Mossberg shockwave - request for AG opinion

[ELB]

Representative Phil King has asked the Texas AG for an opinion about whether the Mossberg shockwave is legal in Texas.

I am on my phone, and doing links is a royal pain, so no linky right now. You can go to the Attorney General's website and look up requests for opinion.

[dlh]

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.

[Soccerdad1995]

I would also love to have a Shockwave. It's not a gun that I "need", and yes there are other guns that can accomplish the same purpose. But then again, I have a lot of guns I don't "need".

I asked the AG's office for an opinion and they declined to give one. Then again, I am a mere citizen. Hopefully this request will get an answer. I don't see how they could rule that it is illegal without making the definition of a shotgun extremely broad (something like all firearms having a smooth bore regardless of whether they are capable of being shouldered).

[ELB]

Link to the request for opinion: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... 0161KP.pdf

[jason812]

I asked the AG's office for an opinion and they declined to give one. Then again, I am a mere citizen.

Did his office respond or just not give an opinion? He's an elected official and should respond to the mere citizens. Even if it the political response I have gotten from several officials that didn't answer the question or was political gobbly goo for a yes or no question.

[carlson1]

I asked the AG's office for an opinion and they declined to give one. Then again, I am a mere citizen.

Did his office respond or just not give an opinion? He's an elected official and should respond to the mere citizens. Even if it the political response I have gotten from several officials that didn't answer the question or was political gobbly goo for a yes or no question.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... e&start=45

Here is my inquiry:

I was informed by a gun retailer today that a certain firearm has been determined to be illegal in the state of Texas. It is the Mossberg Shockwave, which has been determined by the ATF to be a legal, non-NFA, firearm under federal law. I believe that some people have claimed that this firearm is a short-barreled shotgun, which would, of course, make it illegal under federal (and Texas) law. However, the ATF based it's decision on this question on the fact that this firearm is manufactured with no shoulder stock, and therefore does not meet the definition of a shotgun (since that definition refers to a weapon intended to be shouldered). Texas law does not define the term "shotgun", even though it does state that a "short barreled shotgun" is illegal. Can you please tell me if anyone from your office has decided that this firearm meets the (non-existent) definition of a shotgun in Texas law, even though it has been ruled to not meet the federal law definition of that term? Also, can you please tell me whether your office has issued any opinions as to the legality of possessing this firearm in the state of Texas? Thank you in advance for your consideration.

and the response:

Mr. Soccerdad, my name is Captain Gregory Lucas, I am the Law Enforcement Liaison for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), your complaint was forwarded to me for review. I am not aware of an OAG Opinion issued regarding this weapon, you can search for previously issued Opinions on the website at https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinio ... s-orls-etc. This protocol and list of authorized requestors for an OAG Opinion can also be found on the website at https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinio ... al-opinion. The interpretation of the definition of weapons found in the Texas Penal Code Chapter 46.01, definitions of weapons, would be the responsibility of the prosecutor with jurisdiction where the alleged offense occurred. Please let me know if you have any further questions.



Captain Gregory Lucas

Law Enforcement Liaison

Office of the Attorney General

Criminal Investigation Division

Office 512-936-1335

Cell 512-652-8426

Fax 512-370-9948

[bigtek]

I asked the AG's office for an opinion and they declined to give one. Then again, I am a mere citizen.

Did his office respond or just not give an opinion? He's an elected official and should respond to the mere citizens. Even if it the political response I have gotten from several officials that didn't answer the question or was political gobbly goo for a yes or no question.

Sections 402.042 and 402.043 of the Government Code list the officials who are authorized to request formal attorney general opinions on questions of law. The attorney general is prohibited by statute from giving a written opinion to anyone other than an authorized requestor.

[The Annoyed Man]

Link to the request for opinion: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... 0161KP.pdf

Maybe it will move faster, coming from a member of the legislature, that it would coming from a member of the peasant class......

[tx85]

Via Twitter:

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!!!

[CrimsonSoul]

Via Twitter:

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!!!

Not sure if I'm reading the bill right, did this legalize suppressors without an nfa tax stamp?

[carlson1]

Via Twitter:

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!!!

Not sure if I'm reading the bill right, did this legalize suppressors without an nfa tax stamp?

It puts us in the position for when the Federal Government passes the bill to legalize suppressors then here in Texas we can buy one immediately.

Right now you still have to have the $200 tax stamp. I will put my Shockwave on order!!!

[CrimsonSoul]

Via Twitter:

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!!!

Not sure if I'm reading the bill right, did this legalize suppressors without an nfa tax stamp?

It puts us in the position for when the Federal Government passes the bill to legalize suppressors then here in Texas we can buy one immediately.

Right now you still have to have the $200 tax stamp. I will put my Shockwave on order!!!

Ah, gotcha. Don't see that as a possibility in the near future. Give track shows hr367 with a 2 percent chance of passing

[tx85]

Ah, gotcha. Don't see that as a possibility in the near future. Give track shows hr367 with a 2 percent chance of passing

It was pointed out to me recently that because this involves taxes/revenue, removing suppressors from the NFA can be slipped into a bill that will be passed via reconciliation (which is not subject to filibuster). As chance would have it, a reconciliation bill is currently the highest priority in D.C. right now: healthcare reform. So not only would removing suppressors from the NFA as part of the healthcare bill meet the reconciliation rules (tax related), it's also relevant to public health!

That said, I'm not very optimistic that Republicans will succeed in passing a healthcare bill out of both chambers and even less optimistic they will have the stones to include the suppressor language in it. It will be a shame if Republicans don't take advantage of the opportunity, because it doesn't happen very often that one party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.

[dlh]

Via Twitter:

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!!!

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

So if I read this correctly (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), prior to amendment, the relevant section of the bill reads:

• 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:
      • (A) an explosive weapon;
        (B) a machine gun; or
        (C) a short-barrel firearm; [or
        [(D) a firearm silencer;]
      (2) knuckles;
      (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.

Estes' amendment would change this 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 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:
      • (A) an explosive weapon;
        (B) a machine gun; or
        (C) a short-barrel firearm; [or
        [(D) a firearm silencer;]
      (2) knuckles;
      (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.

Many props to Senator Estes!