Who makes - TX SUPPRESSORS

[tvc184]

Good find!

And the find (pro gun attorney) said, we (Texas) aren’t going to win in court on the commerce clause. In his opinion it’s a dead issue…. from the interstate commerce angle.

The main chance to win is in the Fifth Circuit under the NFA unlawfully banning suppressors to begin with and potentially the entire NFA law being unconstitutional.

[Abu_dude]

Subtle

[Toney198]

http://www.texassilencercompany.com/#products

I have the outrider and its been great on my precision rifle.

[DirtyDave]

And the find (pro gun attorney) said, we (Texas) aren’t going to win in court on the commerce clause. In his opinion it’s a dead issue…. from the interstate commerce angle.

The main chance to win is in the Fifth Circuit under the NFA unlawfully banning suppressors to begin with and potentially the entire NFA law being unconstitutional.

This is the way things will hopefully go.
I never had any faith in the Commerce Clause angle, but that got the Law put on the books and will hopefully go down the Unconstitutional road.

[tvc184]

This is the way things will hopefully go.
I never had any faith in the Commerce Clause angle, but that got the Law put on the books and will hopefully go down the Unconstitutional road.

I made this point in this forum a few months ago… and I will do it again….

The SCOTUS case which is used to demonstrate the authority to require a tax stamp as not violating the Second Amendment (justifying the NFA) is Miller v. US in 1939. In Miller SCOTUS ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not protected under the Second Amendment because it was not a weapon normally used by a militia. Their conclusion was (that is still in effect today) that if the militia didn’t use it, citizens have no right to possess it since it would not be part of any organized militia. I would go as far to say that that’s a bogus notion itself (that a sawed-off shotgun isn’t a military weapon) but that’s what they ruled.

This is a quote from Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense

Note the underlined text. It justifies banning sawed-off shotguns without paying a tax because it isn’t a military weapon. This brings up two critical points.

The first is that the Second Amendment (going by Miller) is about being in a militia or the ability to be in a militia in case you have to respond for the common defense of the nation. I will go back to what I said above, are you telling me that we can’t use a sawed-off shotgun as a military weapon? But lets forget that for now. Even if that foolish notion was correct, it still says that you have to be able to be called up or to be actually part of a militia to be able to justify a particular type of firearm.

So there it is under Miller. The Second Amendment is not about individual freedom or rights but about being called up into a militia and possessing weapons that may be used as military weapons.

With that in mind, let’s now go to DC v. Heller in 2008. In Heller SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right and not dependent on being in a militia.

This is a quote from Heller.

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

So they start out with the presumption that like other rights, the Second Amendment is not a “collective” right (being part of a militia) but an individual right just as the First and Fourth Amendments. SCOTUS goes on for several pages trying to determine if there is anything to overcome that presumption.

They delve into the operative clause (right to bear arms) and the prefatory (preamble or introduction) clause (militia) and what relationship they have. In other words, does the prefatory clause (a well regulated militia) have any bearing on the operative clause (right to keep and bear arms) that would overcome the presumption of the Second Amendment is an individual right?

This is a quote of their conclusion.

Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

It clearly says in Heller that the operative clause guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons…. “In case of confrontation”.

Then this later in Heller:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

As far as the prefatory clause (which they already slammed the door on), SCOTUS said:

“Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued

So the term “free state” doesn’t mean a state such as Texas or Oklahoma but rather a polity or any organized group of people. Think of state being examples such as a state of well being or the state of the Catholic Church. So the free state can be any group of organized peoples. In other words, to maintain a free state is to maintain the free status quo.

So what we have is Miller upholding the NFA ban on sawed-off shotguns because the Second Amendment is a right to a militia, therefore unregulated and untaxed firearms must be able to be used in the militia. Sawed-off shotguns not being part of a militia, can be regulated.

Follow that up with Heller which says that being in a militia has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

So…..

Does Heller not overturn Miller?

Just like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) said that separate but equal facilities for Blacks and Whites was constitutional, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) threw it out saying that forced separation was unconstitutional.

Another example is that Roe v. Wade (1973) and a right to abortions was overturned by Dobbs v. JWHO (2022).

So it is obvious that SCOTUS will overturn itself in correcting landmark decisions.

SCOTUS usually only answers the narrow question in front of them. They do not typically go off on a tangent and start issuing rulings on other issues for which they have not heard an argument. That brings up Heller where the only question was, did the Washington DC law that required a person in his own home to have a handgun disassembled, violate Heller’s Second Amendment right? The answer was yes, the amendment is an individual right and Heller has a right to be armed in his home without being in a militia. They went no further with the ruling.

So if another case comes up, should SCOTUS use Heller to invalidate Miller? I don’t think that direct question has come up yet.

Also….

I mentioned previously that Miller brought up two critical points. The first was what I just discussed with Heller appearing to overturn Miller.

The second point is (and I haven’t seen this point made anywhere yet), if the anti-gunners use Miller to defend the NFA only because a sawed-off shotgun isn’t a military weapon, does Miller itself them ban any laws restricting “assault” rifles such as AR and AK variants or machine guns?

The entire premise in Miller (in my opinion) is that if it is not in military weapon, it can be regulated and taxed.

Aren’t AR and AK style rifles military type weapons? While they are sporting weapons also, they are absolutely military type weapons, including automatic weapons. Does the very rationale of Miller (weapons which can “contribute to the common defense”) overturn much of the gun grabbers argument?

[muzzlebrake]

M79 used in Vietnam has a 14" barrel and was used with 00 buckshot as well as beehive rounds. I know because I carried it for a time and used it when walking point. 00 buckshot made it a single barrel chootgun

[Draco]

How about the M97 Winchesters we used to check small boats? I never seen one with a barrel that wasn't short.

[muzzlebrake]

Shotguns have been used by US military since the 1800's until the present. Lawyers arguing before the courts should do a little bit of digging.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/combat-shotguns-of-the-vietnam-war/

[tvc184]

Shotguns have been used by US military since the 1800's until the present. Lawyers arguing before the courts should do a little bit of digging.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/con...e-vietnam-war/

The SCOTUS ruling didn’t say that shotguns were not weapons of war or the military. They said that a 12” sawed-off shotgun wasn’t a military weapon.

[muzzlebrake]

Almost any gun can be a shotgun even with a 2" barrel. Depends on what it's loaded with. https://www.cci-ammunition.com/handg.../6-3718CC.html

[tvc184]

Almost any gun can be a shotgun even with a 2" barrel. Depends on what it's loaded with. https://www.cci-ammunition.com/handg.../6-3718CC.html

Shot shells does not make a firearm a shotgun.

[DirtyDave]

Shot shells does not make a firearm a shotgun.

Tell that to CA haha. Since they consider the Taurus Judge to be a SBS and cant have one there

[tvc184]

Tell that to CA haha. Since they consider the Taurus Judge to be a SBS and cant have one there

A state under the Tenth Amendment can define anything it wishes.

If anyone in this thread from CA and wishing to discuss their laws?

[DirtyDave]

A state under the Tenth Amendment can define anything it wishes.

If anyone in this thread from CA and wishing to discuss their laws?

Yeah just making a point. ANY state or 3 letter acronym agency can make up anything they want

[muzzlebrake]

Yeah just making a point. ANY state or 3 letter acronym agency can make up anything they want

And that is what they seem to be doing at the Federal level. I don't see how they can just make up laws and pull interpretations out of thin air but they sure seem to. I really hope they (ATF) get shot down hard in the courts once and for all.