recent texas suppressor law changes??

[Grumpy]

I was asked if I moved to texas because of the recent texas law change allowing you to legally buy/build/own a firearm suppressor
if the correct forms and taxes are filled out and paid.
the answer , is... up untill now... I never even considered owning one or building one ,
and it had zero to do with my move to texas.
but I do find the option a positive step in firearm freedom, if you do live in texas, and if you do want one!

What is the new Texas law on suppressors?

HB 957 – “Made in Texas” Suppressors
This bill removes firearm suppressors from the list of weapons that are prohibited under Texas law and forbids any Texas agency, including state courts, police departments, and district attorney offices, from enforcing any federal law regulating them.J


related info

 

[rlphvac]

I don't know what the big deal with suppressors are all about if they were available to everyone without the government BS and we all owned 1 or 50 it would not change the crime numbers at all NOTHING just another registration for the FIB to keep a file on you because if you would own a device like this then obviously you are going to turn into a deranged killer some day and you will never convince me that our law abiding and democrat owned criminal organization the FIB doesnt keep a gun registry on all of as illegal as that is

 

[chromebumpers]

I wish I could gift a few to one of my neighbors. He’s becoming really annoying every Sunday around dinner time. It’s his last shot of the day. I don’t know what he has but it’s so dam loud, it sounds like a muzzle loader went off right next to me only twice as loud And he’s a mile away.

 

[Grumpy]

If you can stand to have a in depth conversation , with the members of the far left liberal democrats, (like my lawyer brother-in-law)
you might know about the dem. party agenda,
ask detailed questions

 

[Grumpy]

 

[Grumpy]

 

[Grumpy]

 

[Grumpy]

 

[Grumpy]

what the court is saying, is unless someone's been charged with a crime
(making and having been charged with making a "ILLEGAL" suppressor there's no reason to go forward with the case.)
and the ATF wants a VICTIM to punish and make an example of, if anyone does go forward with making an "ILLEGAL" suppressor before the court will decide IF texas can allow its citizens to get permission to build " in state built and use only" suppressors" this is the courts way of stepping aside , or ignoring the case for now, until someone's willing to "TAKE ONE UP THE BUTT WITH ALL THE LEGAL HASSEL'S AND EXPENSES,FOR THE TEAM,
by the ATF who wants to maintain total control and keep records of all owners of suppressor's
and sees texas law changes as a big loss in potential tax revenue "
remember currently there's about a 6 month wait and a $200 tax the ATF collects per suppressor"
or the courts just finding a way of ignoring
the text of the second amendment for now

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What is the new Texas law on suppressors?

HB 957 – “Made in Texas” Suppressors
This bill removes firearm suppressors from the list of weapons that are prohibited under Texas law and forbids any Texas agency, including state courts, police departments, and district attorney offices, from enforcing any federal law regulating them.J

 

[Grumpy]

in several texas legal cases the right to have texans legally own or build suppressors
has marginally advanced, I hope we win the right in court,
as the ATF keeps changing the laws , saying that suppressors are "ARMS" they should regulate,
but NOT protected by the second amendment , as they are accessories not "ARMS"
as they get legally slapped back to reality.

 

[Grumpy]

 

[Grumpy]

 

[Grumpy]

its a BILL, the videos CLICK BAIT!

not a change in the LAW YET!

 

[Grumpy]

 

[Grumpy]

 

[Grumpy]

we are very slowly in courts across AMERICA,
clawing back our previously ,
"by previous liberal dem admins",
previously stolen freedoms
this is not so much a victory were we gain access to some particular part,
in this particular case ,
as it's about a trigger design, that most of us could care less about,
as it potentially makes it potentially possible
to fire a semi auto rifle a bit more rapidly under some conditions,
as it is a slap across the face of the ATFe, managements penchant for constantly re-interpreting laws,
rewording and changing the meaning of words,
to gain power through nipping away at freedom , bit by bit, so they gain ever increased power and jurisdiction
multiple government agencies have for many decades
through chevron deference (rewording regulations and changing definitions)
as most agencies have for decades done this thus incrementally ,
by constantly increasing their power, reach over the citizens rights,
and required funding and thus expanding personnel required
the previous ruling on CHEVRON DEFERENCE ,
makes it clear government can not constantly rewrite and reword laws to gain power and control
which had previously been standard procedure, for 8 plus decades
" the law means "THIS " " BECAUSE WE SAY IT DOES"
"were the experts, you have no reason or any ability to question our expertise"
is no longer a valid argument, in the courts
On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This decision reversed the 1984 case Chevron USA v. National Resources Defense Council, which established the practice of Chevron deference. Chevron deference is a principle of judicial review that allows federal courts to defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal laws. The ruling states that courts may not defer to agency interpretations of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous, and instead gives the judiciary the sole authority to "say what the law is".


The ruling may have several implications, including:

• Increased litigation
  Regulated entities may have more leverage to challenge agency actions, which could lead to more legal challenges and litigation.
  
  
  
• More detailed legislation
  The ruling may emphasize the importance of clear delegation of authority from Congress to agencies, which could lead to more specific statutory language in future legislation.
  
  
  
• Judges making technical determinations
  Judges may need to make technical and scientific determinations instead of relying on agency staff expertise.
  
  
  
• Reduced certainty for regulators
  Regulators may have less certainty about whether their rules will be respected.