The Briefing Room
State Chapters => Texas => Topic started by: Elderberry on October 06, 2022, 01:21:14 am
-
The Texan by Matt Stringer October 3, 2022
Federal Judge Allows Lawsuit to Exempt Texas-Made Suppressors from Federal Law to Move Forward
A federal judge allowed a lawsuit that seeks to exempt Texas-made firearms suppressors from federal registration requirements to move forward.
A lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to exempt Texas-made suppressors from federal regulations will move forward, after federal Judge Mark Pittman on Monday ruled against a motion to dismiss the case.
The ruling constitutes a procedural win for Paxton and co-plaintiffs in the case, which was filed on behalf of several Texas residents.
Attorney Tony McDonald, legal counsel for several of the plaintiffs, wrote on social media that the “big (initial) win” will allow the case to move forward and that the judge rejected the argument that suppressors are firearms accessories and not protected by the Second Amendment.
More: https://thetexan.news/federal-judge-allows-lawsuit-to-exempt-texas-made-suppressors-from-federal-law-to-move-forward/ (https://thetexan.news/federal-judge-allows-lawsuit-to-exempt-texas-made-suppressors-from-federal-law-to-move-forward/)
-
The Sounds of Silencers
Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog 10/5/2022
Ken Paxton clears a hurdle in his goal to expanding the freedom of Texans under federalism.
A lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to exempt Texas-made suppressors from federal regulations will move forward, after federal Judge Mark Pittman on Monday ruled against a motion to dismiss the case.
Attorney Tony McDonald, legal counsel for several of the plaintiffs, wrote on social media that the “big (initial) win” will allow the case to move forward and that the judge rejected the argument that suppressors are firearms accessories and not protected by the Second Amendment.
“Obviously this doesn’t mean we’ll win, but importantly it signals Pittman rejects [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives]’s argument that suppressors are just accessories and are not protected by the 2A. That seemed to be a pretty clear legal question that, if accepted, meant we had no case,” McDonald wrote.
The case has considerable importance not only on Second Amendment grounds, but on Tenth Amendment grounds as well. It is obvious that the Founders only intended to regulate commerce between states, not within a single state, and much government-expanding mischief has been wrought in the name of the commerce clause. Breathing new life into the Tenth Amendment would help remedy that.
Now we’ll see if the case can make it all the way to the Supreme Court…
More: https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=52843 (https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=52843)
-
If they aren't firearms, what is the BATF doing regulating them?
I feel the same about bump stocks,and I don't own either one.
(THE NFA of '34 is unconstitutional, imho, anyway).
-
If they aren't firearms, what is the BATF doing regulating them?
I feel the same about bump stocks,and I don't own either one.
(THE NFA of '34 is unconstitutional, imho, anyway).
I don't own either as well. I have friends that use suppressors for hunting hogs. The main reason they give for using them is that it's to protect their hearing. This person in particular does have some hearing loss and I can see their point in using one.