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 ...
^^^ THIS
AND just as or more importantly, it’s a start on kicking the legs out from under that most evil of all rulings, Wickard. Actually, even without Bruen, this is bogus because Wickard is bogus, but anything that moves the ball is good. Libs have been doing it for over a century.
I do not know for certain the NRA hasn't informed people, but they have not placed much effort on publicizing these cases.
Why? Because they believed they were losing efforts. Both were long before Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. Other cases challenging the Huges Amendment were refused by the Supreme Court.
Second Amendment supporters have been winning important battles for decades.
Now, the Supreme Court has a majority which takes the Constitution and the Second Amendment seriously. It is the first time the Supreme Court has had a textualist and originalist majority since 1939.
Apparently, the government didn't have enough faith in the cases to even appeal them.
Not stupid.
Evil.
Evil in the sense that, even back in the 30s, when they drafted the NFA, they made it cost prohibitive for the regular guy to own something they wanted all to themselves and their rich buddies.
Who are you talking about as drafting the NFA?
The NRA wasn't even notified it was in the works until a few days before it was going to the Senate committee.
The Executive VP of the NRA, General Reckford, appeared in opposition to the provisions in the bill.
Mr. Frear, speaking to General Reckford:
Would you prefer to have this bill rejected as it is now, rather than have it passed?
General Reckford: Yes, sir; very much prefer to have it rejected.
Well, a bill was passed, but the part which pertains to the machine gun registry was contained within an amendment to the larger bill, called the Hughes Amendment. The Hughes Amendment was voted down in committee, but it was illegally recorded as part of the larger body of the host bill. When the final language was up for a vote, nobody outside of the conspiracy realized that the language closing the registry had been slipped back in. It's just another reason for requiring live readings of proposed legislation.
I’m talking about when the NFA was drafted.
Yes, that is what I am talking about.
The Executive VP of the NRA, at the time, General Rekford, complained to the Senate committee that the NRA was excluded from the drafting of the NFA, when they thought they had been assured they would be included.
No, that is a mistaken interpretation of what happened.
Here is an article that goes into detail about how the Hughes Amendment was put into the bill, and why the NRA did not scuttle the entire bill, which they had been working on for seven years, to get rid of the Hughes Amendment.
There is video online of how the Hughes Amendment was included in the bill.
It was done with an underhanded dirty trick, and a lie, but it was done legally.
My bad. Got it.
“Don’t forget, the NRA proudly backed each of those laws.”
Not only that, but they have been in the business of gutting your gun rights since 1871 and a few million dolts still can’t see the forest for the trees.
Especially Life Members. and those they have in their employ Representing them in various State Legislatures. Neal Knox tried to right the ship and was driven out.
That for me was the final straw.
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.