TexasCHLforum.com

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... Bill=HB349

Text:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/b ... 00349I.htm

Does this mean that shoelaces, rubber bands, belt loops and other daily use items will be illegal to sell or possess in the State of Texas?

This one is going nowhere fast.

(9) a part or combination of parts that is designed and
functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but
does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

As written is would outlaw all hammerless and potentially all cartridge double rifles. The lock time of any flintlock or percussion fired muzzle loading double rifle is markedly higher than the lock time of a cartridge rifle, and as such, cartridge firing double rifles would become illegal under the letter of the law. Likewise, striker fired double rifles have a shorter lock time than hammer fired doubles, and as such hammer fired double rifles still technically fall under the definition laid out.

No different under the proposed text:



As far as I can tell, it would also ban Echo triggers.

By “echo triggers”, do you mean binary triggers?

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:48 pm

(9) a part or combination of parts that is designed and
functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but
does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

As written is would outlaw all hammerless and potentially all cartridge double rifles.

I disagree. The parts must make a semi-automatic fire faster. A double rifle is not a semi-automatic so it can be as fast as it can be made to fire. Gatling guns would also still be legal since they are also not semi-automatics.

I believe that it is only applying to things such as bump stocks, hellfire triggers, and binary triggers. It would make rubber bands or shoelaces illegal if they were mounted on the rifle as parts though.

The interesting part is that it doesn't define what is meant by rate of fire. I could argue that a bump stock does not change the cycle time and thus the rate of fire is still always one shot per twelfth of a second (IIRC the cycle time of an M16 correctly - it has been a long time).

But it would be best to stop the bill to avoid the problem to begin with.

The question is whether there are any pro gun legislators who will introduce a bill to repeal state laws on silencers, short barrels, and machine guns. Like pro-marijuana legislators in other states got rid of their state laws on marijuana. There's no enumerated right to grow and smoke weed, so there's a lot more reason to repeal state laws infringing what types of arms people can keep and bear.

Then they came for my finger, because it was pulling the trigger too fast.

Gator Guy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:59 am The question is whether there are any pro gun legislators who will introduce a bill to repeal state laws on silencers, short barrels, and machine guns. Like pro-marijuana legislators in other states got rid of their state laws on marijuana. There's no enumerated right to grow and smoke weed, so there's a lot more reason to repeal state laws infringing what types of arms people can keep and bear.

The only Texas state law banning Silencers, SBR, SBS, and MG's already excepts Federally registered ones, or ones not required to be registered.

srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:32 pm

I disagree. The parts must make a semi-automatic fire faster. A double rifle is not a semi-automatic so it can be as fast as it can be made to fire. Gatling guns would also still be legal since they are also not semi-automatics.

I believe that it is only applying to things such as bump stocks, hellfire triggers, and binary triggers. It would make rubber bands or shoelaces illegal if they were mounted on the rifle as parts though.

The interesting part is that it doesn't define what is meant by rate of fire. I could argue that a bump stock does not change the cycle time and thus the rate of fire is still always one shot per twelfth of a second (IIRC the cycle time of an M16 correctly - it has been a long time).

But it would be best to stop the bill to avoid the problem to begin with.

Rate of fire could be interpreted as decreased lock time. So an upgraded trigger with a stronger hammer spring or lighter hammer that decreased the lock time could theoretically mean you could fire more rounds per minute. Because the decreased time is so small, it probably equates to more rounds per hour but that won't stop some government official from declaring all trigger upgrades are illegal.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:07 am Then they came for my finger, because it was pulling the trigger too fast.

Was that when you gave them the finger? I was wondering what had happened......

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:09 am

Gator Guy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:59 am The question is whether there are any pro gun legislators who will introduce a bill to repeal state laws on silencers, short barrels, and machine guns. Like pro-marijuana legislators in other states got rid of their state laws on marijuana. There's no enumerated right to grow and smoke weed, so there's a lot more reason to repeal state laws infringing what types of arms people can keep and bear.

The only Texas state law banning Silencers, SBR, SBS, and MG's already excepts Federally registered ones, or ones not required to be registered.

That's true but pro-2A Texas legislators would decriminalize those arms at the state level like Colorado pro-weed legislators decriminalized marijuana at the state level.

Unless you're saying Colorado and the left coast only exempt weed that's legal at the Federal level?

Gator Guy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:08 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:09 am

Gator Guy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:59 am The question is whether there are any pro gun legislators who will introduce a bill to repeal state laws on silencers, short barrels, and machine guns. Like pro-marijuana legislators in other states got rid of their state laws on marijuana. There's no enumerated right to grow and smoke weed, so there's a lot more reason to repeal state laws infringing what types of arms people can keep and bear.

The only Texas state law banning Silencers, SBR, SBS, and MG's already excepts Federally registered ones, or ones not required to be registered.

That's true but pro-2A Texas legislators would decriminalize those arms at the state level like Colorado pro-weed legislators decriminalized marijuana at the state level.

Unless you're saying Colorado and the left coast only exempt weed that's legal at the Federal level?

Weed isn't legal at the Federal level at all. SBR's etc. are legal at the Federal level with the tax paid and then legal at the state level too. all the Texas law is saying is Texas can prosecute you too if you don't get a stamp.

Gator Guy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:08 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:09 am

Gator Guy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 10:59 am The question is whether there are any pro gun legislators who will introduce a bill to repeal state laws on silencers, short barrels, and machine guns. Like pro-marijuana legislators in other states got rid of their state laws on marijuana. There's no enumerated right to grow and smoke weed, so there's a lot more reason to repeal state laws infringing what types of arms people can keep and bear.

The only Texas state law banning Silencers, SBR, SBS, and MG's already excepts Federally registered ones, or ones not required to be registered.

That's true but pro-2A Texas legislators would decriminalize those arms at the state level like Colorado pro-weed legislators decriminalized marijuana at the state level.

Unless you're saying Colorado and the left coast only exempt weed that's legal at the Federal level?

Using marijuana laws in another state as an example of responsible legislation is a poor analogy indeed! Thousands of people in Colorado unknowingly surrendered their Second Amendment rights by relying upon state law. Even so-called "medical use" of marijuana costs one their Second Amendment rights. It's not right, it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Removing the state prohibition on NFA items doesn't make possession of them legal without the tax stamp. A change in the law may well lead people to erroneously believe they can possess NFA items without any legal consequences. Doing so is a federal felony and the defendant would face years in prison and lifetime loss of Second Amendment rights. I don't consider passing a law that has the distinct potential to cause major problems for unsuspecting Texans to be pro-gun. Bills that prohibit Texas law enforcement and government officials from enforcing or helping to enforce federal gun laws are fine and they are constitutional. Such a law wouldn't confuse the public.

Let me ask you this. If Texas were to pass a law like you support, would you then make a suppressor, SBR or machine gun? (I said "make" because no one will sell you one without complying with federal law.)

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:15 pm Let me ask you this. If Texas were to pass a law like you support, would you then make a suppressor, SBR or machine gun? (I said "make" because no one will sell you one without complying with federal law.)

Of course I would make it myself. That way there's no commerce, and Congress has no Constitutional power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 to regulate it.

Gator Guy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:46 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:15 pm Let me ask you this. If Texas were to pass a law like you support, would you then make a suppressor, SBR or machine gun? (I said "make" because no one will sell you one without complying with federal law.)

Of course I would make it myself. That way there's no commerce, and Congress has no Constitutional power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 to regulate it.

The Commerce Clause is triggered. The required language is "travels in interstate commerce or affects interstate commerce." A SCOTUS case from the Roosevelt era upheld a conviction of a farmer for growing wheat to feed his family and violating federal wage and price control laws. The Court held that the Commerce Clause was triggered even though the farmer's wheat had not traveled in interstate commerce. Had he not grown his own wheat he would have had to buy food. This impacted interstate commerce.

I know, the case sucked!
Chas.