Suppressor Law

[LVLAaron]

I hope you and your friend don't have any dogs you care about.

 

[dgeesaman]

Local guy has gone into building suppressors. He is saying you no longer need a ATF stamp. True or false for Oklahoma?

Only if they’re for non firearm use, like airguns. Grey area even then.

 

[Ccrider]

He will most likely be wearing some new bracelets shortly, if he makes a big enough ripple in the ATF pond.

Yep. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

 

[The boogalorian]

The difference is the Bruen decision earlier this year. Texas has amended its brief to the court citing that prior to the NFA there wasn't any historical basis for the infringement. Be nice if the NFA was overturned, but that is probably just wishful thinking on my part.

 

[snert]

Also don’t know anyone who knows anyone ever who has tried this out in Texas - the general consensus is that it’s semi-nonsense, but hey if you want to be first go for it , I’ll watch

And I will hold your beer!

 

[snert]

When are we going to realize that it no longer matters if there is a law, or if the law is right, or wrong? It only matters if it gets enforced.

The rule of law seems to have gone out of style. We are no longer in the 1990's guys. It is safer to check the wind than it is to read the law for the "facts", cause the prevailing wind will determine who gets the bracelets.

 

[M-61]

I’m thinking of all the states that made pot “legal” while it’s still illegal by “law” in the Fed’s books. Same scenario as the Texas suppressor law. Now, isn’t it strange that the ATF is threatening Texas but the DEA is silent on pot?
I recently heard New Jersey made 23 million $$$ on pot tax in the first month of legalization. It’s always a case of “follow the money”!

That’s all they made? Is that per day week or month.
These people are only interested in collecting your money. They have never had your interests in mind.

 

[SShooterZ]

Been researching this, guy tells me that bill sb1098 has passed as law in OK. That any suppressor made in OK and used in OK in legal manner is not required to have atf approval.
Interesting!
About time that states start asserting their rights. I think this bill parallels the TX bill like it.

I'm guessing this is the bill he was referring to and according to this site it didn't go anywhere: https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1397861

Doesn't look like anything was finalized per OK either: http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb1098&Session=2200

 

[Dave M.]

Your local guy had better learn something and stop or be prepared to spend some time paying off a large fine and doing some time in prison.

Or learn how to be a good prison B to a dude named Big Chuck.

 

[archerforkids]

When are we going to realize that it no longer matters if there is a law, or if the law is right, or wrong? It only matters if it gets enforced.

The rule of law seems to have gone out of style. We are no longer in the 1990's guys. It is safer to check the wind than it is to read the law for the "facts", cause the prevailing wind will determine who gets the bracelets.

In the 80s we referred to it as "the spirit" of the law. Some judges would actually apply common sense back then to said spirit.
I'm afraid those days are gone.

 

[archerforkids]

I dont see myself ever owning a suppressor. But I am going to follow this along. It may follow along with : right to carry: that states have enacted. Time will tell.

In spite of the cost and regulations, I have absolutely no regrets on any of my suppressors. I bet you wouldn't either.

 

[archerforkids]

No matter what individual states do, they can't prevent the Feds from enforcing the Federal law. The Texas law prohibits local law enforcement from taking part in arresting or assisting the Feds and when it comes to suppressors. This is dangerous ground and I would not like to walk on it.

I am not sure you're correct on that friend. I recall making arrest for short barreled shotguns back in the 80s. And the charges stuck like superglue. And I was just a local cop in a podunk Texas town. Has something changed?

 

[wwbrown]

Been researching this, guy tells me that bill sb1098 has passed as law in OK. That any suppressor made in OK and used in OK in legal manner is not required to have atf approval.
Interesting!
About time that states start asserting their rights. I think this bill parallels the TX bill like it.

The problem is it is going to take a test case to go through the courts. Who here wants to be the defendant for the test case? If you win you will be a hero amongst us gin owners, if you lose you face 10 and 10 (up to ten years and $10,000) plus significant legal costs if you want to be the test case. Maybe gun owners either as individuals and/or organizations may help with your legal fees.

In my mind a HUGE gamble if you lose the court cases you will lose your ability to legally possess firearms, until they plant you or a you get a presidential pardon or similar. Montana passed a similar law over a decade ago (my dates may be off a bit or more) and since no one has been the test case it has had zero actual effect on gun owners, yes it probably got state politicians a few votes but without a test case it is a waste of legislative resources.

Yes, comparisons can be made to cannabis, but being a test case for cannabis is trivial compared to an ATF violation of an unlicensed fully automatic weapon or suppressor.

DO not take my advice as I am not a lawyer and maybe you think my interpretation of the laws are incorrect I would make sure I engaged a good attorney for a read on the appropriate laws before being the test case.

wade

 

[Nick Caprinolo]

I am not sure you're correct on that friend. I recall making arrest for short barreled shotguns back in the 80s. And the charges stuck like superglue. And I was just a local cop in a podunk Texas town. Has something changed?

You should re-read my post. Texas can make any laws they want, but legally they cannot prevent the Feds from enforcing law.

 

[pikespeakgoat]

Kansas did something similar several years ago.

You can read about the fallout here regarding that:

2 Kansas men ‘collateral damage’ in gun control dispute

The unregistered gun silencers, each stamped “Made in Kansas, were arranged in a display case at a military surplus store in a rural Kansas town.

www.kake.com

[URL

 

[archerforkids]

You should re-read my post. Texas can make any laws they want, but legally they cannot prevent the Feds from enforcing law.

"The Texas law prohibits local law enforcement from taking part in arresting or assisting the Feds and when it comes to suppressors"
This is what I am referring to Nick. And I'm pretty sure I interpreted what your saying wrong. Your NOT implying local law enforcement can't enforce federal law. My apologies if needed.

 

[boltfluter]

The biggest problem with being the person to poke the bear, the ATF that is. Is if you loose the court case it is a mandatory felony. All your gun rights are gone. Period. Just something to be aware of.
Paul

 

[Gundog]

Here's two attorneys speaking about the lawsuit that Texas has filed reference the Texas law...

 

[Scalloper]

No matter what individual states do, they can't prevent the Feds from enforcing the Federal law. The Texas law prohibits local law enforcement from taking part in arresting or assisting the Feds and when it comes to suppressors. This is dangerous ground and I would not like to walk on it.

Look at all of the states that allow the sale of weed. And that is still illegal according to the feds.

 

[DirtySteve]

Everyone fighting these laws are going about it the wrong way. Fight the taxation of a right. How can you tax a RIGHT????? Imagine being taxed for voting, freedom of speech or any other. It is insane and not what the Founding Fathers would have wanted..