Wickard v Filburn is IMO high up the list of worst decisions by SCOTUS. IIRC it was the turning point for using the interstate commerce clause.As an example, way back when, in Wickard v. Filburn, a regulation which was applied to limit the wheat grown by a farmer for use on his own farm was found to be constitutional because the potential aggregate affect of many farmers growing wheat for their own use could affect the general wheat market and therefore affect interstate commerce.
Finally, the Texas Suppressor Law:
It appears that Texas has passed a law to set up a situation which will test whether a suppressor completely manufactured, owned and used in Texas is subject to federal law. The NFA was passed under the authority of the "Interstate Commerce Clause". Therefore, if Texas can get a ruling from a federal judge that a completely in-state (intrastate) suppressor is not subject to a law passed under the interstate commerce clause, then suppressors would be legal in Texas.
But be careful, that is what the design of this law is. It is designed to set up a test case (or several). It is not designed to simply allow everyone and their brother to, instantly, start making their own suppressors...though due to bad reporting and rampant ignorance, I am sure many will.
To be clear, Texas can set up a situation where it does not believe that an "intrastate" suppressor would be subject to the "Interstate Commerce Clause". Texas does not get to decide whether a given suppressor is not subject to a law passed under the "Interstate Commerce Clause". That is a matter for the federal courts.
That wasn't even the first. Montana started it all as far as I know in 2009. I guess they can keep trying in different courts, hoping to find one that will side with the state over the fed. Then maybe the USSC would take the case.Wickard v Filburn is IMO high up the list of worst decisions by SCOTUS. IIRC it was the turning point for using the interstate commerce clause.
That test case happened in another circuit, the results weren't good. I don't believe it was heard by the 10th circuit court of appeals though. He filed a writ to proceed as a pauper and it was turned down.
Kansas man's homemade gun silencers clash with federal law
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — When Shane Cox began selling his homemade firearms and silencers out of his military surplus store, he stamped "Made in Kansas" on them to assure buyers that a Kansas law would prevent federal prosecution of anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state. The...apnews.com
This is the reason for the Texas law. The law puts the resources of the State Attorney General into pushing a case forward..... He filed a writ to proceed as a pauper and it was turned down.
From the Wiki I posted. Obviously Texas needs to move from the tried to the passed group.I can't remember which, but there's another state besides Texas and Montana where they've designated suppressors built, bought and used in the state as legal. Keeping my fingers crossed that one of them wins their case to better protect those rights for us all.
Similar laws were subsequently passed in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee, Kansas, and Wyoming.[5] Attempts to do so have also been made in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington.[4]
Indiana has no laws against manufacturing or possessing a suppressor, except during the commission of certain crimes.Why in the hell aren't we doing this?
If states are doing similar stuff with "legalizing" pot, then we should certainly be doing the same as Texas to start the precedence to "legalize" suppressors.
Jeez, Indy radio station WIBC is running advertisements for crossing into the Ilini border to "legally" buy pot.
I was partially wrong, they denied cert for that but did hear the case.This is the reason for the Texas law. The law puts the resources of the State Attorney General into pushing a case forward.
Beat me to it.Want to take on the feds? Go for it.
Pot "legalization" is a thing because the feds don't want to enforce the pot laws where states have removed criminality. Think that is the case for suppressors?
Exactly. It forces the issue with ample resources to litigate.This is the reason for the Texas law. The law puts the resources of the State Attorney General into pushing a case forward.
Yes please!Indiana has no laws against manufacturing or possessing a suppressor, except during the commission of certain crimes.
Want to take on the feds? Go for it.
Pot "legalization" is a thing because the feds don't want to enforce the pot laws where states have removed criminality. Think that is the case for suppressors?
We can't even get Constitutional Carry through without it getting killed behind closed doors, no chance of this happening.Yes please!
Let us get this on the agenda for next session.
Three things to consider here, my friend.We can't even get Constitutional Carry through without it getting killed behind closed doors, no chance of this happening.
I don't know why they wouldn't be able to do that already if they so desired.If a state gets a judgment to allow this couldn't that same state just decide to impose some kind of its own NFA like tax and just take the $$ it's citizens were paying to the feds for itself? Not saying that's the motivation, but could be.
All that said I have no idea how much NFA money the residents of any particular state pay in an given year.
As some here on INGO have stated, follow the $.
I mean...you want a law stating that something that is not illegal under Indiana law...is not illegal under Indiana law?Yes please!
Let us get this on the agenda for next session.
As always, thank you for your professional opinion!I mean...you want a law stating that something that is not illegal under Indiana law...is not illegal under Indiana law?
Or you want a law forcing the AG to litigate the issue. Don't look now, but I think this AG would do it without a law.
This is correct.Out of curiosity, I took a look at Indiana law. I did not find any Indiana statute that made a suppressor illegal in and of itself. It appears that the possession of a suppressor can be and enhancement as to crimes involving poaching or possessing a firearm while dealing a controlled substance, but I saw nothing else about suppressors. I didn't take a deep dive, so there may be something, but I doubt it at this point.
Federal law, however, still applies.