ATF did not create the NFA or made it law. I'm not defending them. I'm just letting you know who did, and it was Congress, then the senate, then the president at the time signed it. That's the process ATF is the ones to enforce it. Albeit silencers are not arms but accessories, they still have them in the NFA. Why , I don't know silencers sbrs and sbs should not be in there. There shouldn't even be an NFA, but it shows you how the government works. Infringe on your tights even though they know they are not suppose to.
Just because congress passes a bs unconstitutional and flat out dumb law against suppressors it shouldn’t even matter, congress shouldn’t just be able to ban anything
“Just following orders” was not acceptable at Nuremberg, yet former Nuremberg Deputy Chief Prosecutor, Sen. Dodd copied the Nazi gun law of 1938 and sponsored it here as the Gun Control Act of 1968. And our Congress passed it with NRA support.
Because the 2A is a second class 'right'. The people who rule us wold rather have us disarmed so they can replicate the governmental massacres of the 20th century such as Russia and China, they're not even hiding that fact anymore.
@daltongarrett7117 the tax is the registration. Seeing as the only people who would pay it are gonna be the ones with those items. So addressing the tax is addressing the registration.
@@CJ2808 no, they're different concepts that would need addressed separately in court. Repealing the nfa would be the only way to simultaneously address both.
Sounds like we need to find someone who had AFT knock on their door and confiscate their solvent trap to find someone with standing to move this suit forward.
Fat chance 99% of people don't even know what that is, just like they don't know what civil asset forfeiture is even though the SCOTUS just gave their approval of it. Who doesn't enjoy their police becoming legal highway men? Oh you don't like that we stole your car, just sue us and spend +2x more than it's worth to try and get it back oh and SCOTUS just ruled that since it's a civil proceeding you don't have a right to a speedy trial or even the right of due process. Neat huh?
Correct me if I'm wrong. According to the ATF, if you buy a piece of material with the intent of turning it into an illegal/regulated item. It is already the regulated item that you wish to make without any conversion needed because you already intended on doing it.
Nope, that's NOT how it works. What you're thinking of is "constructive possession" which is the idea that an "illegal" gun is still an illegal gun, even if you have disassembled it.
You are correct, they said any piece or part that COULD be used to make said "device" is still illegal and considered the part even if it is not produced, but COULD be used to produce it.
- So they literally need to create something 70 percent completed, take pictures, let their local sympathetic Sherrif know they have done so and won't be paying the tax, and then file the case. Bloody hell. Eyeroll of the year.
About 500 Texans need to get together and do exactly that and dare the courts to claim they have no standing. The cowards simply don't want any NFA case to actually make it up to the SCOTUS because they know they'd be forced to strike it down.
Challenge it the same way T/C got the ludicrous ATF interpretation of "constructive possession" - File a Form 1. Pay the tax. Build the (now "legal", even by ATF standards) suppressor. Then sue for a tax refund on the grounds the suppressor shouldn't be restricted under the NFA, as it is a purely INTRAstate suppressor, and ATF has no authority over it. The injury is the $200 you have already paid and now want back. That is an existing injury that can be easily documented. Thats literally why ATF had to back down on their claim that possessing a gun frame that could be a handgun, a stock, a shorter-than-16" barrel that fits the frame, and a long carbine barrel that fits that frame is a "Short Barrelled Rifle", because you could *theoretically* attach the short barrel and the stock at the same time. SCOTUS said, "Nope, that's not how constructive possession works. Just because they CAN put it together in an illegal configuration doesn't mean they *have* done so, as long as there is a legal configuration they could be assembled in." United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), was a case decided by the Supreme
Another 'no standing' loss ? How do you change a law then ? So the plaintiffs basically have to incriminate themselves to have standing, we have seen this before too.
Design a suppressor they will refuse to register. It is a catch 22, you can't make it till they approve it, but they won't approve it till you make it.
The people of the right to petition the government over grievance. Thus any challenge to a grievance of the constitutionality of a law is in itself a petition of grievance and thus standing. Furthermore, if it’s required to state intent to violate a law to challenge it, that would be a clear violation of the 5th amendment as it would be self incriminating.
8:32 i think you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! I think, for whatever reason, they didn't want to be the ones to invalidate the NFA. It is abundantly clear that the 1934 congress recognized that the items in question were protected and thus couldn't be banned. So they did the only thing they could try, and that's an interstate commerce tax. But since interstate commerce is not in effect here, that effectively should take these out of federal jurisdiction. If folks don't like it, change the law.
The problem isnt likely to just be unwillingness to invalidate the NFA but instead this would invalidate the majority of federal regulations via the interstate commerce clause. Once that happens there is no real legal workaround even via legislation. It becomes a constitutional level question no one wants to touch.
@@SurmaSampo no. It becomes a fundamental problem they don't want to touch because they'd have to acknowledge that the only legitimate way to fix it and retain their power, authority, and jurisdiction would be to pass a constitutional amendment or have voluntary compliance with the states.
@@PrayingPanda It doesn't really affect the judicial branch that much so it isn't because judges are afraid of losing their power. The problem is it would throw the country into legal chaos as 80% of government departments lose all their authority to act and the federal legislator loses its authority. People just look at the loss of authority and go yay, less government. They forget.that fed government includes veteran's benefits, finding for education and hospitals. What happens when those institutions can't keep their doors open and new arrangements take years to implement? People massively underestimate how much is dependent on the commerce clause and how bad some of those things being instantly invalidated are.
Exactly. The atf decides when to apply their regulation when it benefits their control. They've blatantly and ignorantly proven this absurdity in court in the recent past.
@@noway6633Yeah I find it interesting nobody brought that fact up in court with them arguing two different stances in different states on the same subject. Honestly though it’s just a tube with baffles. Anyone that wants one could just make it in their garage, their “control” is an illusion 😂
Funny you came to the same conclusion that I did. Those 3 judges just couldn't find the cajones to pass on the next smack down to their check signers. Pure cowards in the strictest sense. But as I stated on a previous channel, there are perfectly legal suppressors , with intent being the driving factor in legality. Noe it ain't cheap to diversify, but, air guns and black powder guns not being (technically) firearms, you can build your own suppressors with the stated intent to use on either of those types of weapons. Personally, I have air guns in 22 , 30, 45, and 50 calibers. There is nothing in any design specs that says they can't be over built, nor permanently affixed to said air gun or black powder gun. Then the burden of proof just became a whole lot more difficult for the gooberment. Just sayin'.
That's literally how standing was established in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), and Thimpson-Center ended up winning and striking down a long standing ATF "interpretation" of "constructive possession" as overly broad.
Go read about the tragedy of crs firearms if you think this will work..he had prior AFT approval and the man is sitting in prison as we speak for his troubles..I for one would not trust these far as I can throw them
@@pilotincommand85 its infuriating this whole situation, why does someone need to violate the law and risk your entire life , only to prove it to be unjust in the first place. I get the sentiment and applaud Texas for trying, but we needed the ‘A Team’ and got exactly what the government is great at, incompetence.
@ray.d.oeaux1230 , I think the argument was that even if he weren't going to sell his gain, he'd still have an impact on commerce. Anyone with a garden on their property, no matter the size, apparently would run afoul of the ruling. It went to the SCOTUS for a ruiling?
Basically assuring the aft will come and shoot your dog 😂 I know it's perfectly legal, but you know those "ghost guns" are especially dangerous, they have no serial numbers and tend to go on shooting sprees all by themselves 😅 seriously though, I wouldn't announce I make my own guns on the internet.
@@wymonwatson1309im not retarded enough to uses my name or my IP address in the first place but, i can make machineguns, suppressors and SBR's now and there is not a dam thing anyone could do about it. the entire point is that i dont need to ask permission from anyone. i also know how to polymerize a plastic. i can make things many times more deadly and dangerous than simple firearms...ROTGLMFAO at the AFT P.S. garden gnomes, and bird houses hung at head Hight in my front yard and trees may or may not be filled with tannerite, ball bearings, and nails...your move AFT!!!!
@@wymonwatson1309 ill give you a hint.. clyde shelton isnt my real name nore do i use my own ip address, regardless i can make things far more dangerous than simple firearms. i know how to polymerize a plastic.....fiar warning AFT. the garden gnomes and bird houses in my front yard may o may not be filled with tannerite ball bearings and nails.. your move AFT.....
this seems like a lawyering issue to me. the judges criticisms were not insane, so draft a new suit and run it back again! if they are telling you how it is deficient, they are also telling you how to correct those deficiencies. better than losing on the merits. just means there is more work to do yet.
@@garypascucci5797 oh my bad, yep, very good. People freaking out about it don't understand how the checks and balances in our government are supposed to work...
3:15 It's simple. A Texan needs to "take one for the team" and build a suppressor, get arrested and charged with violating the NFA, then file an appeal against their conviction, thereby meeting the SCOTUS standing requirement.
These judges aren't cowards. They just showed you how legal process works and you don't like it or understand it so you're slinging insults at them. Judges are not allowed to go beyond the scope of the complaint regardless of what they want to do. They are not allowed to read people's minds in order to make an inference about what the individual meant in his pleading. This doesn't mean that the case is over, it just means that these people have to go back to the end of the line and try again. They didn't think they're pleading through very well. It is their own faults that their pleading is deficient on its face. The judge told them exactly how they need to file it next time. They should follow his instructions.
I wonder if this has anything to do with why the ATF slowed back down on form 4 approvals. For a few weeks when it looked like this would pass they were approving them in typically under a week and a bunch of people thought the wait times went down, unfortunately we are at 60-80 days and still waiting for anything within the last 3 months, the old 9 months may have been quick compared to what is coming. Now that they stopped approvals and the backlog is growing, 2-3 years is a more realistic expectation now.
It seems pretty clear to me, if individual states can get away with legalizing substances prohibited by federal law, then Texas has a precedent for doing the same regarding suppressors. You can’t have it both ways.
I hope other states take this up, even before Texas wins. I volunteer to be a plaintiff in the 9th Circus, I'll follow all the guidelines laid our by the judge in Texas to guarantee standing.
Glock store Nashville refused to put my Big Dot XS sights on my P320. I’ve bought 10 guns from them since they moved here. Thanks GS Nashville now I’ve got to find someone else to do it.
I know there's and a bunch of us up here in Arkansas that are willing to try! And yeah, keep that shame bell at the ready. I have a feeling that you're gonna need it a lot.
I live in Florida - I'm surprised we don't have a similar law already. Just be happy that they got dinged on this rather than "well, that one screw was made in some other state oh, and what state was the metal of the suppressor mined, refined and turned into a tube in?"
I believe it's a combination of the judges getting cold feet, and they want an airtight case that is as appeal proof as possible. The 5th circuit knows that the ATF will appeal to the supreme court almost immediately IF they lost.
The fact that they think a criminal is not going to make, get, buy, steal, and use a suppressor if they would like to is insane. How many -18 yo kids are walking around with altered full auto Glocks 😅
Wyoming already does this I believe. But I only recently moved here so Im hearing about but don’t have the details yet. Might be some thing worth looking at for those are interested.
Hey man, can you do a full review/torture test of MFT magazines since they're your sponsor?? Would like to see if their cheaper mags are worth a damn, I have a couple but haven't tested them.
On one hand ATF says suppressors are not ARMS, then they tax them illegally as ARMS…WHICH IS IT..? Now the SCOTUS says Chevron Difference is dead on arrival. So ATF got scolded for violating the Constitution and exceeding their authority unConstitutionally, now what.? The ATF continues to write cute little letters like they are still able to break the law and violate citizens RIGHTS, even though doing so is a federal felony. Question; where are the Constitutional laws from Congress authorizing the ATF to continue to play Gestapo.? Government agencies are now not able to act as they please so says the SCOTUS. NOW ATF must have Constitutional laws of Congress. Remember the old saying, Laws must be Constitutional or that law is null and void. I believe that applies to the NFA, GCA, Hughes as unConstitutional laws that were passed by Congress and created unConstitutionally. NO LAW IS LAW THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION… THE 2nd Amendment blocks the NFA, GCA, HUGHES from being Constitutional. Why you ask, because the 2nd Amendment clearly states THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. To fight against the Constitution is TREASON. INFRINGED=Regulate, Hinder, Suppress. The 1934 Congress was full of Nazi infiltrators, not caring for the Constitution they bastardized the NFA which does violate (Regulate) the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, thereby violating the BILL OF RIGHTS 2nd Amendment Law. A RIGHT can not be regulated or it ceases to be a RIGHT. THAT CAN’t happen as the Constitution can not be altered without a vote by the nations citizens, which didn’t take place. So the NFA is not Constitutional and therefore not Law. Same applies to the GCA and Hughes. ATF has been illegally committing crimes against citizens and the Constitution…TREASON.
Automobile and truck mufflers are silencers, and are actually required. Knives are silent potentially deadly weapons, so should they be required to have bells attached? What exactly is going on here?
and if texans had todays air rifles back in the day the alamo fell , santa anna would have went home crying... even if we only had the gerondoni from back in 1803 we would have won that battle... so see i manufacture air rifle supressers, and integral supressers for air guns, so why do you firearm people not just bypass this bull snot and make integrals, like shroud the barrel but have the endmost 3 inches ported twards the reciever to cause air flow to be stripped off the projectile, then shroud the entire barrel with thin aluminum with a carbon sheath inside that to disipate heat, and make the barrel porting at the end a certain diameter and the objects of rubber and carbon and graphite inside the barrel a slightly larger diameter so they cannot go through the barrel ports. and an end cap screw on so you can take the whole thing apart and clean and replace what needs cleaning and replacing, and at the reciever end you make a fitting around the barrel but also molded to the reciever block and barrel nut so made off the arm and placed there after it is cured and used as a fitting. and then port the shroud at the top and sides to vent and allow air flow out of the shroud after it has passed through all the bits of sound dampening materials. making a thck cannonlike barrel shrouded barrel that is supressed and cannot be touched by the atf because it is an integral part of the rifle. any automatic functions being ported separatly internally. i mean i thought this was simple. me i do not use the same dampening materials you firearm people would, but i know what those materials could be. me i use thick felt (which is kinda flamable) and i empregnate it with powdered magnesium(which is so flamable and gets so hot it would melt the supresser and gun barrel if used on a firearm) and i do this so that if the atf decided to infringe on my 2A rights and say i have an actual supresser and try to use it as one, they would do two things first they would melt litterally all evidence of any crime. and two they would melt permanently the remainder of the device to the barrel of whatever gun they use making it a permanently attached supresser and thus legal. so either way just you guys and gals figure out how to fudge the atf in their stupid game. goodness whty do you even worry about them . i once called up the atf and asked them if an air gun was anything they wanted to regulate? they said no, so i was like what if it is a 950 caliber airgun, and they said n we do not do airguns. so i was like what if it is a 950caliber fully automatic and supressed airgun? and you know what the atf told me? they said it would not fall under our rules because it does not fire a projectile with the force of a explosion . but with the opening of a valve and air comming out real fast. so i was like, cool i really gotta figure out how to design this air rifle cause those stupid firearm people will never figure this out and keep downing air rifles,even ones that can produce 3500foot pounds of energy like a .950caliber air rifle can. ad the atf laughed at me. they laughed. but look at the hatsan blitz. it is fully automatic and .30 cal. why do you firearm people not take this and make one that works the same but is designed differently and has ten times the energy comming out of it. or fifty times the energy. because the atf cannot touch air rifles. period, because the gca and nfa both define a firearm as sending a projectile with an explosion. duh. let that sit in your head and screw the ammunition industry we only need the reload bullets the lead. and at over 300fpe you can use barry's bullets electroplated with copper projectiles, and at over 1000fpe you can use full fmj projectiles. figure this out and stop letting these idiots rule your lives. stop using gunpowder black powder or any other thing that explodes, when you have a way , air that can be held in a tank separate from the reciever and allowed to be free by opening a valve with a hammerstrike and each of these things can be adjusted for performance however you like and cannot be touched by the atf. in fact the gerondoni air rifle back in 1803 had a 22 round magazine. so there are your full cap mags right there and with bruen and the supreme courts decision there you can protect your 2A rights fully if you firearm people and manufacturers dedicate yourselves to embracing air rifles and the upgrading and promoting of air rifles. and we in the air gun community desparatly need someone to design an hpa compresser small enough to fit inside the air rifle's stock and work at idle to provide limitless air for our tanks. that is what we need. unlimited air. and smeone to understand that the heat conflicts with firearms do not happen with air rifles or air pistols. so you can use titanium and aluminum alot more andjust use steel and tungsten on hammer springs and valve pins to keep them from bending or breaking. all stuff the firearms manufacturers can understand and re m odel their manufacturing lines to build. and please lets get past 7kpsi tank fills, because they test our air tanks at 20k psi ten thousand times so why do we not make the tanks better and then make valves that can stand like 18k psi and a tank that can stand 50kpsi for 10,000 runds and add a device to note vibrations in the tank that are off so there is warning of a tank issue. and that would make our air rifels instead of say 300fpe like my aea big bore challenger .357 be more like 3000 psi instead, just like a .30.06 rifle. well a 30.06 is not quite that powerful yes but you get it right? we need to come together and yall need to stop downing air guns because we can save the 2A rights issues across the board. the last word @airgunz_militia you tube.
At the very least they couldn’t have argued the $200 tax? Baby steps. The government said that submitting a form 1 or 4 doesn’t prohibit the use of suppressors. But one could argue that the tax makes them prohibitively expensive
This will never make it to the Supreme Court. And even if it does, the NFA will be upheld! Because it is Tax… And the government does not give up taxes… Ever !
Suppressors are under title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) which does not require interstate commerce, not title 18 like firearms. Interstate commerce is not required. It's federal tax law.
So by the 5th circuit wording the text this way saying that is not an outright ban and the plaintiffs are not injured opens the door against the closed off registry of machine guns
Question about a suppressor not being ‘arms’ I see the logical argument for them not being arms, but from a constitutional legal perspective shouldn’t they be arms. Similar to magazines without them arms aren’t as accurate, usable, etc. The second amendment protects arms owned/made/exercised by the people. The courts have upheld that arms in common use cannot be banned.
Why would they need to state they would be breaking federal law, when they said they will not be engaging in any interstate commerce so there is no law to break. Besides since the AFT is no longer part of the treasury, they have no authority to collect taxes.
I think most of us have suffered permanent hearing loss because the government has made mufflers for guns unbearably expensive and hard to obtain. I think it's time for a class action lawsuit.
It IS annoying. But, I think it is most annoying that the attorney(s) that wrote the filing in the first place were not good enough at their job to clearly and explicit state that the plaintiff intends to manufacture "without notifying ATF, without submitting a Form 1 application, and without paying any tax." Maybe even also include "sell the suppressor to another resident of Texas, also without notifying ATF, paying any tax, or filing any forms of any type." If they're going for it with ATF, they may as well get manufacture AND sale covered all at the same time. Hopefully, this is nothing more than a delay while they fix their filing and re-file.
Well my concern is that there is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to regulate arms at all. Congress only has the lawful authority to legislate on subjects and manners authorized to them by the Constitution. And the regulation of arms is not one of them therefore Congress can't give that authority to another governmental entity such as the ATF. But what I have been told by several legal scholars is that most of these kind of regulations the federal government claims, falls under their interstate commerce authority. But if it's interesting commerce, then that would fall flat on its face. The Congress is not given constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce, nor the ownership or possession of arms. So I can't see the legal grounds as to how a freedom suppressor law such as this could possibly not be the constitutional position.
It is 100% unconstitutional for the government to demand you break the law in order to petition for redress. The ability to petition the government for a redress of grievances is a constitutional right.
Wait I thought this was old and they actually is here this out. They said they didn’t have standing because know what was hurt so they can’t bring a lawsuit forward. Well what I remember is they proceeded after with better standing
I think for Alaska it would go untested as we have our own "Right to Bear Arms" in our state constitution in the many different theories that could affect everyone here in the state. With us still a Frontier state; we need our guns and having access to suppressors honestly would be really handy for a few applications here in the state; though I can see Anchorage Muni making restrictions on use (i.e. illegal to discharge a weapon within Anchorage Borough (Generalized not a to the T law))
