TexasCHLforum.com

The Texas suppressor law lives still…

https://thetexan.news/federal-judge-all ... e-forward/

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:40 am ... United States v. Lopez. The act was struck down by SCOTUS, and yet remains on the books..

Legally/technically, The GFSZA of 1990 was struck down and is off the books.

Congress enacted a new law, the GFSZA of 1995, that was pretty much identical except it specifically banned "only" guns that moved in or affected interstate commerce. That's a new element that the prosecutor must prove, but I believe the bar to prove it is pretty low -- courts have had an expansive interpretation of what "moves in" or "affects" interstate commerce based on Wickard v Fillburn -- pretty much every gun qualifies as having moved in or affected interstate commerce.

wil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 4:36 pm Perhaps our state AG has chosen to force the issue finally.

More accurately perhaps, the Legislature has chosen to force the issue. They have given the state attorney general a hook to be able to employ the resources of the state. Normally if you get busted for an unregistered suppressor, you cannot call on the states attorney general to be your defense lawyer and argue anything at all. Now you can employ the AG in advance and avoid getting busted. As long as you don’t actually build the suppressor without a tax stamp.

This will be tough sledding no doubt, I’m sure the feds will First oppose this on procedural grounds, Arguing that it’s improper for the state attorney general to seek a judgment on behalf of an individual or somesuch. Or that he doesn’t have a standing because he’s not the one trying to build a suppressor, things of that nature. It’s possible that that entire line of argument will have to be argued up to the Scotus and back before the actual substance of the case, the declaratory judgment, can be argued. That could be measured in years.

But it certainly has the potential to be a much bigger deal than Constitutional carry. Constitutional carry is not a precedent setting event, there’s already 20 states that do it. Upending The overreach of the commerce clause interpretation, that is HUGE, Affects the entire country, and affects all kinds of regulatory power.