What do you think about Texas manufacturing silencers not regulated by the ATF, would you support your state doing so?

[razelove]

Texas is suing the ATF to be free of NFA restrictions as long as the arms they produce stay in Texas and thus are not under interstate laws, but stay under intrastate laws.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-sues-bureau-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-unlawfully-prohibiting-firearm

Do you support such a decision? If you do, would you support the same in your state?(if you don't, I'm assuming you wouldn't)

[Exterminatore]

I do support it. Some states have what’s called Constitutional carry, meaning the Constitution is their permit to own, and carry firearms weather concealed or on. Others have slightly more restrictions. Then we have the other end of the spectrum in which some states are ultra restrictive and magazine capacity is restricted as well as certain types of fire arms, accessories, and licenses must be obtained to even have a certain type of firearm let alone for concealed carry.


How can this be? Both the Constitution and Bill of Rights in regard to the 2nd Amendment say the same thing. How is it possible to have this right freely exercised in some places, and severely curtailed in others?


Because states who restrict this right are saying they’re doing so because this is a states rights issue and therefore they can restrict that right as much as they please. They then appoint state Supreme Court judges who are anti 2nd Amendment to “interpret” the Constitution in an anti 2nd Amendment way. They claim the Constitution is a living and breathing document and alterable.


This is false. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land per the Supremacy Clause contained with in it which states no states shall make laws which violate it. The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the powers of the federal government leaving as many issues as possible to be settled by the states. The Bill of Rights grants the the 1st 10 amendments as individual rights in addition to the Constitution restricting the federal government from trespassing on those rights.


Therefore neither the federal government or state governments can lawfully restrict any of those right without I believe a 2/3rds vote of the states to alter, amend or repeal the Amendment. That doesn’t include the Bill of Rights which is unalterable. Additionally if the Constitution supposedly needs to be “interpreted” we can look to various sources to determine how to do that. We have many statements by both the founding fathers and men who came after their generation asserting the right to keep and bear arms and the intent of the 2nd Amendment. How better to “interpret” it than using the very words of the men who wrote it? Additionally we have legal precedence. We have the Militia acts of 1792 and 1795, both of which mandated by law all able bodied men will own sufficient firearms, ammo, a backpack and other equipment needed for war. Furthermore the founding fathers defined the militia as all citizens. So by law it was mandated to own firearms at one point. That sets legal precedence.


Fast forward to today and we now have the attempt to keep people from exercising this right and infringement upon it and the move to eliminate it all together.


Hmmmm……. so then if those who are against the 2nd Amendment claim this is a states rights issue then surly they will have no issue with Texas doing as they are and I support it.

[Exterminatore]

That will happen from time to time. I’d rather live with the danger of something like that happening than face an invading force and be unarmed or a violent criminal encounter without sufficient means to resist.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Where there are people there will be conflict…and thus…in 2023, possible manslaughter, murder or mass murder.

One solution is to get rid of guns all together or severely limit them. Although I don’t agree with this solution I must admit it isn’t completely irrational.

The other solution is for us all to exercise are rights. Scared of mass shootings? Fine. Exercise your right to keep and bear arms…. and shoot back. No need to disarm everyone. Just arm yourself.

FYI when I say “you” here I don’t mean you specifically but mean it in the royal sense. For those who will also read this.

[Anonymous]

Considering that a bunch of people just got murdered after complaining about the noise their neighbour was making firing guns in his yard I would have thought that suppressors were a good thing and not something to be restricted.

Perhaps there are good reasons for controlling them but if there are its not obvious to me what they would be.

What comes to mind is the idea that you wouldn't want criminals to be able to be sneaking around in the dead of night silently murdering people with the sort of weapons you see in the movies but that is not reality.

The term 'silencer' is frowned upon, the prefered term is 'suppressor', silencer being misleading and associated with the inaccurate portrayal of them in film.

[razelove]

That one is just crazy, I read about it not too long ago. Generally I'd like to rationalize things like that, but then I remember living in rural areas and people about to kill each other over shooting dogs and shit (specifically when I shot the neighbors dog with a bow and arrow), it happens. Guns do act as a lubricant to ill intentions, but where there are people, there will be conflict.

[Opinion Owner]

There are no easy answers.

In the UK the thinking is that by restricting weapons overall the net effect of doing that is that less people get hurt but that is of course little or no comfort to those who do get hurt and who might have been able to defend themselves if they had been allowed to carry a firearm.

Personally I lean more to the attitude in the states that first and foremost you should take responsibility for your own safety.

Those people who were killed could and arguably 'should' have been armed, if they had been things would have presumably been different and even if they werent at least they would have had a shot, it seems better to me to be able to die on your feet exchanging fire than to die huddled over your child hoping that the 1950's 'duck and cover' nuclear defence is going to work.

[NamerOfStars]

Well, it IS strange that the regulations should target manufacturers, rather than users (or rather, it would be if the regulations actually were intended to limit their use, instead of limiting the second Amendment), but you can't write a state law that says "Federal law doesn't apply here".

Unfortunately, this kind of thing is exactly what I predicted would happen with "decriminalization" of marijuana; the limits of state vs federal power are being tested, and while that's not inherently a bad thing, it's happening at a point where political tensions are at an all-time high, and the specter of World War three looms in the background. I don't see this ending well.

[razelove]

I see it as the other side of the coin for states that do things like make it a felony to have a weapon without their permit even if you're not a resident there. On the manufacturer note, it's why 3d printing is so feared, the ATF only works as an agency if it can limit manufacturers. I've bought weapons in other countries that don't have serials, but the quality drops when you don't necessarily have interchangeable parts as well.
Just like the IRS would fall apart if employers could write invoices and pay employees in cash rather than credit. Though that system could have hiccups if you're between contracts, I'd prefer it to paying taxes if I had a choice lol.

[Anonymous]

It might have something to do with this critical idea at the heart of the Texas Revolution:

Come and Take it, was how the Texas Revolution started

Guns are a critical aspect of Texas history and identity, they are the reason Texas exist.

[OddBeMe]

So are tacos. Stop masturbating, people are dying.

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme
Disarming the people who follow the laws would only see more people die while everyone would be subject to the tyranny of those who retain the guns legally or otherwise.

[OddBeMe]

NO ONE SAID DISARM. Jesus. fcking christ. Just regulations to keep aholes from buying mass killing machines.

[Opinion Owner]

@OddBeMe regulation means "to make regular" I assume you mean issue everyone a gun by that?

As for keeping people from getting their hands on anything that is beyond our capability given the simplicity of the tecnoligy, its wide spread availability, and the fact that the only people who follow your laws are non-criminals.

[OddBeMe]

Hahaha, I love that right wing blurb about the first line of the 2a. Complete horseshit. As the whole constitution is about regulating the govt. Jesus you guys keep getting dumber.

[Opinion Owner]

@OddBeMe The whole constitution is about restricting the goverment with limited powers just like the "Bill of rights" which might be more correctly called a "bill of limits" The 2nd of those limits to be ratified was the explicit exclusion from the federal goverment of the power to limit the peoples access to weapons.

[OddBeMe]

No it really says militias can keep and bear arms.

[Opinion Owner]

@OddBeMe The absence of power to control the sale of firearms , combined with the fact that the whole male population of the state is defined as the militia makes the distinction academic. Either way the federal goverment has no power over firearms, Only the states have such power and only if it has been granted to them in their State Constitutions.

[OddBeMe]

Nope doesn’t say that. But I will go by the SCOTUS rulings as such. But none say we can’t regulate guns sales. And I don’t know good hearted gun owners would be against a few hoops to jump through if those hoops save lives.

[Opinion Owner]

@OddBeMe I will go by what the Text actually says, and how it was implemented by the people who wrote and ratified it. Not what 5+ modern hand picked federal politician in black robes say today on a case by case basic.

[OddBeMe]

I guess that’s the issue, we can’t agree on what it “says”. Apparently you right wingers made up a new meaning “well-regulated” in a document about regulating the government.

[Opinion Owner]

@OddBeMe I think if you examined the text and history of those who wrote and ratified it a little closer you might find there is nothing new about this meaning.

One of the main advantages of being a conservative is we don't generally have to be all that creative, when we have a history we can learn from. The other advantage is we don't make nearly soo many disastrous mistakes.

In a responsible culture knowing everything is on the line, you never hand over power over everything to a liberal for theses reasons.

Whatever they can learn thou tier imagination they can do at a smaller less controlled scale, thus enabling us conservatives to help them pick up the pieces when they fail as they do 75%+ of the time.

[OddBeMe]

Please send me a link that explains the term “regulation” in 1780.

[OddBeMe]

I would hope they come to an agreement on regulations. But that seems unlikely.

Besides, they’re reducers, they don’t silence bullets like the movies. At best it’s 30dbs less than regular gunshot.

[razelove]

Movie silencers would sound like star wars... I've found the best analogy to be the muffler for a car, running straight pipe is louder, but not ridiculously so.

[OddBeMe]

Very true. “Silencers” at least public (non special forces ones) sound a lot like mufflers. That’s actually what they should be called.

Though I experimented with a friend at a gun range with a.22 pistol and got the decibels pretty low. Just academic purposes of course.

[jshm2]

To be fair, home made silencers have been proven to be more effective and cheaper. You can even 3D print some.

Regardless. Texas tends to produce shit weapons and they are likely being sued more for the shoddy quality, than for any restrictions.

[razelove]

They're really meant more so you don't have to use hearing protection, unless you want to silence a subsonic.45, or a.22, you're never going to get it "silenced", so focusing on reliability more so than being quiet is a smarter move in general.
Though, you're right, you can stick an oil filter on the end of a barrel, it doesn't make it a good idea lol

[Dargil]

I wish my state did. If you don't assault me, break into my home or endanger my family, you will never hear mine. Even if you do, you may not hear it.

[Anonymous]

Seems like most gun laws in the US they quibble over minor technical details

[razelove]

Some are fairly major quibbles, like comparing the Gulf Coast to the East or West Coast say, though they'd be minor if you compare Louisiana to Texas or Mississippi, Connecticut to Vermont. On the federal level constantly new stuff is pushed through just to get struck down, while the old weapons are grandfathered in anyway, like brady bill, bump stocks, or this newer pistol brace stuff.

[exitseven]

I do not know what constitutes an illegal silencer. Does it make roo much noise, Does it blow up in the owner's face. Does it shoot the civud virus, I cannot make a decision until I find out a few facts

[razelove]

Any silencer that isn't made by an approved manufacturer and then that you don't apply for and pay the sales tax, then permit tax to the ATF for with the application while applying for the permit and background check.
It just adds like 150 bucks and takes 8-9 months. You could make one at home depot for 150, but that would be a federal offense, same with if you made one and then applied for the license.

[exitseven]

I see, it is a bureaucracy fee. Good for Texas to circumvent this. I would buy one if I needed it. My 357 makes a good loud noise but I figure that would be a deterrannt.

[razelove]

Umm, if it's a semi-auto that would work, revolvers can't really be suppressed, they already vent out a lot of gases around the gap between the cylinder and the barrel, adding a silencer would change the sound some, but you'd still need hearing protection.

[exitseven]

this gun is pretty loud. Not as loud as a 45 but more than a 9mm.

[LazerBean]

Awesome, good for them.

[razelove]

Indeed, I'm hoping the same happens here in La, but it isn't like Texas is a long trip from here regardless lol