House Budget Proposal to remove Tax on Suppressors but not remove it from the NFA
- Thread starter stefan73
- Start date
Long video. Enjoy it. Or read the FPC letter here:
Well, that was short lived.
www.nbcnews.com
Republican attempt to rein in federal judges is stripped from Trump's big bill
The provision was aimed at curbing nationwide injunctions imposed by judges that have blocked some high-profile Trump administration policies.
www.nbcnews.com
"The language added to the bill would have required anyone seeking an injunction to pay a fee that would be equal to "the costs and damages sustained by the federal government" if it were to ultimately win the case. On major national policies, that amount could be in the billions of dollars and would deter people from filing lawsuits, legal experts said."Well, that was short lived.
Republican attempt to rein in federal judges is stripped from Trump's big bill
The provision was aimed at curbing nationwide injunctions imposed by judges that have blocked some high-profile Trump administration policies.
Seems like that could really easily go either way, depending on who is in power and what court the case is in.
And, all Trump has to do is ignore the judges like Obama and Biden did.
That is why the Firearms Policy Coalition wrote the letter that it did.
Think about, for example, the Forced Reset Trigger injunction and other potential gun cases. One would have to post a bond while the case is pending. This would have been a disaster.
They are legal to own in 42 states.Even removed from the NFA , there are so many states that for bid a suppressor , and to them it would make no difference.
Save $200 on something which you cannot buy anyway.
The SCOTUS reigns in the district courts from imagining nation wide injunctions, it'll be WAY better than what was in that bill.
IIRC
The penal code in Texas still says NFA are prohibited and registration is a defense against prosecution for possession.
The legislation passed a while back to make suppressors legal in Texas only makes suppressors made in Texas legal in Texas.
Last edited:
I have almost a dozen of them and I live in the state of Texas.
I'm not sure what you actually mean.
It's complicated, or it's not.
I'm in the Houston-ish area and have a few as well.
AFAIK this is up to date and there may still be a lawsuit in progress over "made in Texas" suppressors, link at the bottom.
Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS - Texas Penal Code
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco...
txpenalcode.com
Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:
(A) an explosive weapon;
(B) a machine gun; or
(C) a short-barrel firearm;
(2) armor-piercing ammunition;
(3) a chemical dispensing device;
(4) a zip gun;
(5) a tire deflation device;
(6) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law; or
(7) an improvised explosive device.
NFA Under Pressure - Made in Texas Suppressor Lawsuit Update | Walker & Taylor Law
The NFA is under pressure, as evidenced by the latest developments with the Made in Texas Suppressor lawsuit. Will the new standards of review set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen finally pressure the NFA and ATF to a breaking point? Armed Attorneys Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor explain. Supreme Court...
www.walkertaylorlaw.com
It's complicated, or it's not.
I'm in the Houston-ish area and have a few as well.
AFAIK this is up to date and there may still be a lawsuit in progress over "made in Texas" suppressors, link at the bottom.
Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS - Texas Penal Code
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco...
Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:
(A) an explosive weapon;
(B) a machine gun; or
(C) a short-barrel firearm;
(2) armor-piercing ammunition;
(3) a chemical dispensing device;
(4) a zip gun;
(5) a tire deflation device;
(6) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law; or
(7) an improvised explosive device.
NFA Under Pressure - Made in Texas Suppressor Lawsuit Update | Walker & Taylor Law
The NFA is under pressure, as evidenced by the latest developments with the Made in Texas Suppressor lawsuit. Will the new standards of review set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen finally pressure the NFA and ATF to a breaking point? Armed Attorneys Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor explain. Supreme Court...
SBR’s to be removed from the State of Texas prohibited weapons list. Abbott signed SB 1596 effective 9/1/2025.
Si. I don't recall the same thing for silencers/suppressors but I may have missed it. Only the "made in Texas" thing.
I once thought along similar lines but after coming to my sanity, realized Uncle Sam does NOT need to become anymore of a baby sitter than he already is. 10 USC 311 already defines who is in the organized and unorganized militias and it includes most of the nation.
couple things to consider.. it’s less than 1% of the land. The .gov is horrible at managing pretty much everything so why would we want them to have more land? Agenda 2030 and 2050 look into it. They want 30% of the land by 2030 then 50% by 2050. The wrong people get in office you think they’ll let you hunt on that? Good luck. Also that shrinks the tax base making land even more expensive and drives more people into the city. I’d be in favor of a sell off but not to a few big buyers. Give the land back to the people who generally are better managers of the land because we have a stake in it. Probably not a popular opinion but that’s my .02
It's complicated, or it's not.
I'm in the Houston-ish area and have a few as well.
AFAIK this is up to date and there may still be a lawsuit in progress over "made in Texas" suppressors, link at the bottom.
Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS - Texas Penal Code
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco...
Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:
(A) an explosive weapon;
(B) a machine gun; or
(C) a short-barrel firearm;
(2) armor-piercing ammunition;
(3) a chemical dispensing device;
(4) a zip gun;
(5) a tire deflation device;
(6) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law; or
(7) an improvised explosive device.
NFA Under Pressure - Made in Texas Suppressor Lawsuit Update | Walker & Taylor Law
The NFA is under pressure, as evidenced by the latest developments with the Made in Texas Suppressor lawsuit. Will the new standards of review set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen finally pressure the NFA and ATF to a breaking point? Armed Attorneys Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor explain. Supreme Court...
#s 3 & 5.
3. A spray bottle?
5. A valve stem removal tool?
Its not them managing more land. The land they want to sell is already open to the public and used by hunters and hikers, 4x4s, side by sides and dirt bikes ext ext. as well as leased for grazing as determeined by a wildlife biologist. In the west we have watched a systematic attack on access to our public lands over the last 50 years. They close roads, declare places wilderness, re-designate it a national monument, make it a state park and charge you enter. Or stick a gate on the road and restrict access to "authorized vehicles."
I am not in favor of doing anything with public land but managing it to keep it healthy and accessible for the public it was set aside for. Thier management has put most of our western forests on public lands into an epically bad condition on the verge of the entire things being burned out. I can tell you people I know were already pissed off. The idea of Selling it off makes them livid.
Ole R Utah senior senator fights for the sale of public land as part of his platform. Public land sales were already included and removed from the house bill.
The thing about the public land sale is it won't be average joe buying a few acres to homestead. It'll be big corporate interest that either want access to the natural resources or developers.
I heard something about the Saudis being lined up to purchase a chunk as soon as it goes public. US land should never be sold to a foreign entity period.
I heard something about the Saudis being lined up to purchase a chunk as soon as it goes public. US land should never be sold to a foreign entity period.
The government selling land set aside for and owned by John Q Public is capitalism?
this land managed properly could be one of the greatest publicly owned assets we have in this country. And that is just making money from industry.
FIFYA lot of people like communismuntilbecause they can make money from it.
Publicly owned assets, you say? The next thing you’ll say is “we need to nationalize the oil fields…”The government selling land set aside for and owned by John Q Public is capitalism?
A tire deflation device?!It's complicated, or it's not.
I'm in the Houston-ish area and have a few as well.
AFAIK this is up to date and there may still be a lawsuit in progress over "made in Texas" suppressors, link at the bottom.
Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS - Texas Penal Code
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco...
Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:
(A) an explosive weapon;
(B) a machine gun; or
(C) a short-barrel firearm;
(2) armor-piercing ammunition;
(3) a chemical dispensing device;
(4) a zip gun;
(5) a tire deflation device;
(6) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law; or
(7) an improvised explosive device.
NFA Under Pressure - Made in Texas Suppressor Lawsuit Update | Walker & Taylor Law
The NFA is under pressure, as evidenced by the latest developments with the Made in Texas Suppressor lawsuit. Will the new standards of review set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen finally pressure the NFA and ATF to a breaking point? Armed Attorneys Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor explain. Supreme Court...
I thought this was satire.
Until 1973, it was illegal to carry a set of wire cutters in the state...
It’s really handy to make laws ambiguous and open to interpretation. For the enforcers anyway.
Your pocket knife, an ice pick, as @Mike Casselton said a valve core tool, even your legally carried firearms, and etc… all qualify. Have you registered all of these with the Feds to avoid potential prosecution?
Your pocket knife, an ice pick, as @Mike Casselton said a valve core tool, even your legally carried firearms, and etc… all qualify. Have you registered all of these with the Feds to avoid potential prosecution?
Go read the new Senate version. It covers this issue by declaring silencers acquired legally as complying with the National Firearms Act.
OOPS
EDIT: Maybe not. See next post.
Last edited:
Go to page 262. Start reading at line 20 and continue on to the next page, stopping at line six. Subsection (f) is aimed at the states that require registration compliance with the NFA for NFA items to be legal. Buy it legally, and federal law will say that you should be treated as if you had registered it. BUT this appears to cover AOW, SBS and SBR, not silencers . . .
Please read it and let me know if you think I am wrong.
Last edited:
I'm only aware of HB 957. Without FED level removal of suppressors from the NFA it's effectively toothless.
If you have a link to something else I'll read it.
Texas HB 957: Can You Buy A Suppressor Without the Stamp?
Texas HB 957 is a new state law that skirts federal gun laws and the NFA when buying a suppressor within the state...but is it legal? We discuss...
www.pewpewtactical.com
There is the current state of legal things, the wishful state of legal things, the transitionary state of legal things and the multi-transitionary state of things. It's tiered.
Short barreled things and suppressor things are in multi-transitional state of things. A bill passed in Texas, for Texans, making short barreled things not prohibited but not in effect until later this year and meaningless outside of Texas or in a federal encounter anywhere without the declassification of short barreled things at the FED/NFA level and even then likely to remain prohibited or dicey in a dozen or more states.
New Texas Suppressor Law Explained
New laws, whether enacted on the local, state, or federal levels, can often be confusing. Adding to this confusion is the fact that many people try to boil legislation down to easy-to-digest
www.silencercentral.com
Last edited:
I see where it says this.
At best you don't need to show your papers for SBS/SBR/AOW as long as your acquisition meets the requirements under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code which still lists quite a few "unlawful" activities wrt SBS/SBR/AOW things.
But that doesn't override state level laws.
If the FED takes away the need and means to obtain registration of NFA things but the state still says it's prohibited to have them unless they're registered with the FED under NFA then buying one after the FED stops giving out registrations but before the state removes the requirement for registration puts you in kind of a limbo.
Last edited:
It’s funny you use the word asset. The fed actually wants to put the public lands on the role as an asset. What happens when default or bankruptcy of a nation occurs?The government selling land set aside for and owned by John Q Public is capitalism?
No one is for foreign countries or persons to being able to buy land, that should be made illegal. And the idea that only big corporations or billionaires will buy the land doesn’t have to happen. They can put stipulations on it so that doesn’t happen. The less the government owns and controls the better.
Back on topic now…
I’d still like to know what will happen in states like CA,NY etc. where they aren’t legal. Still are not legal but no longer considered a felony?
I’d still like to know what will happen in states like CA,NY etc. where they aren’t legal. Still are not legal but no longer considered a felony?
It will be the same as it is now. Now different. If it is a felony, then it is a felony.
Basically, you had two governments, state and fed, threatening to imprison you. Now you have only one.
The federal legislation will not change anything at the state level.
So still a state felony but not a federal felony. You’d think if this passes it could be pushed to the Supreme Court for those final states but maybe doubtful seeing how long the NY safe act has been imposed
Maybe, if we can get courts to disagree. So far they have been ruling that gun mufflers are not "arms" and not required for arms to function for self defense.
Believe it or not, suppressors are technically legal in California. Just good luck getting anyone to sign off on one to acquire it legally (it's effectively a shadow ban on them).
If they're not "arms" they're not protected under 2A. Arms includes defensive as well as offensive gear. I would prefer to argue they are "arms".
Texas bans ‘red flag’ laws that allow guns to be taken from owners in crisis
Good read even if slanted.
To bypass the paywall pick option 3 or option 4 at the link below
RemovePaywall | Free online paywall remover
Remove Paywall, free online paywall remover. Get access to articles without having to pay or login. Works on Bloomberg and hundreds more.
www.removepaywall.com
The cap on my bicycle's tire stems looked like this in Texas, when I was in grade school and spent most of my free time riding about.
Anybody that rode a bicycle everywhere had those back in the day. It was a Tuesday…The cap on my bicycle's tire stems looked like this in Texas, when I was in grade school and spent most of my free time riding about.
The cap on my bicycle's tire stems looked like this in Texas, when I was in grade school and spent most of my free time riding about.
I knew you were all about the thug life and that post confirms it.
The CLEO sign off was removed by Rule change, ATF Rule 41F, back in 2016.
Now it is just a notification.
I used to visit my Sheriff and have him sign, for example, when I purchased a machine gun, but if you have purchased anything recently, then you would know that practice ended almost a decade ago.
ATF Form 4 Silencer Purchase - Who is your CLEO?
When applying for a silencer as an individual, you need to have a CLEO sign off on your form. You have several options for who that person is.
www.silencercentral.com
Not sure why the description in the article says one needs a CLEO signature, as that is not true and even the article says the opposite.
Is the chief law enforcement officer required to sign the law enforcement certification on ATF Form 1 or ATF Form 4?
No. Effective July 13, 2016, the final rule “Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect to Making or Transferring a Firearm” amends the regulations to eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) and instead adds a CLEO notification requirement.
Prior to submission of the application to the Director, all applicants/transferees and responsible persons shall forward a completed copy of ATF Form 1 or ATF Form 4, or a completed copy of Form 5320.23, respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the applicant or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the state police, state or local district attorney or prosecutor.
If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, or corporation, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at its principal office or principal place of business; if the applicant/transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a trust, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained.
Is the chief law enforcement officer required to sign the law enforcement certification on ATF Form 1 or ATF Form 4? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
No. Effective July 13, 2016, the final rule “Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect to Making or Transferring a Firearm” amends the regulations to eliminate the requirement for a certification...
Straight from the horse's mouth
