FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 08/13/2022 6:06:54 AM PDT by marktwain
On July 15, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton amended the complaint filed in federal court against the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, in the Texas lawsuit against the ATF. The complaint challenges the constitutionality of the NFA and the Gun Control Act of 1968 to regulate privately made silencers/suppressors/gun mufflers made and kept in Texas.
The amendment incorporates the Second Amendment decision by the Court in Bruen, which establishes a refined and clarified procedure for courts to use in Second Amendment cases.
The Texas case came into existence as part of the requirements of HB 957, which became law in Texas in 2021. From Ammoland:
In a previous article, the repeal of the Texas law and the anti-commandeering section were discussed. The likely federal test case was not.
HB 957 came from the brain of Representative Oliverson of Texas District 130, north of Houston. Dr. Oliverson is not a lawyer. This correspondent was able to talk to Representative Oliverson about how he formed the idea for the law.
Dr. Oliverson came up with the idea to reform suppressor law in Texas because he had purchased two suppressors. He personally experienced the bureaucratic insanity it takes to legally obtain a silencer/suppressor/gun muffler in the United States.
Following the law, AG Paxton filed a lawsuit on February, 24, 2022. From AmmoLand:
The brief filed by AG Paxton is clear, the arguments are strong. The NFA restrictions on Silencers are attacked on the grounds of taxation of a Constitutional right (Second Amendment), inappropriate use of the commerce clause, and as a law that has no public safety justification.
The amendment filed on July 15, explains how the recent Bruen decision is applicable to and relevant in the lawsuit about federal regulation of silencers/suppressors
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The 1986 Machinegun ban, the 1968 GCA and the 1934 NFA are all unconstitutional.
Suck it, Beto.
I really hope this does prevail. I should be able to walk into my LGS and walk out in 10 minutes with a suppressor I paid <$50 for instead of filling out a ream of paperwork, pay an extra $200, and wait a year or two..
Study
And to top it all off, the 1986 machine gun ban wasn't even passed. It was illegally recorded in the registry as though it had passed.
Sadly, the Fed’s have turned a process that is absolutely no different than buying a gun, with a NICS check, and turns it into a mess. All because of something that happened where? Chicago.
Proving that no matter this far you go back, the Fed’s are morons.
Great video that delves into the insane process.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1VWcGwPJQfc
It attacks from several aspects, but one is that making your own silencer is not covered by the commerce clause.
It would be extremely important, if this were upheld, but, technically, it does not cover the commercial sale of silencers.
Heller makes mention of the ability of the federal government to regulate commercial sales.
Paxton is in this to win...
It is a tough fight, but he has a real chance of prevailing, it seems to me.
One of the chief threats against it is the claim the State of Texas has no standing to sue.
Ping
On one hand the ATF is trying to get through the 650,000 backlog of silencer tax stamps by working 24/7, but on the other hand the law requires more than a tax stamp. It requires the FBI, the criminal organization, to approve each one and they FBI is dragging their feet. It takes about 10 months to get the tax stamp approved.
The ATF introduced the eForms this last December but that hasn’t seem to help since the paper forms from early last year are still being processed. eForm applications are supposed to be done in under 90 days.
I filed an eForm months ago that probably won’t get processed for several more months.
P.S. The ATF is processing about 500 silencer approves every day. They were up to 1,000 per day until the FBI started dragging their feet.
If you read the "debate" about the bill, in 1934, what you are saying stands out.
It is very similar to today's debate, where many of the congress critters reveal themselves to be completely ignorant of firearms.
“The 1986 Machinegun ban, the 1968 GCA and the 1934 NFA are all unconstitutional.”
Don’t forget, the NRA proudly backed each of those laws.
They should all be a State’s Rights issue…
Fixed it for you.
Even worse, The 1968 GCA was DOA until the NRA got involved and got Charlton Heston and company to back it.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
“the 1986 machine gun ban wasn’t even passed. It was illegally recorded in the registry as though it had passed.”
Huh? Never knew that...
I believe you have been mislead about what happened.
The NRA did not "proudly" back the NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, or the 1986 machine gun ban.
The NRA in 1934 was not consulted about the NFA of 1934, which the president of the NRA complained about in the committee hearing. It was in large part because of the NRA that pistols and revolvers were stripped from the bill, mostly neutering it. Silencers were included, mostly by mistake, and short barreled rifles were added by the Congressman from Minnesota.
Then the NRA backed what was left as part of the compromise. Very few people had silencers or machine guns.
It was very similar with GCA 1968. The NRA opposed it. I recall the notices sent out as my father belonged to the NRA at the time. President Johnson was the big one pushing it, and he managed to get it through by a one vote majority. The NRA lead the opposition, but yes, they also worked at mitigating how bad the bill was. Originally, it included total registration and licensing of pistols. President Johnson bitterly complained that those items had been stripped from the bill.
As for the (Huges Amendment) Machine gun ban of 1986, that was passed as part of the Firearm Owners Protection act of 1986, forced out of committee by a dogged fight led by the NRA, which took years. The amendment freezing the number of machineguns in civilian hands was sprung on the Congress with a voice vote under dubious circumstances, but which was legal. The video is online. The NRA did not push for that.
However, to get the real reforms of the GCA 1968 which were in the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 (transport of firearms across state lines, no record keeping of ammunition, ammo allowed to be sold by mail, as I recall, gun dealers allowed to sell at gun shows) reform of some of the worst of GCA 1968) they had to accept the amendment.
So, are the NRA's fingerprints on NFA 1934, GCA 1968, and the FOPA Huges amendment in 1986? Yes, but they also prevented a whole lot of worse things from passing.
Could the NRA have done better?
Maybe, probably, we don't know. Hindsight is 100%.
I stopped donating to the NRA about 1990. I figured my money was better spent on other groups, such as the Second Amendment Foundation, local groups in Arizona, such as Brass Roots, and others.
It is not fair to claim the NRA was responsible for NFA 1934, GCA 1968, and the Hughes Amendment to FOPA in 1986, unless it is mentioned what the original scope of the bills were, and what the NRA stopped from passing.
Indeed. These 2 cases need to be cited in briefs before the court.
United States v. Dalton (1991)
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
This is one of the most important, though little known appellate court decisions concerning the second amendment in recent years. This decision basically struck down the 1934, 1968 and 1986 gun control acts. It was not appealed by FedGov, I assume because a loss of this magnitude at the Supreme Court level would have been devastating to all federal gun control laws.
U.S. v. Rock Island Armory( 1991)
Similar to the Dalton case above, this case would be extremely important to gun owners if only people knew about it. It held that the National Firearms Act was "originally passed as a taxing statute". Since Fedgov is not allowing citizens to purchase weapons covered under the act (machine guns and the like) because they will not allow them to purchase new tax stamps for them, they have effectively removed the 'tax nexus' from the act, which is what made it constitutional in the first place. Therefore, the entire house of cards of gun control at the federal level is struck down. That would include the 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun control acts.
Why hasn't the NRA informed you of something this important?
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.