New Suppressor Law = No Good

[Caliber]

I contacted a suppressor manufacturer. They said the new Texas law changes nothing because FFL's and SOT's still have to follow federal law. So, I suppose you could legally make your own suppressor, but you're not going to get around the ATF form or the $200 by going to the store and buying a suppressor.

[MaduroBU]

It's momentum. If we have enough states with laws which run contrary to federal statute which didn't make sense even when it was passed, overturning the federal statute will be much easier. See marijuana laws.

[jason812]

Or just don't be an FFL or SOT I sure wish my manual lathe was CNC.

[Scott Farkus]

I contacted a suppressor manufacturer. They said the new Texas law changes nothing because FFL's and SOT's still have to follow federal law. So, I suppose you could legally make your own suppressor, but you're not going to get around the ATF form or the $200 by going to the store and buying a suppressor.

I've always wondered why a suppressor manufactured in a state sold to a resident of the state had to get the NFA stamp. Seems like that's clearly intrastate commerce and no business of the feds. Glad to see this, maybe it'll help force the issue.

[Syntyr]

I contacted a suppressor manufacturer. They said the new Texas law changes nothing because FFL's and SOT's still have to follow federal law. So, I suppose you could legally make your own suppressor, but you're not going to get around the ATF form or the $200 by going to the store and buying a suppressor.

If the case for declarative judgment is successful I would be willing to bet business will spring up selling supplies to roll your own mufflers. Now it might be like the legal weed businesses in other states. Since it would be illegal federally the business will probably be cash only.

[srothstein]

I contacted a suppressor manufacturer. They said the new Texas law changes nothing because FFL's and SOT's still have to follow federal law. So, I suppose you could legally make your own suppressor, but you're not going to get around the ATF form or the $200 by going to the store and buying a suppressor.

I've always wondered why a suppressor manufactured in a state sold to a resident of the state had to get the NFA stamp. Seems like that's clearly intrastate commerce and no business of the feds. Glad to see this, maybe it'll help force the issue.

See Wickard v. Filburn for an explanation of how that is interstate commerce.

[philip964]

So your saying I can legally make a suppressor now?

[The Annoyed Man]

I contacted a suppressor manufacturer. They said the new Texas law changes nothing because FFL's and SOT's still have to follow federal law. So, I suppose you could legally make your own suppressor, but you're not going to get around the ATF form or the $200 by going to the store and buying a suppressor.

I've always wondered why a suppressor manufactured in a state sold to a resident of the state had to get the NFA stamp. Seems like that's clearly intrastate commerce and no business of the feds. Glad to see this, maybe it'll help force the issue.

See Wickard v. Filburn for an explanation of how that is interstate commerce.

One of the most VILE SCOTUS decisions ever made, too; written by men who were installed by a socialist president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

By the time that the case reached the high court, eight out of the nine justices had been appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, the architect of the New Deal legislation.

The SCOTUS interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a powerful argument for scrapping the whole shebang and starting over.

[K.Mooneyham]

I contacted a suppressor manufacturer. They said the new Texas law changes nothing because FFL's and SOT's still have to follow federal law. So, I suppose you could legally make your own suppressor, but you're not going to get around the ATF form or the $200 by going to the store and buying a suppressor.

I've always wondered why a suppressor manufactured in a state sold to a resident of the state had to get the NFA stamp. Seems like that's clearly intrastate commerce and no business of the feds. Glad to see this, maybe it'll help force the issue.

Now remember, INTERSTATE commerce is anything the Federal government has figured out how to make money off of.

[carlson1]

Could you not build your own suppressor and it be legal?

[srothstein]

Could you not build your own suppressor and it be legal?

Under the current state of federal law, anything which might affect interstate commerce can be regulated. The logic in the Wickard case was that his wheat was regulated, even though he grew it for his own personal use, because if he did not have it then he would be buying wheat that was involved in interstate commerce.

This is why the new law is a great symbol but is not really any use. If you build your own suppressor, even with all Texas sourced materials, you have affected interstate commerce by not engaging in it. Thus, Congress can regulate anything and make it illegal.

[Paladin]

I contacted a suppressor manufacturer. They said the new Texas law changes nothing because FFL's and SOT's still have to follow federal law. So, I suppose you could legally make your own suppressor, but you're not going to get around the ATF form or the $200 by going to the store and buying a suppressor.

I've always wondered why a suppressor manufactured in a state sold to a resident of the state had to get the NFA stamp. Seems like that's clearly intrastate commerce and no business of the feds. Glad to see this, maybe it'll help force the issue.

See Wickard v. Filburn for an explanation of how that is interstate commerce.

One of the most VILE SCOTUS decisions ever made, too; written by men who were installed by a socialist president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

By the time that the case reached the high court, eight out of the nine justices had been appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, the architect of the New Deal legislation.

The SCOTUS interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a powerful argument for scrapping the whole shebang and starting over.

It was truly a decision completely against the freedom of trade and competition. The decision facilitated a command economy to copy the Soviets. Anti-American as it gets.

[carlson1]

Could you not build your own suppressor and it be legal?

Under the current state of federal law, anything which might affect interstate commerce can be regulated. The logic in the Wickard case was that his wheat was regulated, even though he grew it for his own personal use, because if he did not have it then he would be buying wheat that was involved in interstate commerce.

This is why the new law is a great symbol but is not really any use. If you build your own suppressor, even with all Texas sourced materials, you have affected interstate commerce by not engaging in it. Thus, Congress can regulate anything and make it illegal.

Thank you.

[jason812]

I contacted a suppressor manufacturer. They said the new Texas law changes nothing because FFL's and SOT's still have to follow federal law. So, I suppose you could legally make your own suppressor, but you're not going to get around the ATF form or the $200 by going to the store and buying a suppressor.

I've always wondered why a suppressor manufactured in a state sold to a resident of the state had to get the NFA stamp. Seems like that's clearly intrastate commerce and no business of the feds. Glad to see this, maybe it'll help force the issue.

See Wickard v. Filburn for an explanation of how that is interstate commerce.

One of the most VILE SCOTUS decisions ever made, too; written by men who were installed by a socialist president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

By the time that the case reached the high court, eight out of the nine justices had been appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, the architect of the New Deal legislation.

The SCOTUS interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a powerful argument for scrapping the whole shebang and starting over.

That decision is horrible and trying to prove a negative. Kind of like how do you prove you don't beat your wife.

[seph]

The point of this law was to setup the legal challenge. In that regard, it is a good law. It just does not change things until the legal challenge runs it's course in the next half dozen years.