State Legislature Exempts Texas-Made Suppressors From Federal Gun Laws

thetexan.news ^ | May 25, 2021 | ISAIAH MITCHELL

[PROCON]

To skirt the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, the bill would free suppressors made in Texas from federal regulation.

The Texas legislature has eased restrictions on firearm suppressors and paved the way for Texas-made suppressors to skirt Washington’s grasp.

House Bill (HB) 957 would trim away federal regulation around suppressors in Texas, forbidding cities and counties from enforcing federal suppressor laws and asserting that Texas-made suppressors are not subject to federal regulation. It has passed both chambers of the Texas legislature.

State Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), a physician, presented both medical and legal reasons for his bill. Oliverson said suppressors can help prevent hearing damage, a benefit especially for hunters that forego ear protection to better hear their surroundings.

The major regulation on suppressors comes from the National Firearms Act of 1934, motivated at least in part by gangland slaughters like the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Under this law, suppressors must be approved and registered at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Suppressor buyers must also pay a $200 transfer fee to the ATF and provide their fingerprints and photograph, unless they form a trust to register, which can cost hundreds of dollars more.

[grobdriver]

To monitor.

[TangoLimaSierra]

Most pathetically, you can buy suppressors in England off the shelf.

IIRC they are mandatory for hunting. Or was I dreaming?

[T.B. Yoits]

Re: Mandatory firearm suppressors for hunting in England (that you can buy off the shelf).

I don't know if they're mandatory depending on geographic proximity to neighbors but they're mandatory at ranges depending on the weapon. There are plenty of skeet and trap videos with shotguns without "mufflers".

The Gun Shop Outdoors has a lot of videos:
https://www.youtube.com/c/TheGunShopBotley/videos

[mythenjoseph]

NICE,as it should be.

[Big Red Badger]

States Rights are
Becoming Critical.
.
God Bless Texas,
and
Arizona.

[TangoLimaSierra]

Thanks

[Ancesthntr]

“Even home made in my Texas workshop? Sounds like it.”

---

Ghost suppressors? :>)

[Ancesthntr]

922(o) was added to the ‘34 NFA in 1986. It prohibited the BATF from collecting the $200 tax on full autos manufactured after May 19(?) of ‘86. This brings up an interesting conundrum.

The US v. Miller case was, indeed, decided based upon the fact that there was no evidence *presented* that a sawed-off shotgun was suitable as a militia weapon (which is a lie, because such a weapon was used to GREAT effect in WW1 - it was called a Trench Broom). But less known is that the NFA as a whole was approved as not violating the 2nd Amendment because it only levied a tax, it didn’t prohibit any firearms being owned by individuals (though, of course, $200 in 1934 - the middle of the Great Depression - effectively WAS a ban for all but the very wealthy...though not a legal ban). Now comes 922(o), which prohibits the collection of that very same tax. Seems to me that the passage of 922(o) into law, based on the reasoning in the Miller case, effectively struck down the part of the NFA dealing with full autos (which, of course, means that 922(o) is actually of no effect, because if there’s no registry by virtue of getting rid of the NFA, then who cares if the law prohibits BATF from collecting the tax?).

If the Supreme Court was honest (yeah, I know, that’ll happen shortly after flocks of pigs blot out the Sun), the entire ‘34 NFA would be stricken from the books as a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment. Ditto for the ‘68 GCA and pretty much every other federal gun law. But the flying pigs haven’t shown up yet, and we’re still stuck with these abominations.

[zeugma]

So, IOW, pray for pigs on the wing?

[The Pack Knight]

I assume they will go after a seller first. For this law to make much of a difference, someone is going to have to advertise Texas-made suppressors for sale without tax stamps.

That said, I’d love to support whoever has the cojones to be first

[marktwain]

Miller was a complete set-up by the Roosevelt administration.

UNITED STATES V. MILLER: How the Second Amendment was Subverted

Here is an excerpt:

Notice a couple significant points below. First, that Miller and Layton were not allowed to plead guilty, and this was from Judge Ragon, who was the rabid equivalent of Charles Schumer of today. Second, Judge Ragon appointed the defense counsel, Paul E. Gutensohn.

"On June 2, 1938, Miller and Layton were both indicted on one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 1132(c) by transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce. Both Miller and Layton pleaded guilty, but Ragon refused to accept their plea and appointed Paul E. Gutensohn as counsel."

Now Judge Ragon has the case he wants, the defendants he wants and the defense counsel that he wants. Judge Ragon then creates the only defense for the case, his memorandum opinion.

"On June 11, 1938 Miller and Layton demurred to the indictment, claiming that it presented insufficient evidence of a transfer requiring payment of a tax and challenging the constitutionality of the NFA under the Second and Tenth Amendments. Surprisingly, Ragon immediately issued a memorandum opinion sustaining the demurrer and quashing the indictment. He held that the NFA violates the Second Amendment by prohibiting the transportation of unregistered covered firearms in interstate commerce."