Not that Id criticize anything positive to protect people's rights but this all seems like a step in the wrong directions . You start out with a right by a right given by god then its acknowledge as such by a piece of paper written by man stating it shall not be infringed what more should be added as communist try to subvert that right . like another law written by even more humans makes it more protected , while other humans try to take it away . were does it all end with another war so who really needs more laws I am only one person but find it really wearied to see more new laws that you know is just more paper scrap to someone else down the road unless its protected with lives and blood . Just like Texas did not win it's independence with a paper signing , people died to make that happen they fought bled and died to obtain freedom , they did not get a bureaucrats to make it happen . and maybe I am not articulate enough or smart enough to word it correctly but if one side is willing to violate the constitution to take away your rights . Is more paper really the best options the other side has to defend what they want to protect ?
***In theory.
These battles are there to basically cut the nuts off of the federal overreach on these things. If the SCOTUS rules that a movie star is more important that a local welding shop owner when it comes to firearms ownership these kinds of legal moves (Constitutional Carry) provides a new front line for the fight.
In ways its a page taken out of the weed smoker's advocacy groups. They made their 'sanctuary states' and nobody argued. If they can do it, we can do it.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
Those bills are also in the works.
Suppressor freedom bill passed the House on second reading yesterday in under 10 seconds with nearly unanimous support. That bill gives Texans the ability to say FU to the feds, and make their own suppressors and other things without tax stamps.
2A sanctuary also passed in the Senate, and is going through the House now.
As to @acudaowner , the constitutional history in Texas is pretty depressing, particularly after the civil war. The steps we're taking now are backtracking some of that idiocy. HB1927 actually REPEALS portions of the law.
As for what good laws do... We are a n nation of laws. Dunno what else I can say about that.
I'm really hoping the suppressor one passes. Not sure about the made in Texas piece? But hoping that means I can make my own.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
Yeah, if you make it in Texas, local/county/state gov don't care. No forms, no taxes other than sales tax, it's like making a screwdriver for all they care.
Now, ATF might care, but it'd be a class A misdemeanor for a Texas cop to assist them in any way if 2A sanctuary passes. Their department could also face fines, or lose State funding entirely.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
Bottom line... Call these folks and tell them what you want them to do.
For HB 1927, we need that passed without amendment. We're at the logistical end of the session. I think the 14th is the effective end date for things to happen, and session is over at the end of the month. If anything is pending by then, it ain't getting passed.
For HB 1927, we need that passed without amendment. We're at the logistical end of the session. I think the 14th is the effective end date for things to happen, and session is over at the end of the month. If anything is pending by then, it ain't getting passed.
From what I gather the Texas Senate added a couple of things to the language of the bill and then passed it. I am not 100% sure what they added or what differences there were to the House version. I think one of the changes was they struck a provision that says cops cannot question someone merely for having a gun and I think one other thing.
I am under the understanding that it has to go to conference between the House and Senate now. I think.
Anyone that has more information about the ongoings on May 5 please post up.
I am under the understanding that it has to go to conference between the House and Senate now. I think.
Anyone that has more information about the ongoings on May 5 please post up.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
They repealed the amendment you mentioned about being armed not being enough for "reasonable suspicion" to initiate a Terry stop.
They also repealed the expungement amendment, along with the reduced penalties for forgetting to leave your gun before entering a posted business/etc.
They added penalty enhancements for felons in possession, which isn't germane to the bill and may result in a point of order that kills it.
They also added some other shit.
Fights not over.
What I saw said that parts had to be made in TX. I'm not sure whether 'made' means 'machined' of if bar stock actually has to be produced here, as well. I'm obviously all in favor of this, but could get tricky depending on how far up the food chain it has to go to be Made In Texas.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
That is confusing to me, too. As best I can tell, where the stock comes from doesn't matter. Similarly, the origin of the cerakote or whatever doesn't matter, either.
It seems pretty clear that any tubes, baffles, etc would have to be machined in Texas to be legit, though.
The language that defines it is in the first paragraph.
87(R) HB 957 - Engrossed version - Bill Text
capitol.texas.gov
I don't know anything about this particular suppressor bill, but in general I know of only one instance where basic raw materials matters and that was something to do with international trade. I am quite sure there are many others though. In most instances they look at things according to the value added but it depends on the industry. In other words if you took a block of modelling clay and turned it into a sculpture you added 99% of the value. Hence no one will care if the clay came from Mexico.
You also have to ask yourself a few questions. First, does Texas even have plants to create steel bar stock suitable for suppressors such as 17-4? Those kinds of plants are few and far in between and they cost hundreds of millions of dollars up to several billion to even start. Second, how would the government supposedly know or be able to tell where the bar stock came from once it's turned into whatever? There is no way to track that short of creating a huge regulatory burden on the industry. It would require that industry to start giving out certificates of origin documents as well as retaining a whole slew of chain of custody documents if they were to include that in the bill.
I personally would find that very unlikely to happen as it would create way more burden that just simply going through the regular NFA process.
You also have to ask yourself a few questions. First, does Texas even have plants to create steel bar stock suitable for suppressors such as 17-4? Those kinds of plants are few and far in between and they cost hundreds of millions of dollars up to several billion to even start. Second, how would the government supposedly know or be able to tell where the bar stock came from once it's turned into whatever? There is no way to track that short of creating a huge regulatory burden on the industry. It would require that industry to start giving out certificates of origin documents as well as retaining a whole slew of chain of custody documents if they were to include that in the bill.
I personally would find that very unlikely to happen as it would create way more burden that just simply going through the regular NFA process.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
That seems to be what the "insignificant" clause covers, which is further reinforced by this one:
So, round bar from China or wherever, having not been machined, is not a "part".
If it's not a "part", then someone in Texas can turn that bar stock into a part that was made in Texas. That part, then, can be a part of a suppressor.
I watched/listened to the Senate debate yesterday. It appears that any amendments passed were offered by the Senator who brought the bill and amendments to the floor. Now House Rep. Matt Scharfer issues a statement saying they are reviewing the amendments and are "concerned" about the language of one amendment and its ability to pass back thru the House. I would think the Senate Republicans would have thought about that before offering the amendment. Now I'm concerned that we are just being jerked around and the Bill will die as session ends. This is not acceptable. Our politicians all can claim they passed it and blame either the House or Senate for its ultimate fail to be sent to the Governor
If there are genuinely enough Senators that are willing to stop this bill (but who do not want to be seen in public as doing so) the solution (in my view) is this. If they cannot come to an agreement with House negotiators just pass the bill as is. We get 90% of what we want. Then in the next legislative session we fix it.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
That's the idea. There's a snag with one of the amendments, though, which may make it impossible to pass it as is.
I don't know any details. Hence my inquiry above. I don't know what all details there are left to work out. All news sources are spotty.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
It's a little above my pay grade, but basically two amendments were on the table which the House rules forbid. The LTC fee removal amendment, and the penalty enhancement amendment that the sheriff's association had as a sticking point.
Basically, in order to get the 18 votes, the holdout senators required that penalty enhancement amendment. Well, that amendment isn't germaine to the bill, therefore if it goes to the floor in the House for a vote, one of the commies can raise a point of order on the bill, and kill it.
If the bill goes to conference committee, and they remove the amendment, then they'll lose votes in the Senate.
Briscoe Cain is a smart guy and he's working on it. That's all we know so far.
If he gets it done, Texans should get him a fancy engraved revolver or something.
One thing is certain... I'm personally going to invest a lot of time and money in the election campaigns of the holdout senators, and the commies that need gtfo asap. This shouldn't be so hard for Texas.
Similar threads
