ATF Picking A Fight With Texas Over Texas Made Suppressor Law!!!

[Enslaved_NewYorker]

In this video I discuss the Texas suppressor freedom law that is now being litigated against the ATF. The ATF is now attempting to have the case thrown out.

 

[solus]

In this video I discuss the Texas suppressor freedom law that is now being litigated against the ATF. The ATF is now attempting to have the case thrown out.

deleted

so you are the presenter in this video who admits gleaning 'small commissions' off the products attached and who states, quote:

Legal Disclaimer: This content is not intended to provide any legal guidance or advice. Although I am a licensed attorney I am not providing any legal advice through this video. If you have any legal questions please contact a licensed professional in your area to address your specific issues. unquote

so which is the common good...you gleaning 'small commissions' or putting out BS & Propaganda ?

 

[color of law]

Attorneys are a dime a dozen, meaning that most don't know the difference between their a$$ and apple butter.

 

[tomm1963]

so you are the presenter in this video who admits gleaning 'small commissions' off the products attached and who states, quote:

Legal Disclaimer: This content is not intended to provide any legal guidance or advice. Although I am a licensed attorney I am not providing any legal advice through this video. If you have any legal questions please contact a licensed professional in your area to address your specific issues. unquote

so which is the common good...you gleaning 'small commissions' or putting out BS & Propaganda ?

Please elaborate on why we have our kinards in a twist over this vid?

 

[solus]

Please elaborate on why we have our kinards in a twist over this vid?

first a welcome back after a nine (9) year hiatus from the forum to the gentleman from Wisconsin...

now to your query...one presumes you noticed the OP hasn't responded to my query - restated below:

so which is the common good...you gleaning 'small commissions' or putting out BS & Propaganda ?

so tomm...your diaryland thoughts on said vid?

 

[tomm1963]

I still don't understand what the gripe with this vid is? He goes over the Texas law which pushes back against the NFA. So my question is why are you upset by the vid? What is the BS and propaganda?

Thanks for the welcome back BTW

 

[solus]

the Federal mandates:
-Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, citizens have had to pay the ATF $200 for a tax stamp to purchase suppressors.
-Federal regulations also require suppressors to be registered in a national registry.
-Manufacturers must have a license with the ATF to make suppressors, and even individuals that want to make suppressors for personal use must pay the tax stamp and get advance approval from the ATF.

texas mentality:
-HB 957 says these regulations do not apply to suppressors made in Texas.
-forbids state and local police from enforcing federal suppressor regulations.
****However, to keep regular citizens out of trouble with the ATF, it first directs the Texas attorney general to seek a declaration from a federal court that HB 957 is constitutional on behalf of a Texan looking to manufacture a Texas-made suppressor.

there is no push back since what the basis is nothing more than a legislative ploy to circumvent federal regulations and the idiotic video is simply a propaganda distraction gimmick to stir up animosity from the uninformed masses.

finally, remember OCDO mantra is open carry not texas legislative shenanigans over suppressors.

 

[tomm1963]

I know what NFA law is and it hinges on interstate commerce laws. The State tactic Texas is using has been tried in other places but I forget where. Maybe Barret Arms and full automatic NFA restrictions. As with anything it comes down to who wants to be the test case and be charged with NFA violation and then fight through the courts with your freedom in the balance. Funny how THC is illegal at the federal level yet states have legalized it. No one is being prosecuted in Federal court for THC in Colorado.

I remember in the early days of open carry many brave people took the chance of open carrying in places that claimed it was illegal. They were arrested at gunpoint, charged, and spent time in jail. Ultimately they won their cases and you have your rights back thanks to them.

So this issue steps outside of the narrow focus of open carry on this website and therefore we can't talk about it. All other 2nd amendment rights must be ignored here. ONLY OPEN CARRY DISCUSSION DAGNAMIT!

Now I remember why I haven't logged onto this site in 9 years. I look at my home forum of Wisconsin and see no activity in years, all the old active members have long since walked away from the myopic trolls on this site.

Thanks, Solus for reminding me of the endless nitpicking and infighting that goes on here. I'll check back in another 9 years.

 

[solus]

[1] I know what NFA law is and it hinges on interstate commerce laws. [2] The State tactic Texas is using has been tried in other places but I forget where. Maybe Barret Arms and full automatic NFA restrictions. As with anything it comes down to who wants to be the test case and be charged with NFA violation and then fight through the courts with your freedom in the balance. [3] Funny how THC is illegal at the federal level yet states have legalized it. No one is being prosecuted in Federal court for THC in Colorado.

I remember in the early days of open carry many brave people took the chance of open carrying in places that claimed it was illegal. [4] They were arrested at gunpoint, charged, and spent time in jail. Ultimately they won their cases and you have your rights back thanks to them.

[5] So this issue steps outside of the narrow focus of open carry on this website and therefore we can't talk about it. All other 2nd amendment rights must be ignored here. ONLY OPEN CARRY DISCUSSION DAGNAMIT!

Now I remember why I haven't logged onto this site in 9 years. I look at my home forum of Wisconsin and see no activity in years, all the old active members have long since walked away from the myopic trolls on this site.

Thanks, Solus for reminding me of the endless nitpicking and infighting that goes on here. I'll check back in another 9 years.

Well tomm forgive me, but i guess i missed your rebuttal, er any verbiage towards rebuttal, touting the positive prospective of the OPs video, especially since you know what the NFA law(s) are and how "it" hinges on interstate commerce laws and could speak so articulately on the subject thus validating why the OPs video is so needed and worthwhile instead of spending the first minute or so solicitating $$$.

sorry about your faulty memory regarding which other states have passed dubious legislature which once signed,, forces the state's AG to sue the federal government to a show down...might've persuaded my reconsideration about the video...

truly disappointed your attempt at bait and switch where you proffered by bringing individual state's legalization of recreational marijuana ~ did any of those states pass their legislation mandating the state's AG must sue the Feds over implementation of the state's citizens being allowed to toking up during their recreational period ~ NOPE!

as for those who suffered judicial injustice under previous governmental abuse for OC'g their SD handguns have my tip of the hat and those whom i have met and interacted with said thanks...

This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life.

finally, infighting...guess i missed the infighting since you haven't proffered up a viable rational regarding the video the OP posted!

sorry to hear WI gun forum's attendance is nill...might look inward and ask why you & dougie haven't kept the place alive...

 

[KBCraig]

I know what NFA law is and it hinges on interstate commerce laws. The State tactic Texas is using has been tried in other places but I forget where. Maybe Barret Arms and full automatic NFA restrictions. As with anything it comes down to who wants to be the test case and be charged with NFA violation and then fight through the courts with your freedom in the balance. Funny how THC is illegal at the federal level yet states have legalized it. No one is being prosecuted in Federal court for THC in Colorado.

You have a short memory.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Then NFA was allowed as a tax law.

Interstate commerce came in later to justify all the other foolishness

 

[color of law]

You have a short memory.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If anything this case does not help the ATF. It actually doesn't have any applicability. This controversy is actually a tax case as Firearms Iinstuctor implied.

The tax is an excise tax. Not paying the tax is a crime. But excise taxes can be avoided.

 

[KBCraig]

If anything this case does not help the ATF. It actually doesn't have any applicability. This controversy is actually a tax case as Firearms Iinstuctor implied.

The tax is an excise tax. Not paying the tax is a crime. But excise taxes can be avoided.

That tax is applied to intrastate transfers. That's why Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzales v. Raich, and everything that came between and since are relevant to the discussion of interstate commerce and federal authority.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

That tax is applied to intrastate transfers. That's why Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzales v. Raich, and everything that came between and since are relevant to the discussion of interstate commerce and federal authority.

The interstate commerce clause has been perverted by the left to give the federal government huge power it was never meant to have.

 

[user]

Attorneys are a dime a dozen, meaning that most don't know the difference between their a$$ and apple butter.

Having worked closely with them for thirty years, I can confirm this conclusion based on experience. There are some good ones, but you can't afford them; they're hired by the elite in order to keep you in serfdom. It really doesn't matter, though, because the lowest level trial courts mostly only operate for the benefit of collections attorneys and prosecutors, and they're going to grind people up in the System Establishment Machine, attorneys or no attorneys (who are actually firmly embedded in The Machine themselves as minor cogs).

 

[color of law]

That tax is applied to intrastate transfers. That's why Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzales v. Raich, and everything that came between and since are relevant to the discussion of interstate commerce and federal authority.

No it is not. The $200 excise tax is paid for the privilege of owning a suppressor. Both sides have no clue as to the real argument. This is two sovereigns arguing between themselves over a legal fiction.

 

[user]

Well, sure, it's just a tax. And, although the Constitution says that the United States is prohibited from exercising power and authority except as specifically provided in the Constitution, the S.Ct. came up with the theory that the U.S. can do whatever it wants if it involves taxation. Obamacare, for example. It works like this: the United States has the power to exact taxes both as excise taxes in its regulation of interstate commerce, as well as upon income. Because it has the power to tax, this implies the power to spend the money the U.S. receives thereby, as "necessary" to the power to tax (the powers granted extend not only to specifically enumerated activities, but activities "necessary" thereto, as well). If the U.S. has the power to spend money, that implies it can spend the money on anything it wants. Including activities like a tax on firearms parts, notwithstanding the prohibition contained in the Second Amendment (which includes any kind of acts on the edge, the verge, the fringes, of firearms regulation).

Look at the logic errors in this reasoning. (Ignoring the fact that the U.S. is now taxing wages, not incomes - dividends, capital gains, profits from operation of businesses.) The power to tax in limited ways does not imply anything at all. There are no implications in federal law - it is not a common law jurisdiction, and judges do not get to fill in what they perceive as gaps in the law. Unless the Constitution or a statute enacted pursuant thereto says it, it doesn't exist. There is no general "power to spend" - all expenditures have to originate in the House of Representatives and be limited to Constitutionally permissible ends. If what the Court said were true, then Congress can enact legislation that would spend money on a program to wipe out, say, the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, if it wanted to.

Here's another: the Bill of Rights is a collection of amendments. That means they change the meaning of the original provisions, and thus, the Second Amendment effectively changes the Interstate Commerce Clause to read, "... and commerce with foreign states, except where such would infringe the right to keep and bear arms."

Finally, think about that "necessary" idea. In the vulgar (i.e., ordinary person's) mind, that word means "essential", like "necessary food and clothing". But it's original meaning was the expression of a relationship of logical dependency, and that's how it's used in the Constitution. Where, for example, Congress is authorized to raise armies, and things like uniforms, ammunition, housing, etc. are required in order to do so, i.e. where raising an army is dependant on spending money on those kinds of things in order to do so, having an army is dependant on such provisions. Spending money on bullets is logically necessary to having an army, and that does not mean that one has to precede the other in time. No problem with all that. But the Court has gone even beyond the Washington Post's whacky mischaracterizations and redefinions by stating that "necessary" in that context, simply means, "related to", not "dependant upon" (by the way, "dependant" comes from a Latin word that simply means, "hanging from" - one thing hangs off of another in the same way that "necessary" means one thing that is logically dependant on another). So the Court says that if an activity is related to a legitimate federal power, then it's ok, even if it is not logically or causally necessary.

That's how the gun control act of 1968 was passed, mainly because the Black Panther Party scared the Democratic elite and Republican reactionaries by undertaking to promote black folks' right to self defense. It was a trick by the Democratic Party, and they still haven't given up after their military defeat in 1865. They're still fighting the Civil War; I think they figure, now, that the best way to keep "undesirable racial elements" from being able to defend themselves is by effectively prohibiting gun ownership generally, except of course, for those members of the System Establishment Machine wealthy enough to buy "smart ammunition".

I've heard it said, "Which part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?", but that's not the problem - it's not stupidity, it's a willful, obtuse, and seditious violation by intellectually dishonest people who never thought that they were in any way limited by having taken an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Sort of like Pope Innocent X, who, when his daddy, Lorenzo di Medici (the guy who invented shipping insurance and modern banking) had purchased the office for him, said, "God has given us the papacy; let us enjoy it."

 

[Doug_Nightmare]

‘Vulgar’ is one of my favorite lists of cognates; vulgar, common and demotic best of all.

Wow. Mention of the papacy. I am much taken by SEDEVACANTISM, the holding that the Holy See is a vacant seat - sedevacant - and has been since the Second Vatican Council 1965 advanced ecumenism. Similarly the Oval Office is sedevacant.

 

[KBCraig]

No it is not. The $200 excise tax is paid for the privilege of owning a suppressor. Both sides have no clue as to the real argument. This is two sovereigns arguing between themselves over a legal fiction.

I look forward to reading your argument that prevails before SCOTUS.

 

[color of law]

I look forward to reading your argument that prevails before SCOTUS.

To be more specific, the $200 excise tax is for the privilege to manufacture a silencer or to transfer a silencer.

Excise taxes are selective taxes on specific forms of consumption or behavior. Federal excise taxes apply to a wide variety of consumer goods and economic activities, such as alcohol, tobacco, firearms ammunition, gasoline and tires. There are thousands of excise taxes. A “tax stamp” is not a tax, it is proof that the excise tax was paid. See 26 USC §§ 5811 and 5812 for the transfer of a firearm muffler or firearm silencer, and 26 USC §§ 5821 and 5822 for the manufacture of a firearm muffler or firearm silencer. And it should be noted that the excise tax must be paid before manufacturing the firearm muffler or the firearm silencer.

Both Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich contained a “Congressional findings and declarations” laying out why congress may regulate under the commerce clause. The “National Firearms Act” (1934) has no such finding.

The "Gun Control Act of 1968" did have a Congressional findings, Purpose:
“The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.”

The above was declared before Heller.

If you read the dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, I believe, the makeup of the court now would shoot down the commerce clause applicability because it is a tax case.