Posted on 08/06/2024 5:44:12 AM PDT by marktwain
On June 21, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a unanimous opinion against Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of the State of Texas, and three individual plaintiffs. The ruling stopped the challenge to the National Firearms Act federal regulation of silencers, at least for the present. The opinion was not about the merits of the case. It was based solely on the plaintiffs’ standing to sue. The case is Paxon v Dettelbach.
First, the declarations do not state any intention to engage in conduct proscribed by law. Rather, the declarations state only that the Individual Plaintiffs “intend to personally manufacture a firearm suppressor for [their] own non-commercial, personal use.” But, as the federal government points out, the statutes at issue do not prohibit the Individual Plaintiffs from making a firearm suppressor. Rather, they only prohibit making a firearm suppressor without complying with the applicable procedures and requirements, i.e., applying for approval, paying the requisite tax, registering the suppressor, and labeling it with a serial number. See 26 U.S.C. § 5871. This is a distinction with an important difference because it differentiates this case from those in which the statutory scheme at issue is a blanket prohibition.
From the above, the plaintiffs might gain standing if they submitted Form 1 applications to the ATF and refused to pay the $200 tax, give pictures and images of proposed silencers to be produced, and made clear they were doing so under protest.
It is not clear if AG Paxton would be required to create another challenge based on such actions. AG Paxton could ask for a hearing en banc at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
AG Paxton filed the lawsuit as required by Texas statute HB957. From HB957:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The Texas lawsuit is one of them. The Judges said there was no standing for Texas to bring the lawsuit.
Yet.... more robed tyrants.
How many Constitutionally protected rights does the government get to force you to pay and register for in order to exercise the rights?
Why does the government get to pass a law, demand that you break it, and throw you in prison, before you are allowed to challenge the law’s constitutionality?
The federal government receives its authority to enforce laws strictly through the Constitution’s “interstate commerce clause”. How is a federal law which regulates an item which never entered into interstate commerce constitutional?
Ken Paxton needs to appeal this bogus “standing” ruling to the full 5th Circuit en-banc court. This 3-judge panel was obviously made up of the court’s liberals.
“How is a federal law which regulates an item which never entered into interstate commerce constitutional?”
Due to a bad ruling in Wickard v. Filburn
Waiting on my stuff to go through. Bought an AKLYS Sabre a week ago, Sunday. ATF approval is running 5 to 10 days with a rarity of 30 to 35 days lately.
Of course mine will drag out...
Stupid court stuff.
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.