Federal Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Uphold Texas Suppressor Law for … – The Texan

The legality of a Texas law exempting firearm suppressors made and kept in the state from federal regulations will not be determined by the federal judiciary after a challenge defending the law by the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on behalf of several Texas residents was dismissed.

The Texas Legislature passed House Bill (HB) 957 by Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), known as the Texas Suppressor Freedom Act, into law in 2021. It allows Texans to ask the OAG to obtain a federal court order on their behalf granting them permission to manufacture and keep homemade suppressors without having to register them with the federal government.

The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has warned Texans that all federal laws requiring an application for a tax stamp, as well as the registration tax, still apply. Violations of the law can result in hefty fines and imprisonment.

Several residents asked the OAG to seek a court order on their behalf. Now impeached and suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit, prevailing against the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the first motion to dismiss brought in October of last year. The DOJ had argued the Second Amendment does not apply to suppressors, but Judge Mark Pittmann disagreed.

However, this week Pittman ruled against the state, dismissing the lawsuit for lack of standing.

In his ruling, Pittman took issue with both the situation in which the individual residents who wanted to make suppressors sought relief, and the ability of the state to intervene on their behalf.

Pittman explained that the plaintiffs neither attempted to make a suppressor and demonstrate a legitimate fear of being prosecuted by the federal government by doing so, nor did they fill out an application for a suppressor and demonstrate a burden on their constitutional right by being made to pay a tax.

While he acknowledged that the federal government has a history of prosecuting people for possessing unregistered suppressors, because the plaintiffs didnt claim to have an unregistered suppressor, there was no fear of being prosecuted for having one.

Individual Plaintiffs are correct that the government has a history of prosecuting the illegal possession of unregistered silencers. But these Plaintiffs have adduced no evidence that they, in fact, possess any illegal silencers or otherwise attempted any prohibited conduct. Nor have they shown that they have been threatened with prosecution or that it is likely. And our doctrines of criminal law forbid convicting persons for mere thoughts, desires, or motives, Pittman wrote.

The ruling does leave the door open for a challenge if a plaintiff shows standing, Pittman explained.

However, any future challenge will not be brought by the state on behalf of its citizens under Pittmans ruling, which determined the state doesnt have standing under the Constitution to intervene.

By its own words, Texas seeks to protect the ability of its individual residents to make firearm silencers at home, he wrote, adding, The only purported link between the State of Texas and the (Gun Control Act) regime is Texass state statute exempting silencers from the operation of federal law. And the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution determines the winner of that duel.

While Pittmans ruling has no bearing on whether the Second Amendment protects the right of Texans to make and keep a firearm suppressor in the state outside of federal regulations, any future court challenge will need to be brought by the citizens themselves, who have sufficient standing.

For now, those wanting a suppressor must pay the $200 tax, fill out an application, undergo a background check, and wait roughly 10 months for the tax stamp to be approved by the ATF.

The rest is here:
Federal Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Uphold Texas Suppressor Law for ... - The Texan