/2013 3:40:53 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
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.

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

30 posted on 01/31/2013 3:44:22 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye
The range I use permits their use. The owner says it drives his insurance company crazy

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).

31 posted on 01/31/2013 3:47:30 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
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.

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.

32 posted on 01/31/2013 3:54:18 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
...so far only Wyoming's contains the prohibition of federal agents

See Texas HB553 which is introduced in this legislature. This is just such a bill for Texas.

33 posted on 01/31/2013 4:08:18 PM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

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?


34 posted on 01/31/2013 4:22:06 PM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

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.


35 posted on 01/31/2013 4:31:03 PM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

Good to know! Thanks!


36 posted on 01/31/2013 4:44:16 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

I prefer it not have to come to this. But I’m not surprised, either.


37 posted on 01/31/2013 4:46:45 PM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
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.

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?

38 posted on 01/31/2013 4:53:20 PM PST by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; Ancesthntr

Okay then, I’ll be the first to say it...

Dang, no M203 Grenade Launchers then...


39 posted on 01/31/2013 4:59:03 PM PST by Have Ruck - Will Travel (Hmm, I wonder what would happen if I...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Have Ruck - Will Travel
Dang, no M203 Grenade Launchers then...

Well, as the rights thieves always say, "This bill is a good first step!"

40 posted on 01/31/2013 6:36:15 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

And you get to vote Republican and be in the majority.


41 posted on 01/31/2013 9:20:36 PM PST by wiley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

And you get to vote Republican and be in the majority.


42 posted on 01/31/2013 9:20:36 PM PST by wiley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

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.


43 posted on 01/31/2013 10:18:14 PM PST by ZULU (See video: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-siege-of-vienna.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mich Patriot

“Me too, and I’ve never set foot there.”

Please move down here. You will be quite welcome.


44 posted on 02/01/2013 6:59:33 AM PST by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

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...


45 posted on 02/01/2013 7:12:27 AM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

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.


46 posted on 02/01/2013 11:18:41 AM PST by Mich Patriot (PITCH BLACK is the new "transparent")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mich Patriot

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.


47 posted on 02/02/2013 11:09:26 AM PST by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TexasRedeye

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.


48 posted on 02/02/2013 11:12:17 AM PST by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

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.


49 posted on 02/02/2013 8:51:48 PM PST by Mich Patriot (PITCH BLACK is the new "transparent")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson