Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
New Texas Suppressor Law A Tenth Amendment Test Case
Constitutional Carry and Second Amendment Sanctuary weren’t the only pro-2A bills signed into
Didn't someone already get jammed up for doing this very thing in another state? Either way to me this means that if you don't have to go through the NFA you should also be able to make your own. Hopefully states keep doing these types of things. This is how you nullify the NFA and ATF. I feel that people will eventually realize they can within reason do whatever the hell they want.
The commerce clause should not apply since the suppressors are to be manufactured in TX and sold in TX and Gonzales v Raich is not on point for a product that is legal under Federal law.These distractions are fun, but Gonzales v Raich
The commerce clause should not apply since the suppressors are to be manufactured in TX and sold in TX and Gonzales v Raich is not on point for a product that is legal under Federal law.
Texas is confident and taunting for a Supreme Court case here.
Texas is confident and taunting for a Supreme Court case here.
The law man will just wait until one is used in a crime(mass shooting type ) or until they catch someone with or selling one across state lines. Then they will try to make a case.
Good luck Texas!
Raich definitively established that Federal preemption applies under the Commerce Clause where Congress has chosen to regulate the area, even against items domestically produced within a state.
And unlike pot, there is no way a suppressor can be entirely produced within the Great State of Texas. If you want to know why:
Didn't someone already get jammed up for doing this very thing in another state? Either way to me this means that if you don't have to go through the NFA you should also be able to make your own. Hopefully states keep doing these types of things. This is how you nullify the NFA and ATF. I feel that people will eventually realize they can within reason do whatever the hell they want.
And unlike pot, there is no way a suppressor can be entirely produced within the Great State of Texas. If you want to know why:
After looking at Westlaw, some CFRs, and some B2B industrial resource catalogs I respectfully concludeRaich definitively established that Federal preemption applies under the Commerce Clause where Congress has chosen to regulate the area, even against items domestically produced within a state.
And unlike pot, there is no way a suppressor can be entirely produced within the Great State of Texas. If you want to know why:

After looking at Westlaw, some CFRs, and some B2B industrial resource catalogs I respectfully conclude
View attachment 119318
Too much to cite in this venue, and I'm sure you would have no problem preparing briefs that contradict your flawed premise that is not directly on point.
It is possible, and in fact not difficult to source the cradle to grave manufacture of a suppressor to the State of Texas if it was in fact necessary. Texas is damn near a country itself, although I taunt my old Academy Texan roommate (who happens to own a Texas company who could supply material to a suppressor manufacturer) that if we cut Alaska in half, Texas would only be the 3rd largest state.
It is a weak argument to claim the cited case law is totally on point where an elected Congress passed legislation to criminalize the drug as opposed to an unelected agency publishing regulations to tax but not ban suppressors.
It's an apples an oranges comparison that is not on point as posted above until Congress enacts something like the 116th's H.R.3454 and then you're points are on point.I think you might want to take another look at Raich, which says pretty clearly that even if you produce a product wholly intrastate it can still be regulated by Congress as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme. You don’t have to look far, it’s in the last sentence of the quote I posted above.
Just one more reason I'm strongly considering Texas as a home state once I retire!