TX Bill to exempt In-State Suppressors from NFA

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Texas Bill to exempt In-State Supressors from NFA, House Bill 957. It originated in the House and just passed in the Senate.
    https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Actions.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB957

    Next step is for Governor Abbott to sign it or veto it. If he does nothing, it becomes law.

    Kansas enacted a similar law in 2016. Kansas firearms folks made their home grown suppressors and a knock-knock came from the ATF. A lawsuit followed and got to the Supreme Court where Cert was Denied in 2019.
    https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?231663&p=5450377#post5450377

    This Bill will certainly be challenged upon enactment.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I think the problem is still going to be that the feds have the power to tax things even when interstate commerce isn’t involved. I wish them success, but I don’t think they’ll have any.
     

    Tungsten

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 1, 2012
    7,231
    Elkridge, Leftistan
    I still can't believe that the NFA is allowed to exist as law. Even if it is, I can't believe it hasn't been neutered to exclude silencers and short barrel shotguns.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I still can't believe that the NFA is allowed to exist as law. Even if it is, I can't believe it hasn't been neutered to exclude silencers and short barrel shotguns.

    I can get why it hasn’t for the later. The tax has been deemed by SCOTUS to be legal awhile back.

    The part that blows my mind is that the hugh’s amendment hasn’t been deemed illegal. “You have to pay a tax or go to prison to register this thing. Oh, but by the way we refuse to collect the tax”.

    THAT I don’t see how it is remotely legal.

    I can see how they could ban a new (or old) machine gun that would travel across state lines. I can see how they can levy a tax on one or go to prison. I do NOT get how they can force you to pay a tax, but also refuse to collect said tax. Making it a defacto ban.

    I agree that silencers being part of NFA is the stupidest of the stupid. I can see an argument at least for SBR and SBS having higher levels of regulation. I don’t think they should be, but I can at least understand an argument for it. Just like I can get an argument for machine guns being NFA items (but again, I don’t get the argument for a ban on new ones. For F sake. I can get a tax stamp for a 40mm brand new grenade launcher and grenades if I was inclined and didn’t mind all of the taxes and time it would take).
     

    gamer_jim

    Podcaster
    Feb 12, 2008
    13,233
    Hanover, PA
    Didn't Tennessee try this a while back? Something about stamping the receiver and parts with "made in TN" they thought it would exempt them from federal laws?

    Did that go anywhere with TN?
     

    JMangle

    Handsome Engineer
    May 11, 2008
    816
    Mississippi
    I can get why it hasn’t for the later. The tax has been deemed by SCOTUS to be legal awhile back.

    The part that blows my mind is that the hugh’s amendment hasn’t been deemed illegal. “You have to pay a tax or go to prison to register this thing. Oh, but by the way we refuse to collect the tax”.

    THAT I don’t see how it is remotely legal.

    I can see how they could ban a new (or old) machine gun that would travel across state lines. I can see how they can levy a tax on one or go to prison. I do NOT get how they can force you to pay a tax, but also refuse to collect said tax. Making it a defacto ban.

    I agree that silencers being part of NFA is the stupidest of the stupid. I can see an argument at least for SBR and SBS having higher levels of regulation. I don’t think they should be, but I can at least understand an argument for it. Just like I can get an argument for machine guns being NFA items (but again, I don’t get the argument for a ban on new ones. For F sake. I can get a tax stamp for a 40mm brand new grenade launcher and grenades if I was inclined and didn’t mind all of the taxes and time it would take).

    I thought the '68 revision said no more grenades - if I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll pick up some Spicy Pineapples.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I thought the '68 revision said no more grenades - if I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll pick up some Spicy Pineapples.

    Not that I’ve ever heard. A quick scan of the legislative text doesn’t say that either.

    Now for everyone you make you’ll need a separate form 1 and $200 tax stamp unless you get a license as a manufacturer of destructive devices.

    Plus the wait of course. Going to be real expensive to make a bunch. You may also need a separate explosive license if you are going to legally fill said grenades with explosives, depending on what explosives you’d be using (well, to legally purchase/make/possess said explosives). Now you could just use BP or smokeless once you have an approved tax stamp for your grenade.

    PS this is also why guys who shoot artillery and tank cannons fire steel projectiles with copper/brass driving bands. Because as much fun as putting a 75mm HE shell in to the side of a mountain would be, they’ll need a form 1 or form 4 and $200 per. Plus the wait. VS they can make or buy a bunch of the steel projectiles and driving bands and shoot them off without needing to worry about doing more than dropping $50 on smokeless powder to reload the shell.
     

    ctnsupra1

    Member
    Nov 22, 2008
    21
    Not that I’ve ever heard. A quick scan of the legislative text doesn’t say that either.

    Now for everyone you make you’ll need a separate form 1 and $200 tax stamp unless you get a license as a manufacturer of destructive devices.

    Plus the wait of course. Going to be real expensive to make a bunch. You may also need a separate explosive license if you are going to legally fill said grenades with explosives, depending on what explosives you’d be using (well, to legally purchase/make/possess said explosives). Now you could just use BP or smokeless once you have an approved tax stamp for your grenade.

    PS this is also why guys who shoot artillery and tank cannons fire steel projectiles with copper/brass driving bands. Because as much fun as putting a 75mm HE shell in to the side of a mountain would be, they’ll need a form 1 or form 4 and $200 per. Plus the wait. VS they can make or buy a bunch of the steel projectiles and driving bands and shoot them off without needing to worry about doing more than dropping $50 on smokeless powder to reload the shell.

    ATF has come after a few who have Form 1 grenades and demanded that they have an FEL (or store it with an FEL) or hand it over to the ATF for disposal. ATF even asked what the number would be for them to buy it off the guy, they didn't care for his $86 million number.
     

    Johnny5k

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 24, 2020
    1,021
    I can get why it hasn’t for the later. The tax has been deemed by SCOTUS to be legal awhile back.

    The part that blows my mind is that the hugh’s amendment hasn’t been deemed illegal. “You have to pay a tax or go to prison to register this thing. Oh, but by the way we refuse to collect the tax”.

    THAT I don’t see how it is remotely legal.

    I can see how they could ban a new (or old) machine gun that would travel across state lines. I can see how they can levy a tax on one or go to prison. I do NOT get how they can force you to pay a tax, but also refuse to collect said tax. Making it a defacto ban.

    I agree that silencers being part of NFA is the stupidest of the stupid. I can see an argument at least for SBR and SBS having higher levels of regulation. I don’t think they should be, but I can at least understand an argument for it. Just like I can get an argument for machine guns being NFA items (but again, I don’t get the argument for a ban on new ones. For F sake. I can get a tax stamp for a 40mm brand new grenade launcher and grenades if I was inclined and didn’t mind all of the taxes and time it would take).

    Hah. That's exactly how this whole thing started.

    They couldnt figure out how to ban MGs, because the 2nd and all that. Finally someone said, well, we can't ban them, but we can tax them, and not make any tax stamps. A defacto ban.

    This has been the MO ever since. They immediately used the same model to ban the devils lettuce. Over time, people became accustomed to the idea that the feds can regulate and ban inanimate objects, and here we are.

    Oddly enough, I think slavery gave them an in. The words were supposed to read, Life Liberty and Property, but not wanting those words to be used to justify slavery, it got switched to "persuit of happiness".
     

    GBMaryland

    Active Member
    Feb 23, 2008
    954
    MoCo
    I thought the '68 revision said no more grenades - if I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll pick up some Spicy Pineapples.

    As far as I know you can purchase destructive devices...

    However, you pay a $200 per item Federal tax on each... and it doesn't matter if it's a practice 40mm grenade, or the real thing.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    As far as I know you can purchase destructive devices...

    However, you pay a $200 per item Federal tax on each... and it doesn't matter if it's a practice 40mm grenade, or the real thing.

    Nope, explosive only matters. A practice one would be fine. It had to contain over a certain explosive load to be considered a DD. I forget the amount. It is small. Just enough that a smoke grenade, tear gas or something like a popper is fine. It’s like .1oz or something like that.

    You could make 40mm buckshot shells all day and you are fine. Now the 40mm grenade launcher needs its own DD NFA tax stamp.

    Flare and signaling guns are exempt. Which is why 37mm grenade launchers are okay so long as you do NOT make explosive 37mm grenades. Own them both and ATF will consider them all destructive devices then.

    Why you see guys with 37mm under barrel “grenade” launchers that can use flares, smoke bombs and poppers. Perfectly legal.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air

    cantstop

    Pentultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 10, 2012
    8,161
    MD
    This ought to be interesting and it will drive the demoRATS totally NUTS!

    I'm surprised der Frosh hasn't sued for an injunction. Bloomberg's minions must be in agony.

    ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection & Alert System

    Through the generous financial support of Bloomberg Philanthropies, in May 2018 the Baltimore Police Department will begin to use ShotSpotter, Inc.’s real-time gunshot detection and alert system to enhance the Department’s ability to detect, respond to, and investigate violent crimes and other incidents involving gunfire.
    https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/newtechnologyinitiatives
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,497
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom