That is my understanding too--a cleverly worded way to get the Shockwave legal in Texas.The Annoyed Man wrote:So if I read this correctly (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), prior to amendment, the relevant section of the bill reads:
This would be amended to read:
- SECTION 1. Sections 46.05(a) and (e), Penal Code, are amended to read as follows:
- (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
- (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:
(2) knuckles;
- (A) an explosive weapon;
(B) a machine gun; or
(C) a short-barrel firearm; [or
[(D) a firearm silencer;]
(3) armor-piercing ammunition;
(4) a chemical dispensing device;
(5) a zip gun; [or]
(6) a tire deflation device; or
(7) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law.
Since, according to the BATF, the Shockwave (and presumably the Remington TAC-14) are not subject to the NFA's registration requirement, the red text amendment would bring those two guns (and others like them) into compliance with Texas law.
- SECTION 1. Sections 46.05(a) and (e), Penal Code, are amended to read as follows:
- (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
- (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:
(2) knuckles;
- (A) an explosive weapon;
(B) a machine gun; or
(C) a short-barrel firearm; [or
[(D) a firearm silencer;]
(3) armor-piercing ammunition;
(4) a chemical dispensing device;
(5) a zip gun; [or]
(6) a tire deflation device; or
(7) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Mossberg shockwave - request for AG opinion”
- Sat May 20, 2017 1:25 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Mossberg shockwave - request for AG opinion
- Replies: 34
- Views: 10362
Re: Mossberg shockwave - request for AG opinion
- Sat May 20, 2017 12:10 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Mossberg shockwave - request for AG opinion
- Replies: 34
- Views: 10362
Re: Mossberg shockwave - request for AG opinion
What is the forecast on whether this amended bill will become law? If it does, then that might "moot" the need for an Attorney General Opinion.tx85 wrote:Via Twitter:Alice wrote:Tonight in the TX House a Sen amendment was accepted on HB 1819 for suppressors and to allow sale in TX of Mossberg 590 Shockwave!!!
- Fri May 12, 2017 3:55 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Mossberg shockwave - request for AG opinion
- Replies: 34
- Views: 10362
Re: Mossberg shockwave - request for AG opinion
Good to hear!
An affirmative answer (they are legal) would benefit Mossberg financially as Texas is a huge market for firearms' sales. I have a Mossberg 500 and one of their auto-loaders--would love to have a Shockwave too.
An affirmative answer (they are legal) would benefit Mossberg financially as Texas is a huge market for firearms' sales. I have a Mossberg 500 and one of their auto-loaders--would love to have a Shockwave too.