There is a ton of information on this subject on the OB....

OldArmyBrent said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Is this a commerce clause issue?

Why would silencers made in Texas that stay in Texas hypothetically not be subject to federal law?

---

Yes. Anyone thinking that making the whole thing inside Texas exempts it from federal law is kidding themselves. There is well established precedent that just impacting a market in another state because you have created an alternative for consumers in your state constitutes interstate commerce. These attorneys who created this bill know that.

---

The national market for suppressors? The market where you need a federal stamp to own a suppressor?

If that is the reasoning, that Texas suppressors that stay in Texas might impact such a highly regulated national market, that is one tough row to hoe.

I think it is pretty safe to say, based on the documentation burden, the highly regulated nature of market, and the cost to get permission to own a suppressor before you even buy one, that the demand for suppressors is highly, highly inelastic, and that the price of suppressors in Texas is going to have zero impact on the demand for suppressors in, say, Florida.

Fun fact.

Norway pretty much requires suppressors on long guns these days. They see it as a safety feature to protect hearing. They don't think of it as tactical or military. Their legislators haven't been watching too many movies like ours have.

Being required to have one is not for me but the completely different view on the topic is very interesting.

How many of you guys are feds?

Sure, businesses might be reluctant to commercialize it but home made in Texas cans will become the norm.

Purchase with cash. Nothing in writing

Could someone in Texas buy a suppressor made in another state? Are they now buying one from Texas instead? That trivial impact is not a tough row to hoe at all. That was the reasoning in Wickard v Filburn.

BusterAg said:

---

OldArmyBrent said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Is this a commerce clause issue?

Why would silencers made in Texas that stay in Texas hypothetically not be subject to federal law?

---

Yes. Anyone thinking that making the whole thing inside Texas exempts it from federal law is kidding themselves. There is well established precedent that just impacting a market in another state because you have created an alternative for consumers in your state constitutes interstate commerce. These attorneys who created this bill know that.

---

The national market for suppressors? The market where you need a federal stamp to own a suppressor?

If that is the reasoning, that Texas suppressors that stay in Texas might impact such a highly regulated national market, that is one tough row to hoe.

I think it is pretty safe to say, based on the documentation burden, the highly regulated nature of market, and the cost to get permission to own a suppressor before you even buy one, that the demand for suppressors is highly, highly inelastic, and that the price of suppressors in Texas is going to have zero impact on the demand for suppressors in, say, Florida.

---

First off, I HIGHLY disagree with the basis of "not competing in interstate commerce is still competing in interstate commerce."

That being said, opening a market up to local product that is deregulated WILL affect out of state products that are highly regulated. Why by a suppressor with a 9 month wait when you can get a local one same day?

On top of that, it can also be viewed that the material had to come from Texas, not be transferred on Interstate highways, etc. Basically, a TON of small, nitpicky things adds up to the fed's case. Not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is.

Now, here's the crux of the matter. The feds already HAVE prosecuted two individuals... a buyer and a seller... for exactly this. It was appealed all the way up to the SC. The SC declined to hear it.

Buying in crypto would double-own the feds

Any chance you got the case of the Fed prosecution? Interested.

Madman said:

---

Fun fact.

Norway pretty much requires suppressors on long guns these days. They see it as a safety feature to protect hearing. They don't think of it as tactical or military. Their legislators haven't been watching too many movies like ours have.

Being required to have one is not for me but the completely different view on the topic is very interesting.

---

They're required in a lot of places. Many many hunting spots in the UK require them.

I don't even think it's the 'movie' excuse anymore. Dems, for some reason despite polls showing even their base to be majority pro-gun, can absolutely never ever be seen showing any tilt toward anything whatsoever having anything to do with guns, so they don't care one bit about educating themselves about wtf they are talking about. Nothing, no matter how reasonable any sane person knows it to be. This is why you get so much of the 'barrel shroud', 'magazine clip', 'shoulder-thing-that-goes-up' variety....

OldArmyBrent said:

---

Could someone in Texas buy a suppressor made in another state? Are they now buying one from Texas instead? That trivial impact is not a tough row to hoe at all. That was the reasoning in Wickard v Filburn.

---

Summary from Cornell:

Quote:

---

A unanimous Court upheld the law. In an opinion authored by Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson, the Court found that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate prices in the industry, and this law was rationally related to that legitimate goal. The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the intrastate activity viewed in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To this extent, the opinion went against prior decisions that had analyzed whether an activity was local, or whether its effects were direct or indirect.

---

First off, this case centers on the legality of Federal price controls. Ug. What dark times.

Second, the aggregate impact of people growing their own wheat would probably have an impact on the national price of wheat. Wheat is a commodity product. It is easy to grow at home (for the average 1938 farmer, of which there were many). That is a pretty sound economics argument.

My counter argument is, that the aggregate impact of people from Texas buying suppressors only from Texas will not have an impact on the national price of suppressors. I think you could make a great economics argument that this is the case.

3d printers go brrrr in Texas.

I hear your argument, but given the way the commerce clause has been so broadly construed since then, I don't see how something actually being produced for sale is going to be seen as having a smaller impact to interstate commerce than a farmer growing wheat for his own use. The fact that there's a 6 month wait now and this would presumably change that to no wait means you absolutely are impacting commerce. Other manufacturers would have to do something to be competitive or exit the Texas market.

I'm generally not a supporter of any gun laws, but I'm making the point that this law is mostly PR. It doesn't change much because ATF isn't going to ignore things like the DEA did with pot. They're going to prosecute and will most likely win if the only defense is someone saying state law trumps federal because there's no impact to interstate commerce. That Hawaiian judge won't be on our side this time.

American public perception and law regarding suppressors is ass backwards and inspired by bad fiction and movie fakery.

They aren't as quiet or useful in criminal activities as implied by media, but they are very useful in preventing hearing damage and minimizing disturbance to the public from firearms related activities.

They should be completely legal and easily available for those reasons. Many nations in Europe all but require them for most sports shooting outdoors.

Wickard v. Filburn says "Hi."

Abomination of a decision that needs to be limited.

Quote:

---

The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the intrastate activity viewed in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

---

Sarge 91 said:

---

Wickard v. Filburn says "Hi."

Abomination of a decision that needs to be limited.

Quote:

---

The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce, as long as the intrastate activity viewed in the aggregate would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

---

---

Personally, my most hated SC decision from law school. What an un-American, piece of **** decision.