It is hard to overstate how much this crap affects the public understanding. The public also believes a 30 round pmag will feed cartridges all day…Hollywood is partly to blame for keeping suppressors illegal. The general public doesn't understand that suppressed guns are still quite loud because James Bond's PPK has been going "pewt pewt" for the last 50 years.
Because those in control of fed law enforcement want it that way…Interesting stance. States did this to Marijuana, and they got away with it.
Necro-post, but: too busy dreaming up medical loopholes for abortion that need closed?Why in the hell aren't we doing this?
If states are doing similar stuff with "legalizing" pot, then we should certainly be doing the same as Texas to start the precedence to "legalize" suppressors.
Jeez, Indy radio station WIBC is running advertisements for crossing into the Ilini border to "legally" buy pot.
Interesting stance. States did this to Marijuana, and they got away with it.
Exactly. The feds say they won't enforce federal laws regarding cannabis that is legal under state law. They never said they couldn't, or that it was legal under federal law.Because those in control of fed law enforcement want it that way…
If things don't cross state lines and origin is in that state, then i believe federal law does not apply. I think this is why most all states have the same laws on the books as what the federal level has.Exactly. The feds say they won't enforce federal laws regarding cannabis that is legal under state law. They never said they couldn't, or that it was legal under federal law.
The courts have said that is not true in the past.If things don't cross state lines and origin is in that state, then i believe federal law does not apply. I think this is why most all states have the same laws on the books as what the federal level has.
I think alot of that has changed. Biggest was when California made Marijuana legal and the feds were still doing raids. In the end, the feds were ousted and people were left alone. Then it was a problem with county sheriffs taking over what the feds couldn't do and i think that was mostly done with and sherrif stopped thst nonsense.The courts have said that is not true in the past.
This pretty much let that horse out of the barn…If things don't cross state lines and origin is in that state, then i believe federal law does not apply. I think this is why most all states have the same laws on the books as what the federal level has.
That case wouldnt apply to the California deal because it isn't a federal US product bought and sold on any type of exchange like the food product mentioned in the court case is. I could see the supressor deal going on in texas would relate to that case though so even my common sense theory could be wrong.This pretty much let that horse out of the barn…
The grain he was growing wasn't on any type of exchange. It was for personal use. And if he wasn't growing it he would have to buy it, and since grain moves in interstate commerce simply growing it himself "effects" interstate commerce. Can you think of just about anything that doesn't move in interstate commerce? Look up the Heart of Atlanta case, it was held that an owner of a motel had to abide by federal regulations regarding race because while the motel doesn't move in interstate traffic, people travel interstate and effect commerce. Wickard v Filburn is one of the worst if not worst decisions SCOTUS has ever made.That case wouldnt apply to the California deal because it isn't a federal US product bought and sold on any type of exchange like the food product mentioned in the court case is. I could see the supressor deal going on in texas would relate to that case though so even my common sense theory could be wrong.
It sure is. The states should have shut that down right then…Wickard v Filburn is one of the worst if not worst decisions SCOTUS has ever made.
From where does man's rights originate?Intro to Con. Law:
A state can choose not to enforce federal law. It can choose not to participate in enforcement of federal law. It can refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement. It can refuse to give federal law enforcement information.
A state cannot cancel, preempt or invalidate federal law.
A primer on "general police powers":
The federal government does not have "general police powers" (which have little to do with police). Think of it this way. A state can make any law with only a few exceptions. A state's "general police powers" are limited only by the federal Constitution (and laws made in conformance therewith), it's own constitution, its own statutes or or its own common law.
The federal government, however, only has the power to make the laws that the Constitution says it can make. See the difference?
State: power to make any law with a few exceptions.
Federal: Power only to make laws that the Constitution says it can.
So now, the "Interstate Commerce Clause":
The most used and abused power given to Congress is the power to "regulate commerce among the several states". This is the "Interstate Commerce Clause". Congress asserts the power to regulate anything that moves, may move, may have moved or may, in any way affect, "Interstate Commerce". You can see how broad that can get. As an example, way back when, in Wickard v. Filburn, a regulation which was applied to limit the wheat grown by a farmer for use on his own farm was found to be constitutional because the potential aggregate affect of many farmers growing wheat for their own use could affect the general wheat market and therefore affect interstate commerce. No law based upon the "Interstate Commerce Clause" was struck down as exceeding Congress' authority from 1937 to 1995. In 1995, and this was big news the year I started law school, U.S. v. Lopez was decided which held unconstitutional portions of the "Gun Free School Zone Act" as exceeding the reach of the "Interstate Commerce Clause".
Finally, the Texas Suppressor Law:
It appears that Texas has passed a law to set up a situation which will test whether a suppressor completely manufactured, owned and used in Texas is subject to federal law. The NFA was passed under the authority of the "Interstate Commerce Clause". Therefore, if Texas can get a ruling from a federal judge that a completely in-state (intrastate) suppressor is not subject to a law passed under the interstate commerce clause, then suppressors would be legal in Texas.
But be careful, that is what the design of this law is. It is designed to set up a test case (or several). It is not designed to simply allow everyone and their brother to, instantly, start making their own suppressors...though due to bad reporting and rampant ignorance, I am sure many will.
To be clear, Texas can set up a situation where it does not believe that an "intrastate" suppressor would be subject to the "Interstate Commerce Clause". Texas does not get to decide whether a given suppressor is not subject to a law passed under the "Interstate Commerce Clause". That is a matter for the federal courts.
SCOTUS even ruled that the black market is regulatable interstate commerce in Gonzales v. Raich which addressed states legalizing marijuana. So marijuana grown for personal use within a single state also falls under federal control.The grain he was growing wasn't on any type of exchange. It was for personal use. And if he wasn't growing it he would have to buy it, and since grain moves in interstate commerce simply growing it himself "effects" interstate commerce. Can you think of just about anything that doesn't move in interstate commerce? Look up the Heart of Atlanta case, it was held that an owner of a motel had to abide by federal regulations regarding race because while the motel doesn't move in interstate traffic, people travel interstate and effect commerce. Wickard v Filburn is one of the worst if not worst decisions SCOTUS has ever made.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States: The Commerce Clause extends the anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside the state.supreme.justia.com