TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:46 pmOkay, I see your rationale. However, didn't the SCOTUS already rule about weapons in common use?

This is the very problem I was referring to. Weapons in common use are protected by the Second Amendment, according to SCOTUS. Nothing in that ruling mentioned anything about accessories, whether in common use or not, no matter what the demand for the accessory is. And, unfortunately, the law will be what the courts say it is, not what you and I say it is. So, while I agree that a magazine is a part of the weapon, we now have a court ruling that says they are not parts but are accessories. I can think of some very good arguments that say they are parts, such as the magazine disconnect on a Browning Hi-Power (and many other weapons) where the pistol will not fire without the magazine inserted. But the current ruling says I am wrong about it being a part.

Instead of magazines, which the current ruling was specific about, think about other accessories. This was already the law for most of them and they can be regulated. Texas had laws against bayonets for many years, as one example. And there is a current court case about another accessory I don't want to specifically name to avoid word searches, but the ATF will probably lose because they ruled it was covered under NFA 1934. They made everyone give it up or destroy it. But what would have happened if they went after it as an accessory that is not protected under Heller/McDonald? This ruling now says they can do that with magazines, and I am concerned about it.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:30 amTexas Supreme Court ruled this correctly, IMHO (IANAL). The violent perpetrator would have been denied the sale of the firearm itself had USAF personnel done their job and entered the information into NICS. The gun-grabbers love to say "there should be a law", but there are laws. However, the laws cannot work if the system doesn't have the correct information in it.

I am very pleased that Academy is now cleared in this and the other lawsuits. It is the only ruling that makes sense to me.

BUT there is a consequence to this ruling that may bite some of us in the future. Remember, magazines are not part of the weapon by law, according to the Texas Supreme Court. That means that when states ban normal capacity magazines, it is more likely to be 100% legal. The Second Amendment bans infringing on arms, not arms accessories.

It also means if we carry our pistol across state lines and the other state recognizes our LTC, they may still restrict the magazine. California may be able to charge you for having a large capacity magazine even if you download it to 10 rounds. For me, and other officers (active or retired), who carry our weapons across state lines based on federal law allowing it, magazine restrictions may apply because the federal law says weapons and not weapons accessories.

Yes, I am aware that the Texas Supreme Court carries no legal authority outside of Texas, but the decision may be used as a guideline by other courts. Does anyone trust either California courts or the 9th Circuit to not look at this decision and say something like even gun-loving, conservative Texas says we can do this?

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:00 pmWait... I’m confused.... srothstein, are you saying that if the buyer were federally qualified to make that purchase in either state, he could have lawfully bought the gun in Texas with a Colorado DL? For instance, since I’m legally able to buy an AR15 in Texas, I could also legally buy one FTF from an FFL in Utah by using my Texas DL?
I am aware that Texas laws allows a qualified person to purchase rifles and shotguns, ammunition, reloading components, or firearms accessories in contiguous states; but Colorado is not a contiguous state. Or is it a matter of Texas allowing a qualified individual from a non-contiguous state to buy a firearm in Texas?

TAM, as someone else pointed out, the requirement that it be a contiguous state was done away with several years ago. As I understand it, and I am not sure on this, the federal law that required it to be a contiguous state was modified if the state passed a law allowing sale to residents of other states. Our law, PC 46.07, was modified to meet that requirement and specifically mentions the federal law that says "if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States". This is why the question of whether a magazine is part of the weapon is so critical to if Academy broke the law.

This is going to turn into a very important case due to its unintended consequences. As I understand the legal question in the case is going to turn on if a magazine is a part of the weapon or an accessory. The purchaser was from out of state and the federal law requires the seller to obey the home states laws as well as its own. In Colorado, it is illegal to sell an AR-15 with a 15 round magazine. So, if the magazine is a part of the weapon, then the sale was illegal. If the magazine is an accessory instead, then the sale was legal. In a case like this, the problem is they could have sold the weapon with a ten round magazine and then sold him 3 thirty round extra magazines off the accessory shelf and it would have been entirely legal. As I understand it, there is a legal principle that a law should not be interpreted to make no sense and this last part makes the concept of the sale with a full size magazine being illegal sound like nonsense to me.

But now we need to consider a weird possible consequence for this case. If I travel to another state and use either my LEOSA or reciprocity for my LTC, they generally say my weapon is legal. But what happens in those states where my weapon is legal but there is a magazine limit of ten rounds for pistols, or a ban on hollow-point ammunition. Can I still carry my XD with a 13 round magazine loaded with hollow-points? If the magazine is a part of the weapon I can. If it is an accessory, I may not be allowed to.

I do not want to see Academy held liable, but I really prefer that magazines are considered parts of the weapons for my personal benefit. I am concerned about the consequences of the decision either way though.