Texans Continue to Fight Against Federal Ruling, Which They Claim Violates Second Amendment Laws

The state of Texas and its citizens are fighting back all the way to the Supreme Court. The case’s outcome will have a significant influence on Second Amendment rights all over the country.

After all, the state argued, these items were made and sold exclusively within Texas. Since it has nothing to do with interstate commerce, it should not be under the ATF’s jurisdiction. 

As a gun user pulls the trigger, the gases that propel the bullet out of the barrel are diverted through small holes. This ultimately allows the user to lower the sound each time the weapon is fired.  

The noise reduction can protect the shooter’s ears from damage from excessive sound. A suppressor can ‘silence’ a gun from a range of 140-165 decibels to only 30-40 decibels.

The ATF continued to insist that owning a suppressor or a silencer still required registration, per the National Firearms Act (NFA). 

According to Texas laws, it might even result in hefty fines of up to $10,000 for each unregistered suppressor. In the worst-case scenario, the accused could end up with prison time.

Then, Attorney General Ken Paxton agreed and filed a lawsuit. The first motion to dismiss was brought in October 2023.

At first, Federal Judge Mark Pittmann allowed the lawsuit to go ahead. But then he ruled against Texas, dismissing the lawsuit for lack of standing.

The plaintiffs didn’t attempt to make suppressors or show a lawful concern over being prosecuted by the federal government, Pittmann thought. They also didn’t apply for suppressors or show that doing so would violate their constitutional rights by requiring them to pay tax. Hence, the dismissal.

However, as none of the Texas plaintiffs admitted to having an unregistered suppressor at their home or anywhere in their possession, there was no chance they could be prosecuted. 

“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,” he wrote.

“By its own words, Texas seeks to protect the ability of its individual residents to make firearm silencers at home,” he wrote.

“The only purported link between the State of Texas and the (Gun Control Act) regime is Texas’s state statute ‘exempting’ silencers from the operation of federal law. And the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution determines the winner of that duel.”

This appeal is a significant move in the legal battle, which could potentially reshape regulations for suppressors in the U.S.

Therefore, its decision will determine whether Texas-made suppressors can truly fall outside of the federal jurisdiction and the NFA, and it will ultimately decide whether Texan can freely own and use the weapon attachments within the confines of the state. 

The arguments focused on whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit. It also touched on the constitutionality of subjecting state residents to federal registration requirements for suppressors made and retained inside that state.

If Texas wins at the appellate court, it would have implications in how suppressors are regulated all over the country, not just in the state. And perhaps this is what the ATF is concerned about: the regulations changing.

However, the conservative panel does give room for hope among the Second Amendment advocates. Whatever the result, this case will likely shape future cases, arguments and debates over firearms regulations and individual rights.

They must follow the entire process of filling out a lengthy application, complete a background check, and wait around ten months for approval from the ATF.

The three-judge panel appeared skeptical of the individuals who argued they should be allowed to make silencers without paying a tax. Nor did the judges believe the state had any reason to be involved in the case. 

Texas is certainly not the only state engaged in a legal battle against the ATF in court. Yet, the case does highlight the difficulties that appear when it comes to state vs. federal cases.

Although the case is not the same as the Texan-made suppressors, this particular one shows a worrying tendency of a possible “federal government overreach.”

They continued, “Undeterred by having three of its most recent Rules restricting gun rights invalidated by federal courts, the ATF’s new Rule restricts Americans’ rights to sell even a single firearm. The ATF has exceeded its authority once again, and we expect that this new Rule will be invalidated as well.”

Certainly, it must be a source of frustration for Second Amendment supporters who feel their rights are being violated. And it does bring up the question: Where do you draw the line between an individual citizen’s rights and the government’s role in its citizens’ lives?