Biden sends in the AFT

As an FFL in Texas myself, I received this letter yesterday afternoon at 1:25 PM. Apparently the ATF is aware of Texas HB957, which would exempt silencers made in Texas that stay in Texas from Federal NFA control. No surprise, ATF is having none of that.

There are a handful of manufacturers that I know of, myself included, who are ready to flip the switch on by-Texan-for-Texan suppressors. But, for multiple reasons including protecting the consumer from legal troubles, nobody will move on it, even after September 1st, until HB957 has made its way through the court system and is upheld. Which, in my opinion (having seen very similar cases fail in Federal court due to a broad application of “the commerce clause”), it won’t be.

At any rate, here’s ATF’s letter:

Open Letter to All Texas Federal Firearms Licensees

The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance on your obligations as a federal firearms licensee (FFL) in Texas. The following guidance is intended to assist you in accomplishing this goal. This letter does not impose any new obligations. It merely confirms the continuing applicability of existing federal obligations.

The passage of Texas House Bill 957 (HB957), with an effective date of September 1, 2021, has generated questions from industry members as to how this state law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. HB957 claims to exempt silencers (also known as suppressors) that are manufactured in Texas, and which remain in Texas, from Federal firearms laws and regulations, including the federal registration requirements. However, because HB957 directly conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes HB957. In summary, all provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) and the National Firearms Act (NFA), including their corresponding regulations, continue to apply to FFLs and other persons in Texas.

As you know, 18 U.S.C. § 923 requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing or dealing in firearms, even if the firearms remain within the same state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.123, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. The required information must be recorded in the licensee’s records not later than the seventh day following the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made.

In addition to possessing a license under the GCA, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 requires an FFL engaged in the business of manufacturing or dealing in NFA firearms, including silencers, to pay a special occupational tax. Furthermore, an approved ATF Form 4 and Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473) is required prior to the disposition of an NFA firearm (which under the NFA expressly includes a silencer) to an unlicensed person. The approved Form 4 indicates registration of the firearm/silencer to the transferee in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. These federal requirements apply regardless of whether the NFA firearm/silencer has crossed state lines.

If you have questions regarding federal firearms laws and regulations, please contact your local ATF office. ATF works closely with the firearms industry and appreciates the important role the industry plays in combating violent crime. A list of ATF field office phone numbers is found at https://www.atf.gov/contact/atf-field-divisions.

Alphonso Hughes
Assistant Director
Enforcement Programs and Services

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

108 COMMENTS

  1. We’re in Texas. When it passes, we will do what is legal here in Texas. The F troop can go pound sand.

    • on the internet right there is no “we”, just a bunch of disconnected individuals who think they’re smart and wise and strong and that everyone else is a mindless sheep. meanwhile the left functions as a vast network of interconnected supporting agencies. gee, I wonder how well “texas” will do against “f troop”.

      • Someone has to be first in any revolution.. One man’s idiot is another man’s hero.

        • You won’t be either, since all you do is bang away impotently at your keyboard. I ask again where were you on 1/6 Freedom Day? Do us all a favor and call eNd Of WaTcH again.

        • “You won’t be either, since all you do is bang away impotently at your keyboard.”

          If there’s someone who would know all about being ‘impotent’, it’s ‘a true patriot’.

          Spending the day compulsively masturbating in your parent’s basement and never having experienced a woman who you didn’t pay for to spread her legs for you will do that… 😉

        • “a rifle behind every blade of grass”

          well the atf et al has quite a bit of equipment too ….

        • F Troop has an air wing. Chipman will have it expanded and upgraded from OV-10s to A-10s “on loan with assistance”.

        • What the hell difference does it make how many rifles are behind blades of grass when the people who have the rifles are abject cowards who will never live up to their tough talk ?

          Maybe you can put together a Lindsey Graham militia who’s members just talk about what they’re going to do but never follow through.
          Watch out for the Paper Tiger Brigade !

  2. Do not comply. Texas need not show up in court. But if they do Texas needs to meet force with force.

        • Well, Texas can always use Texas Rangers and NG to protect its citizens from Federal overreach.

          Fort Sumpter, anyone?

        • “What, no Judas goat”

          no. a judas goat leads the herd where you want them to go. “they” don’t want any judas goat leading the herd in this direction because “they” are thin on the ground and once the ice is broken and the die is cast it’s likely to start a stampede that “they” cannot control.

          so. anyone who starts this will be hammered and “they” will confidently lie that “we’re ready for you”. but few on the right want to be the first to get hammered (like the left they seek someone else to pay the costs while they reap the benefits). so it’s a stand-off – the left can’t hold it back, but few on the right are willing to pay the initial cost. but the left wins a stand-off.

      • Federal law supersedes state pot laws so who pray tell is getting “hammered” by the Feds?

        Frankly it takes a real nazi minded well armed pompous jerk to dictate what items law abiding citizens can possess in relationship to a Constitutional Right. Proof of their nazism is in their nonchalant, inconsiderate, casual mention of a deranged agenda called Gun Control.

        High and mighty letter writing tyrants are allowed to define Gun Control instead of the History of Gun Control defining Gun Control. The last time I checked real Americans do not bow to the agenda of racists and nazis and history confirms Gun Control in any sneaky, sugarcoated shape or form is really as racist and nazi as racist and nazi can get.

        Are slave shacks, nooses, burning crosses, concentration camps, gas chambers, swastikas and other satanic baggage that is rooted in Gun Control still “legal and acceptable?” Whether Gun Control wears a smiley face for gullible school kids and their parents or wears the stern face of the ATF makes no difference because in the end Racism and Genocide are the Roots of Gun Control. That makes Gun Control way overdue for a flush.

        In the deranged minds of Gun Control zealots there is no difference between an armed law abiding citizen and an armed criminal. Make no mistake about it in the minds of Gun Control Control Zealots any person with a gun is as good as the next person with a gun. It’s exactly the kind of thinking that gave America, “One N-word is as good as another N-word.”

        The treats of Gun Confiscation, raids and arrests that pop up from time to time are no more than the racism and genocide inherent with Gun Control letting off steam.

        The only way to eliminate the threat of Gun Control baggage is to grab Gun Control and yank it out of America by its racist and genocidal roots. That is a long way from happening until those who cherish freedom are all on the same page and properly define Gun Control for dumb and dumber America.

        • “it takes a real nazi”

          naazi naazi naazi. but never boolshevik. it’s clear that gun control itself is not your real concern.

        • doesnt matter
          when the civil war you guys have been pining for gets here
          and the sleeping giant awakens
          and the gloves come off
          theres a whole list of wrongs that are going to be made right in the red states
          in very short order
          number one on the list has to do with the 14th amendment

    • Actually, and constitutionally, something you do not hear about frequently is that a state has a right to repel, or arrest, or prevent, or block, or ignore federal government for any violation of a states laws or constitution. Constitutionally, the federal government may not enter a state for enforcement of any federal law if that law is in violation of a states constitution or law. Under the constitution each state is a sovereign government unto its self

      Its been done before for other things, and the sheriff in a state, in all 50 states, has the authority to do it. For example: In 2016 the sheriff of Elkhart County, Idaho, Brad Rogers received a complaint from a local dairy farmer about frequent harassment by the FDA. The farmer had a dairy operation that provided raw milk to a local co-op which the federal government was determined to put out of business. Sheriff Rogers did what sheriffs are suppose to do and protected the rights of the farmer and sent this to the Department of Justice.

      “This is notice that any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a judge, based on probable cause, will result in federal inspectors’ removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I. In addition, if any further action is taken by the federal government on (the farmer), while he is in Elkhart County, I will expect that you or federal authorities contact my office prior to such action. I will expect you to forward this information to your federal associates, including the FDA”

      That was a nice way of saying “keep your agencies out of my county or I will throw them in jail.”

      Within a week of Rogers sending his letter to the DOJ, the farmer was informed that a summons ordering him to appear before a grand jury had been dismissed, and neither the FDA nor the DOJ have bothered the farmer since. And the reason they have not bothered the farmer since and dismissed the summons is because constitutionally they had no other choice because they do not actually have that authority constitutionally even if a created federal law may give them that authority.

      When the constitution is unraveled and examined in its correct context as it was intended to be, with that context being clearly outlined and defined in the thousands of pages written by the founding fathers, it turns out the only jurisdiction the federal government has in a state, constitutionally, is that granted by that state. The federal government knows this, and in each state in which the sheriff has stood up to the federal government with enforcing the laws and constitution of that state the federal government has backed away because constitutionally they have no other choice.

      Texas can tell the federal government to go suck eggs and the government can’t do anything about it as long as it stays in the state. Texas was very careful to say that the silencer manufacture and sales and ownership had to stay in the state, Texas did that because constitutionally they have the right to do it because constitutionally each state is a sovereign entity. In the long run the federal government can’t do anything about it. Texas, and any state, can also tell gun dealers in their state they do not need to run checks through the federal government – they can do this because constitutionally they are sovereign entities. Sure, there is going to be lots of posturing and push-back on both sides and eventually may even get to a court or supreme court, the government would want to do that.

      • ant7……… That phrase was repeated over and over as a defence at the Nuremberg trials.

        • so? do you think there’s gonna be a trial after all this? and do you think THEY are going to be the defendants?

    • Alternator
      That says it all ! atf should not even be a thing. Maybe a convenience store.

      • Yeah, and that worked out for ATF when Waco happened so well. 🙄 There is still public opinion and when it comes to federal workers, they do shy away from making a bad name for themselves.

  4. “AFT” police? Is this so they know how to put on their jackets so the correct side is displayed aft?

    • They do need the large letters on back. Especially after the “rooftop at Waco” incident.

  6. Make your own can, dont tell anyone, and you should be just fine. Do not comply any longer. This madness has to stop. Enough is enough.

  7. Holy shit! The American Federation of Teachers has an “enforcement” arm? Who knew?

      • not quite sure. never watched it, never will… and that’s probably like seventeen times that i haven’t.

      • How did voting in 2020 work out for us? In the immortal words of Joe Stalin “It doesnt matter how many people vote, only who counts them.” Right now it’s all the communist democraps and their lackeys doing the counting and your Republican vote is worthless.

        • That’s a good attitude. Get discouraged, don’t vote, and they won’t need to cheat to win.

        • Make him.

          You can’t, since you’re the poster boy for impotence… 😉

      • I’m not very interested in what Katherine Mangu-Ward thinks…but I can tell you that sometimes it *is* okay not to vote. If the available candidates are completely unacceptable, abstaining is an ethical choice.

        For instance, as we saw with certain people here who have a blinding hatred for Trump, *not* voting (or maybe protest-voting for a third-party candidate) would’ve been a more ethical choice than voting for a lifelong corruptocrat and a communist whore. If the choice is between hateful and horrific, opting not to vote is okay.

        Also, sometimes voting truly doesn’t matter. In my state, the Democratic presidential candidate reliably has a surplus of nearly a million votes, so unless there’s some indication that a million people are changing their mind, my vote is symbolic at best and pointless in any practical sense.

        In 2016, my wife (who usually votes D) and I both voted third-party because we hated both presidential tickets, and besides, neither one needed us anyway. In 2020, I voted for Trump not because I thought it’d help him win (though of course I hoped he would), but because the symbolic act mattered to me.

        That calculus is different in elections closer to home, where my vote is more likely to help tip the balance in my congressional district and for state, county, and local candidates. Because the state and local people are closer to our everyday life — and some might filter up to the national level, where there’s a dearth of decent candidates — it behooves us to vote, and vote well, in those elections.

        • Ing,

          Your posts are normally better, this one wasn’t to great.

          First, if the Dem in your state has a million surplus, you would not need a million people to change their mind. You would need 500,000 people, plus your vote, to swing the election. But you didn’t vote so…

          Secondly, it is exactly that ‘micro’ thinking that causes many people to sit out and not vote. “What does one vote matter?” they will say. They completely discount the fact that millions of people say that very line…and don’t vote. Could they in a ‘macro’ frame of thinking sway the election? We all know the answer.

          One of the reasons the polling was so absurdly slanted, is because it is actually “….𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴….” to further reinforce the ‘micro’ mindset of “my vote doesn’t matter”.

          So is your vote “…symbolic at best and pointless in any practical sense.”? Not even close. In the ‘macro’ it is very important.

          (Now you need to talk to your wife, she isn’t doing anyone any help).

      • You are a far worse part of the problem and twisting something to fit your view does not fool anyone.

        But statist gotta state. What no reference to sex toys and gays? See how long this lasts with you.

    • You are right. Those dastardly Libertarians want to take power then leave you alone. Vote harder, it will be different the next time!

      Chris T, I bet your vote has killed more people than all my guns, especially since you are a drug warrior.

      • Oh he loves his wars, especially the ones on drugs, terror and the family. Ironic how they run their mouths about how much Democrats love war yet Biden at least has the common sense to pull out of the middle east.

        As a side note have never voted for a Democrat and rarly ever vote for a Republican.

  10. I’m in Texas, I’m not interested in suppressors, but I can see why they are needed, but I don’t understand why they are NFA items. In other countries with very strict gun regulations, suppressors are common, unregulated, and less expensive than in America. Regulations that hurt people, industry, and reduce noise pollution are just punitive and have no reason to exist. Time to reign in the BATFE or eliminate it’s existence, enforcement of laws belongs in the jurisdiction of the FBI.

    • they are convinced that the million dollar boondoggle shot spotters won’t pick up the report so they’ll have no idea where to send the bambulance.

      • ShotSpotter has lost their contract with several state/city police because it didn’t work and was used to fake evidence for warrants

        • Ironically the one by my house works very well. Never seen so many cops show up at 4 am in a hurry.

    • In Europe, the firearms are heavily regulated—no need to regulate the suppressors. Here in the States, where firearms are much less regulated, we have to regulate SOMETHING don’t we? Take your pick. Regulate guns, or accessories, or ammo, or SOMETHING. After all, what would the regulators do if we had true freedom? Wash dishes? Move to Europe?

      Well, yeah, that sounds good. I vote for freedom. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

    • In the original NFA, silencers were included when ranchers claimed poachers were using them to kill their cattle.

  11. I love it when the authority uses their friendly words.
    They just want to help you to comply with their demands. So nice of them.
    Solidly on the path to being sent to a helpful camp where they help you to understand why you’re wrong and they’re right. In a helpful way.

  12. “However, because HB957 directly conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes HB957.” – ATF

    Abjectly Wrong:

    “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” — Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3], US Constitution

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 10th Amendment to United States Constitution

    With those two put together, anything being produced and sold with the expressed purpose of not leaving the state would not fall under the Commerce Clause and therefore is no longer permissibly taxable under Title II of the NFA.

    It’s funny how they unilaterally decide this stuff without consulting a lawyer. You’d think they’d be smart enough but I guess since nobody in power has the balls to call them out on their bullsh*t, they keep pushing the bounds and operating way above and beyond what limited scope they were chartered with under the United States Department of Treasury (which then got moved to Dept. of Justice in 2003).

    If someone actually prosecuted those dweebs using the following, it would keep be a start to keep governmental overreach in check:
    _________

    42 USC §1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws by any person acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.” Gomez v Toledo, 446 US 635, 638 (1980)

    &

    18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:

    “Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime].”

    Section 242 is intended to “protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication.” Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).
    _________

    Come on GOA, SAF, FPC, let’s get on this guys! We’ve already got Kansas and Montana with the same type of state laws on the books that need some vindication.

    • “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” — Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3], US Constitution

      From the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates and the Federalist Papers… there is not a single article giving the US Government any powers or authority or control of goods between the states.

      “To regulate” generally meant “to make regular”, not “to ban” or “to restrict” trade or to make “prohibitory regulations”.

      The Congress has the power to only specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods front one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by state. The entire intent and purpose of the clause it to prevent states from putting up trade barriers (i.e. outright banning or products or taxing), which sadly Congress members, SCOTUS and POTUS along with all the unelected and often unconstitutional agents, officers and bureaucrats.

      • I’ve been saying this for year but it always fell on deaf ears, mostly because of the sickenly corrupt Justice system and its’ Nazi enforcement goons.

        First of all, although ‘abjectly wrong’ and damion are correct, it’s a whole ‘nutha mattah’ as they say down South. It IS in fat that enforcement power goes to the political victors in this day ad age.

        And the speed of the slippery slope is directly proportional to the attendant out of control level the ‘enforcement’ reaches.

        In this case, silencers are considered an NFA item. But ‘legally’ it doesn’t even meet the basic definition of a firearm or explosive. And not even a so-called ‘dangerous weapon’? So how does it even get regulated in the first place? And while we’re at it, Why are literally tens of thousands law abiding people not actively involved in gang warfare or criminal enterprise in constant fear of being made felons at any time for merely possessing non firearm designated 80% parts by nothing more than arbitrary designation by a proxy non Congressinal agency? That’s how far the slippery slope goes. And even further with the impossible to fire by itself ‘designation’ of a single so-called ‘drop-in’ part to convert to full auto fire being ‘decree designated’ to be a Machine Gun just by itself, and punishable by more time and penalties than some murders?!

        Oh, and still further down the well corrupted slippery slime on the slope of tyranny, the current feckless agenda based California law of pre-crime 4th/A violating APPS Gun Confiscation operations! Which are door to door contact-checks without warrants to see if you are an ex-felon or mentally ill. But it’s not a ‘crime’ to be one these ‘prohibited’ targets if you are not institutionalized or incarcerated? Think about that? or any red flagged or other ‘prohibited’ person (soon to be most gun owners in one form or another). How far do you think they’ll go next?
        A midnite knock at the door if the NSA-Google affiliate sees that you are watching too many violent sword fighting movies and check your credit to see you’ve purchased several knives and swords over the years?

        Yeah it would be great to see a few federal agents try to bust a dealer or maker of silencers in Tx and have the Texas Rangers arrest them, instead, for 18-241-242 (and there’s even another one for deprivation of rights pertaining to LEOs) And you can’t say LEOs have qualified immunity because that’s different. They still can be charged with rights-violating crimes. They were trying to do that with the Floyd cops for violating his ‘right’ to medical assistance during an arrest after the cop was already convicted of murder. Apparently, they didn’t think 20 years was enough time.

        So I think Violating the 2nd/A seriously qualifies as a chargeable federal offense? Especially since ‘Shall Not Be infringed’ is well established with precedent law, hence the Felony crime statute for violating it, but again, therein lies the blatant corruption problem. No politically biased prosecutor would take on the ‘agency’ power. But you never know. Texas might rise to the honor?

        If we are fortunate to get back control of one of the legislative branches in 16 months from now, it’s time to start repealing ALL Un American gun laws, and firing or jailing all Constitutionally violating enforcement agencies. Period!

        Meanwhile, keep supporting pro-2nd/A groups like GOA, 2nd/A foundation
        Firearms Policy Coalition, and this fast-moving Patriot Sheriff’s organization Coalition by Sherrif Mack “Constitutional Sherrif’ organization. They’re moving so well that Facebook banned their organization! I’ll try to find out where it went and their website and post it here later.
        We do now know that the Marxists will never give up.

        So we must ‘never give up’ MORE!

        • “How far do you think they’ll go next?”

          as far as you let them. and not one inch less.

    • Funny how the Supreme court has been there, done that, and decided you are wrong, case law that ALL courts, federal and state, are bound to follow.

        • “And yet Heller is completely ignored by a number of those same entities.”

          Not an completely, since after ‘Heller’, states were required to allow firearms in the home for self-defense…

      • The Supremes decisions in Plessy vs Ferguson and Dredd Scot were settled law too.

        We need Terry v Ohio overturned. It is not reasonable to allow government employees to search citizens who are not under arrest.

      • Just because the associate justices violate their oaths to push an unconstitutional opinions masquerading as “law”, they have no power to legislate. The US Courts may recognize “case law”, however legally “Constitutional Law” supersedes “case law” and especially when it actually violates the written Constitutional. No court is bound by or should follow any case law in the US.

        Case law is law that is only a judges personal opinions and biases colloquially “interpretations” rather than law which is based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. The theory of case law is encompassed in the unconstitutional “Living Document” political theory; This theory is used when the changing the law legally (ratified constitutional amendment) is to difficult or the anti-civil liberties/rights groups are unable to convince people to waive their American freedoms

  13. All the ATF has to do is revoke every FFL in TX that deals in non-NFA silencers. You won’t be able to legally sell anything then. What distributer is going to ship stuff to someone that’s had their FFL taken away.

    • Technically the FFL is not required to sell firearms, it much like other licensing schemes that are unconstitutional, exist solely to bypass the US Constitution and make it appear that their illegal ukases are lawful.

      • Funny how the courts, again, say that you are wrong. The constitution doesn’t say anything about the manufacture or sale of firearms, only keep and bear.

        • Mark, the governments only authority is what is explicitly ‘enumerated”, if it is not one of the 18 enumerated powers, the US government has no legal/constitutional authority. Regardless if the US Courts or even SCOTUS make up unconstitutional “case law” masquerading as statutory law.

          As much as you want it too, the Constitution nowhere grants the federal government the authority to have a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF), to issue Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL), to have a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), ban certain types of guns, ammunition, or magazines, regulate gun shows and sales, or have any gun laws whatsoever.

        • “The constitution doesn’t say anything about the manufacture or sale of firearms, only keep and bear.”

          Mark N, didn’t ‘Heller’ or ‘MacDonald’ rule that firearm ammo was protected by the constitution, since without it, a gun is useless for it’s intended legal use?

        • “The constitution doesn’t say anything about the ownership and maintenance of newspapers and websites, only the speech published in them.”

        • Which is why ultimately the law/Constitution don’t matter- only the ability to leverage force to get your way.

          Right now, the government wins any legal dispute by virtue of having an army of cops, lawyers, judges, and jailers to enforce it’s will and maintain a veneer of legitimacy and due process.

          The problem with running a government like this is that you no longer have citizens, only subjects under your thumb. Should the government’s control ever slip it has forfeited any moral claim to legitimacy, and runs the risk of all it’s subjects who appeared perfectly loyal and complaint when they lived in fear turning on it the moment they sense a shift in the balance of power.

        • “runs the risk of all it’s subjects who appeared perfectly loyal and complaint when they lived in fear turning on it the moment they sense a shift in the balance of power”

          true, except people don’t abandon their country and culture unless they have someplace else to go. so, what would you offer all these nascent rebels-in-waiting as an alternative?

  14. What we need is a LOT more open and obvious ” conflict with Federal Laws And Regulations”… but it has to literally be as close to EVERYONE or it might as well be none
    Too few,and you’ll be isolated beforehand. Maybe a bit of ” advance character assassination or dirtying up of your reputation” just to make sure that you don’t garner support or become a rallying point.
    Then, when that raid in the small hours happens,all the housebroken Fudd-servatives will shrug and say” if only he obeyed the laws on the books”… while ignoring the fact that the Books are being edited to the point of meaninglessness.
    Seriously,we ALL have to get ready to go All In.

  15. Doing anything really significant about the ocean of firearms laws and regulations will require an act of Congress on an epic scale, and as long as there is political power and money to be made that will never happen. The NFA is the root cause of all of it, and is one of the biggest mistakes this country has ever made. Correcting that mistake will require far more than just the ballot box.

    • Anything the Legislature does that becomes law can be undone by another legislature. And that happens all the time.

  16. Would today’s real Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson please stand up?

    • “Not when federal law violates the constitution”

      you have the same problem christian churches do – they all have the same bible, but they all differ in what they say it means. there has to be a decider. and in their cosmology, they decide, not you. so appealing to the constitution (no matter what it says) won’t work with them – the constitution is irrelevant to them.

      • “…the constitution is irrelevant to them.”

        I presume your “them” refers to the left. Are you equating Christianity interpreting the Bible with socialists interpreting the Constitution? Is this Opposite Day and I missed the memo?

  18. Interesting that the feds want to uphold that they have this regulatory power but then allow states like California and new York to pass very onerous laws that are counter to the second amendment.

    • So far, those laws have only been reviewed by the State Supreme Court prior to McDonald, where that Court was held that the Second does not apply to the states. That decision has not been revisited. All the cases have been brought in federal court, and so far have generally been upheld by the Ninth Circuit, if not by the three judge panel (which is becoming less likely) then by an en banc panel headed by an vehemently anti-gun advocate, and cert denied at the Supreme Court.

      You can think anything you want, but until a binding court decision upholds your opinion, you are betting your personal freedoms and all of your assets.

      • “you are betting your personal freedoms and all of your assets”

        well the general thought is that if we do nothing we’ll lose those anyway, so why not act.

        • Things are being done through the courts, and hopefully SCOTUS. Legislative action is not possible. All other paths lead to death or prison.

  19. “Alphonso Hughes
    Assistant Director
    Enforcement Programs and Services”

    Alphonso Hughes, Alphonso Capone, what’s the difference?

  20. Applying Federal authority over interstate commerce to manufactured items that originate within and never leave a State has always been an un-Constitutional over-reach.

    • There is plenty of argument in support of that theory, just no case law with which to persuade a trial court judge. None are willing to go against a Supreme Court edict, though that may change given the massive overreach the feds have engaged in through the commerce clause. We have become a regulatory bureaucratic state, and what you don’t know can cost you dearly. I saw an interview with a regulatory attorney sitting in front of six giant stacks of regulations–all issued in a single year by the federal government.It is pretty damned outrageous.

  21. I know exactly how they will say its still covered by the commerce clause: does the steel come from TX? does it pas through any other states to get there?

    • Wheat grown in one state and sold in the same state was held by the Supreme Court to entail commerce governed by the commerce clause because those sales would effect the value of crops sold in other states or sold into that state–out of state growers/importers would face higher costs. (Or so I recall the essence of the decision some decades after law school.) This was of course a political decision rendered, I think, during the Depression, where the government was trying to stabilize the market.

      “Lawyers immediately thought of Wickerd and the pain it had caused first-year law school students studying constitutional law. Initially taught that citizens enjoyed limited government because of enumerated powers, law students were instructed to look no further than Article I, section 8 to see the specific powers possessed by Congress5 or to read James Madison who sought, through the Constitution, to limit the federal government’s control by giving it “few and definite”6 powers. Law students were reminded that the Commerce Clause was a selling point for dispensing with the Articles of Confederation and adopting the Constitution because of the “need for commercial regulation at the national level.”7 Such commercial regulation was desired to stop self-serving state regulation and to treat each state equally.8 Finally, the students’ lesson concluded with the topic of power sharing – or what political theorists called “separation of powers,” which was present not just at the federal level, ensuring that one branch did not dominate over another,9 but also was present between the individual states and the federal government10 (federalism and comity), again guaranteeing that the federal government would not dominate over the citizens.

      Most law students understood the enumerated powers doctrine. But with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the entire meaning of enumerated powers had changed.11 Instead of interpreting “commerce among the states” as referring to a buyer and a seller across state lines or economic activity in more than one state, the Court elected to define commerce, beginning in 1937, as the “interconnected nature of the national economy.”12 Thus, anything could be regulated by Congress, including poor farmer Wickerd’s homegrown wheat that never left the farm, as long as it was interconnected with the national economy.”

      Thomas J. Coaty, John Marshall 1992, is a Brown County assistant district attorney. He is a permanent instructor at the Department of Justice Criminal Investigation School and an adjunct instructor at Concordia University of Wisconsin.

  22. sure. but there’s now so much legal and economic inertia behind it that overturning it legally or politically is not likely.

  23. Marijuana – not constitutionally protected. Legal in dozens of states. Not enforced.

    Firearms – constitutionally protected. Illegal in dozens of cities / states. Only enforced on law abiding citizens.

    Anyone see the problem here?

    • I don’t. Federal drug laws are unconstitutional since the federal government is allowed only to exercise enumerated powers delegated by the states. The constitution nowhere empowers the feds to regulate narcotics

    • ATF was on its way to dumping silencers…until a new administration changed all that..these guys do what their told by those who control the purse strings….funding is everything to them.

  25. The easy solution is for Texas to license manufacturers, distributors and retailers of Texas only suppressors. These folks would be required to not hold an FFL. As a result, the BATF would not have the authority to micro-regulate them. There would remain the spectre of prosecution of an unlicensed citizen. However; a well reasoned defense that focuses on hearing protection of the shooter and courtesy to neighbors while debunking the propaganda about criminal use of “silencers.”

  26. Translation: “How DARE you uppity Texans try and uphold the federal Constitution by defying Congress’ outdated garbage law passed nearly nine decades ago”

    It’s never going to happen, but I’d love to see Texas enforce the law anyway when it’s struck down by a federal judge. I’m sick of seeing megalomaniacal federal judges arbitrarily and unconstitutionally strike down perfectly kosher state laws/actions. Every time, the people involved shrug their shoulders and say “Gee, guess that ends that. Too bad. Thanks for settling the matter for us, Judge Asswipe”

  27. This is not how its supposed to be. The constitution was ratified by the states (the 13 colonies, today developed into the 50 states by others joining the “union”) thus creating the federal government as subservient to the states with their only existence justification being for the protection of the rights of the states and thus the people. The “powers” of the government were grated by the states by enumerating those powers in the constitution. Those powers do not include dictating to the states how a state handles firearms sales and manufacture, or any other right of the state and thus the people.

    This is the reason states are able to create their own constitutions and laws, because under the constitution the power to do these things were reserved to the states for the states and not the federal government when the state decides to do such. No where in the legal powers of the federal government as enumerated in the constitution is the federal government given authority over the states. In fact, basically to further clarify to the created government, the bill of rights was created to enumerate some of the specific things the government must not infringe for the states and thus the people and among those is the Second Amendment. The federal government is suppose to be protecting our rights, not infringing them – the only reason, which is explained in the federalists papers of the founders, is that the sole purpose of the federal government is to protect and uphold the rights of the states and thus the people.

    The founding fathers laid out exactly what they intended and meant in thousands of pages in documents they penned over time. In those pages its clear that the federal government is not suppose to be in charge. And its clear that a state has the right to do what Texas did and its clear that the federal government is not suppose to be infringing or dictating what a state does.

  28. The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance jack boots of tyranny on your obligations as a federal firearms licensee (FFL) in Texas.

    FTFY

  29. Funny how the aft is trying to impose federal law when it comes to restricting freedom. Wonder when the fed is going to force states like NY and CA to follow the US Constitution as it relates to the 2a……

Comments are closed.