Who makes - TX SUPPRESSORS

[tvc184]

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

Well in the case of a shotgun being a weapon that fires shot shells which is what I was responding to, your logic is not logical.

Being able to follow the conversation helps.

To refresh, I made a post claiming that part of the ruling in Heller should invalidate Miller and the justification for the NFA or in effect, making the NFA unconstitutional. I should have left it at that but I have a (perhaps bad) tendency to back my opinions by quoting laws, the Constitution or case law.

I then quoted Miller to show that the justification of Miller by SCOTUS was that a sawed-off shotgun was not a military weapon. The in response to that, muzzlebreak posted .44Mag shot shells as an example that anything can be a shotgun.

No, it can’t. For NFA purposes, which is what this discussion is about, shotgun is not defined by the ATF or state law. It was defined by the US Congress as a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder and being smooth bore. Taking a revolver and putting shot shells into it does not make it a shotgun.

That, like the NFA, was enacted into law by the Congress. The ATF and state laws have nothing to do with it.

[muzzlebrake]

What pray tell does every gun law have to do with common sense?

[tvc184]

Update:

The very pro gun Federal judge in Texas, dismissed the Texas lawsuit to allow Texas Only suppressors. This is the judge that recently ruled that 18-20 year olds in Texas could carry a handgun in public and that the Texas constitutional carry was unconstitutional in requiring a person to be at least 21 years old.

He dismissed this case last Tuesday because he said the State of Texas did not have standing to sue for a private citizen. Ken Paxton, pursuant to the Texas Only suppressor law, filed the lawsuit on behalf of a couple of citizens who requested a license to manufacture suppressors for the new law.

So for now, the issue is dead.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice which means that it is not a frivolous suit and can be brought back before the court with new information.

So someone needs to be arrested or send notice of intent to build suppressors to the ATF with the caveat that they will not comply with federal law and only Texas law. That would almost certainly draw a cease and desist letter from ATF. The part about being arrested I know will give someone standing to challenge ATF if a person is willing to take that step. The part about an official warning from ATF is my opinion because the official action by ATF might give a person standing to challenge the interstate commerce clause.

If a judge dismissed a case with prejudice, the case is dead and can’t be refiled.

So this case can go forward IF SOMEONE is willing to go to jail OR gets a warning from ATF not to proceed (my opinion) OR the case gets appealed to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. The circuit can either back up the judge ending the case unless the US Supreme Court steps in or they can overrule the judge and tell him that he is clear to make a ruling on the Commerce Clause based on fact.

So for now, the case to allow Texas Only suppressors is dismissed.