As you all are aware by now, Texas passed a “Texas Made Suppressor Law” last session. It is a highly specific law that says that a suppressor that is made ENTIRELY of Texas made parts and stays in Texas is legal. Representative Tom Oliverson (R-District 130) led the fight for passage on this bill and it was well crafted.
It requires anyone who wants to build these to first seek a Declaratory Judgement from the courts–thus giving Attorney General Ken Paxton legal standing to defend the law.
Good news for us! The feds tried to kill the case and Judge Pittman said their arguments were not good enough to pull the plug on the case and denied their motion.
We will have our day in court! Post-Bruen, I have high hopes that this will prevail. Further, I spoke with Representative Oliverson this morning and he said ““HB957 passed its first legal challenge yesterday. I am glad to see the lawsuit move forward and I look forward to Judge Pittman’s evaluation of the arguments. I believe the case against federal regulation of these Texas-made, Texan-owned firearm safety devices is solid!”
It’s going to be a long haul but the trial date has been included in the four-week docket beginning November 12, 2023 and I have high hopes for it!
Here’s the problem. Unless this bill includes the directive for local LEOs to arrest agents of the FedGov who attempt to arrest folks who have suppressors without registering them as NFA items, the law is meaningless.
It’s a setup and trap, even if unintentional.
Do the right thing with the bill. Connect it to protection from the FedGov by the state and then it’s good to go. Even if the FedGov cannot be watched 24 hours per day, after arrest of innocent victims of this new law the state can decide to enter FedGov facilities to regain control of the victims and arrest said agents.
It’s all about who is willing to flex their muscle enough. And by the way, this sort of thing is exactly why the FedGov fears the new Missouri law prohibiting the ATF from interfering with the 2A in that state. It has teeth because it’s backed by state and local law enforcement under threat of firing and never again being able to work as a LEO in Missouri.
Cascade County [Montana] Sheriff Jesse Slaughter on Saturday broke up an investigation carried out in apparent coordination between federal and Canadian authorities at a Great Falls gun show, saying those agencieshad not contacted his office beforehand.
Although state law does not require federal investigators to obtain approval from local law enforcement to conduct operations, the agents left the fairgrounds “reluctantly” and without issue. Slaughter has positioned himself as a “constitutional sheriff,” which theorizes sheriffs are the ultimate authority in their county — above local, state and federal officials — raising questions in this incident about possible friction between layers of law enforcement.
Theorizes? No, a Constitutional Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer in the county. And that includes any invited or uninvited law enforcement from outside the county and local police departments.
According to a Sept. 24 report compiled by the Cascade County Sheriff’s Office, Slaughter and a deputy responded to a complaint that a man at the Montana Expo Park was acting suspiciously by taking photographs of vehicles. According to the fairgrounds director, the man was driving around the property in a black SUV with Canadian license plates, but never entered the show.
According to the report, Slaughter questioned Howe on why his office wasn’t contacted about the investigation; Howe said he had made contact with city police. The fairgrounds however are under the county’s jurisdiction. Howe added the person they were investigating was an American who did not have a federal firearms license to sell guns, according to the report. Slaughter noted this was a different reason than that provided by the Canadian police officer.
After a discussion under the fairgrounds’ grandstands, Slaughter “informed them they had to leave, to which they did.”
[…]
Slaughter said he had several concerns after learning of the investigation underway at the fairgrounds, primarily a public safety concern that if the federal or Canadian authorities were to use force in any way, they might be mistaken as a citizen assaulting another citizen. Citizens, local law enforcement or the agents involved could have been injured “if something went awry,” he said.
The sheriff also said he has constitutional questions about the legality of the investigation.
“I don’t know what their investigation was, it’s important that you print that,” Slaughter said, noting again the two investigations he was told about; looking for Canadians smuggling guns to the north, and investigating an American who was not licensed to sell firearms.
Slaughter said that had the federal and Canadian agencies contacted his office prior to Saturday’s incident, he would have been able to call off questions of who the agents were, or what they were doing, allowing the investigations to proceed.
Asked Thursday if drawing attention to the federal agents put those law enforcement officers in jeopardy, Slaughter said their police work outed themselves.
That’s funny.
“We don’t know they’re undercover,” Slaughter said. “We don’t know who they are, but we have them acting suspiciously.”
Slaughter said he expects next legislative session, which begins in January, to see passage of a bill that would require federal agencies to make contact with local law enforcement before launching an investigation on the ground. Such a law would further validate his stance as a “constitutional sheriff.”
Such proposals, known previously under the banner of “Sheriffs First,” have failed to pass muster in the state Legislature before. In 2011, a Republican state Senator from Thompson Falls introduced a bill that would have subjected federal agents to kidnapping or trespassing charges if they failed to obtain permission from the local sheriff to effectuate an investigation. Supporters said the legislation would prevent the bloodshed seen in episodes like the 1993 federal raid in Waco, Texas.
These proposed laws are an increment but remain weak because almost all local law enforcement submits to federal authority. We’d like to see a lot more of this but for the right reason: ‘get out of my county, you have no authority here,’ would be a good way to handle these situations. If state legislatures had any Tenth Amendment guts that also would help.
On September 23, 2022, Judge Maryellen Noreika issued a preliminary injunction against Delaware in the case of Rigby v Jennings. The case is about whether the State of Delaware can outlaw homemade guns and the distribution of materials and software to make homemade guns.
*gasp* Ghost Guns!
The decision is a win for supporters of Constitutional rights but has some troubling verbiage. Judge Maryellen Noreika was appointed by President Trump in 2018.
Judge Noreika relies on the “Final Rule” from the ATF, which is under dispute in several cases, as to what is a “firearm.” Further arguments fall apart if the definition of a firearm reverts to the decades-old definition.
Judge Noreika then makes a claim, supported by a Colorado case, that if a commercial transaction may be regulated, then all transactions may be regulated. Footnote 11, p. 11:
Sections 1459(a) and 1463(b) do not solely target commercial transactions. There is no reason to believe, however, that the non-commercial character of a transaction changes the analysis. See Colorado Outfitters Ass’n v. Hickenlooper, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1074 (D. Colo. 2014) (“Logically, if the government can lawfully regulate the ability of persons to obtain firearms from commercial dealers, that same power to regulate should extend to non-commercial transactions.”),vacated on other grounds and remanded, 823 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 2016).
This is a jump of logic and directly against the dicta in Heller, which states the Second Amendment allows:
“laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
There must be a differentiation between the commercial sale of arms and non-commercial transactions, or the above statement is nonsensical.
Somebody is going to tell us about an acre of wheat grown for private use that “could be” sold out of state.
Here are the TEN gun control provisions hidden in the FY 2023 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill:
1. Massive ATF Budget Increase to Facilitate Biden’s Pistol Ban
2. Gun Registration Funding
3. Gun Confiscation Law Funding
4. Financial Benefits for Families of Deceased ATF Agents Killed or Injured on the Job while Enforcing Gun Control
5. Ammunition Background Check Study
6. Gun Control Research, Unbound by the Dickey Amendment
7. Anti-gun Community Violence Interventions
8. “Domestic Violence Firearms Lethality Reduction Initiative”
9. “Violent Anti-Government Ideology” Research
10. Gun Control Earmarks
You know they want to know who is buying ammunition and what sort. Don’t bother trying to control the guns, they say. Control the supply of ammunition.
Here is the full take down of the garbage in the bill.
The ATF is asking Congress for a massive raise to:⁰⁰Upgrade their gun registry;⁰⁰Design a background check system for ammo purchases;⁰⁰And offer a pension system for ATF agents & families if injured or killed on the job (right before they start banning millions of firearms) https://t.co/XrXMkHTs1a
You know, that registry that’s supposed to be illegal for them to have, and those background checks on ammo purchases that infringe on the 2A.
That and those, in case you were wondering.
How can anyone left in the ATF actually believe they are doing any sort of good for humanity? How can they look their families in the fact knowing the oath they swore and what they do every day as ATF agents?
If it’s determined that your gun isn’t an SBR, at least they have all of the information on it, including information on you.
If it’s determined that you are in possession of an SBR illegally, then what happens? Do ATF agents come to your door, shoot your dogs and arrest you? Or do they simply register your firearm, now putting that gun on a list of NFA items that cannot cross state lines without their approval?
Watch this video if needed. BLUF: Don’t talk to the police. That included federal police.
Crack the door open enough for them to hear you (don’t go outside, don’t invite them in). Do not let your dogs out through the crack in the door – the ATF will shoot them dead. They like to shoot dogs. Say the following. “Do you have a warrant to be on this property?” If the answer is no, then say the following. “Please remove yourselves from the property. If you do not do so, I will call 911 and inform the local police that I have uninvited guests on my property and I need their assistance.”
The words uninvited guests is procedure-speak for the local police. It means that there are trespassers, but at the moment they’re not threatening your safety and you prefer them to effect an arrest rather than use force to remove them yourself. This is a way of informing the 911 operator that you’re not in a violent state of mind. It de-escalates the situation with the local police before they ever show up.
Do not answer questions. Do not engage in polite conversation. Do not allow them to stay on your property or photograph or harass you. Do not respond to their interrogatories.
This is all true if you did something wrong, or if you didn’t do anything wrong, or you didn’t do anything wrong and know it and intend to try to convince them of it — regardless of the specifics of the situation.
It’s not just me saying this. Listen to lawyers say it to you yet again.
“These two scumbags are exactly the types that would happily and voluntarily turn over any customer information the ATF requested. Including exact payment method, descriptions of all transactions, shipping dates and personal information, etc. There’s no way in hell the ATF could have this information otherwise. These surprise visits to law-abiding citizens by ATF are a direct result of these inside snitches.”
Here is the court decision. Of course, it’s the right call, but that doesn’t mean it will stand the rest of the appeals through the cicuits of black robed tyrants.
Mike does a good job of breaking it down. I was just trying to recall the compliance rate with AR-15 registration when Connecticut tried this stunt. As best as I recall it was < 10%. This is different, i.e., declaring a SBR, but even worse because for those who comply, they can’t even carry the firearm across state lines without ATF approval.
I never got into the pistol brace scene, but there are a lot of them in circulation, many more than I suspect will be registered with the ATF as SBRs.
This article is not about Force Reset Triggers. You should read it for the intelligence value to understand how ATF is running ops against America.
One of these agents spoke to AmmoLand News on a condition of anonymity, giving the gun community an insight into the ATF’s actions.
The Special Agents do not have discretion whether to contact the buyer or not. The order from ATF HQ demanded the field offices act. The ATF Special Agents are instructed to persuade the owner to turn over the triggers. While some agents are honest with gun owners and even give them a couple of days to decide what to do with the triggers, others have lied to the target. Law enforcement officers are not under any obligation, to be honest.
There’s also a degree of speculation in the article. Parse it yourself.
And separately, the legality of ATF’s “Knock and Talk” is being questioned.
US Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) has demanded to see legal justification for the growing number of ‘knock and talk’ visits to lawful gun owners by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF).
In a letter written Tuesday to Attorney General Merrick Garland and reported on by Breitbart, Ernst laid out eight questions about the program, which according to Garland is aimed at uncovering ‘straw purchases’ – cases in which a person legally barred from buying a gun uses someone with a clean record to purchase it for them.
Ernst asked Garland what constituted probable cause for these visits and whether agents sought a warrant before turning up on the target’s doorstep, expressing concern about what procedures were in place to protect their Fourth Amendment right against unwarranted search and seizure. She also questioned whether any guidelines existed for what time of day agents could conduct their inquiries and whether they were required to wear uniforms identifying them as ATF.
2 years, 3 months ago
