TexasCHLforum.com

The ATF made more attempts to kill the suppressor lawsuit but that has come to nought.

As I understand the current status, the judge in the case has asked the parties if they really need a trial to sort this out or can it be done with motions and a summary judgment. It appears both sides of agreed they can do this by paper rather than have a trial, so they met on November 9 to work out the details. I don’t know when the motions are due but essentially both sides are gonna make the best arguments on paper and the judge will decide.

This guy does good summary of what’s going on at the federal level, but the titles of his YouTube videos are very click-baity. Nevertheless I think it’s worth listening to him.

ELB wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:18 pm The ATF made more attempts to kill the suppressor lawsuit but that has come to nought.

As I understand the current status, the judge in the case has asked the parties if they really need a trial to sort this out or can it be done with motions and a summary judgment. It appears both sides of agreed they can do this by paper rather than have a trial, so they met on November 9 to work out the details. I don’t know when the motions are due but essentially both sides are gonna make the best arguments on paper and the judge will decide.

This guy does good summary of what’s going on at the federal level, but the titles of his YouTube videos are very click-baity. Nevertheless I think it’s worth listening to him.

Yes, that’s a pretty good summary.

I'm looking forward to getting a suppressor at Academy for $39.95.....

Ruark wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 12:08 pm I'm looking forward to getting a suppressor at Academy for $39.95.....

I’d go $59.95 at most. I just don’t see the value in them at the current average price.

I expect .22LR suppressors to be very affordable. They are awesome if you haven't tried one.

The main issue will be political pushback. TENS OF MILLIONS of voters believe suppressors make a gun go "pfft."

Do not have a can yet, but just ordered a threaded barrel for my Glock 19. If cans come off of the list requiring a tax stamp, will definitely get one for the 19 and the 44.

Ruark wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:58 pm The main issue will be political pushback. TENS OF MILLIONS of voters believe suppressors make a gun go "pfft."

I think the political pushback will be weak once everyone realizes that that is hollywood fiction.

Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:43 pm

Ruark wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:58 pm The main issue will be political pushback. TENS OF MILLIONS of voters believe suppressors make a gun go "pfft."

I think the political pushback will be weak once everyone realizes that that is hollywood fiction.

I fairly frequently have this conversation with ignorant people who think that suppressors make a gun hush puppy quiet. I’ve even offered to take them to a range and prove my point. They don’t want to know. They don’t want to experience a thing that will falsify the ground on which they’ve staked all of their beliefs.

Just ONCE, I explained to someone that a can knocks maybe 30-35 dB off of a muzzle report, bringing it down from 160-170 dB to 130-140 dB, and he acknowledged that 130 dB was loud enough to not really be hearing safe.

Retards are gonna retard.

Anything above 85 dBA can damage the small hair cells in your ears and affect your hearing health, either over time or—if it's loud enough—immediately.

I still wear double ear pro even with a silencer. That gets the noise comfortably under 85 dB.

Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 4:39 pm

Anything above 85 dBA can damage the small hair cells in your ears and affect your hearing health, either over time or—if it's loud enough—immediately.

I still wear double ear pro even with a silencer. That gets the noise comfortably under 85 dB.

I like this chart too, so I stole it from you.

I also use earpro with a suppressor, particularly now since I’ve already gone deaf in one ear. That said, I have shot suppressed rifles with no earpro in an outdoors environment like out in a field, where there were no walls around to "contain" the sound and make it reverberate, and as along as I or my observer were behind the gun…whether on the gun, or standing a few feet behind…it was quite comfortable without earpro. And that was with supersonics. With suppressed subsonics, it was magical.

FWIW, I recently bought a set of those Axil in-ear plugs with microphones and active sound attenuation, and they work pretty well. I used them for the first time at ETTS just a week ago, shooting both suppressed and not suppressed, and they were great. The real test was shooting my SCAR 17 with a muzzle brake and no suppressor. My son hated it, but I was good to go.

Both parties filed their motions for summary judgment by the end of May. On 06 JUN Federal District Court Judge Pittman set a hearing on the motions for 15 JUN. I thought everyone agreed to do this without appearing in court, but maybe things changed since November, or maybe I don’t understand what the hearing was for.

Anyway, the hearing was heard on the 15th as scheduled, but I do not know what transpired. The online court record for this case has a “Minute Entry” for the hearing, but I have to be a member of PACER and pay a fee to see it, which I am not and am not going to pay for. (I don’t think the actual document is very much, but I don’t want to through the rigmarole of joining pacer).

I also do not know if the judge is going to make a final decision based on the motions and briefs filed plus the hearing, or if this was just another step in the journey.

Standby for good news. If you want to see the court documents yourself, you can go to this link. Most of the documents, including the motions filed by both sides, are free for download, but every so often there’s one that you have to pay for.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63 ... ichardson/

ETA: Pittman was appointed by Trump.

Well dang.

I’ve only skimmed the opinion, but looks like case dismissed without prejudice, because the judge rules State of Texas and the individual plaintiffs have no standing to bring the suit.

Someone’s going to have to get prosecuted under federal law to carry case forward appears to be what the judge is saying.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.64.0.pdf

ELB wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 12:08 pm Well dang.

I’ve only skimmed the opinion, but looks like case dismissed without prejudice, because the judge rules State of Texas and the individual plaintiffs have no standing to bring the suit.

Someone’s going to have to get prosecuted under federal law to carry case forward appears to be what the judge is saying.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 9.64.0.pdf

First, there must be a concrete injury in fact that is not conjectural or hypothetical. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 149 (1990). Second, there must be causation—a fairly traceable connection between a plaintiff’s injury and the complained-of conduct of the defendant. Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41–42 (1976). Third, there must be redressability—a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562.

I am not a lawyer, but a person would have to jump through some clownworld mental hoops to think that these 3 things don't apply in the case.