Ken Paxton clears a hurdle in his goal to expanding the freedom of Texans under federalism.
A lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to exempt Texas-made suppressors from federal regulations will move forward, after federal Judge Mark Pittman on Monday ruled against a motion to dismiss the case.
The ruling constitutes a procedural win for Paxton and co-plaintiffs in the case, which was filed on behalf of several Texas residents.
Attorney Tony McDonald, legal counsel for several of the plaintiffs, wrote on social media that the “big (initial) win” will allow the case to move forward and that the judge rejected the argument that suppressors are firearms accessories and not protected by the Second Amendment.
“Obviously this doesn’t mean we’ll win, but importantly it signals Pittman rejects [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives]’s argument that suppressors are just accessories and are not protected by the 2A. That seemed to be a pretty clear legal question that, if accepted, meant we had no case,” McDonald wrote.
At issue is House Bill (HB) 957, a Texas law recently passed by Representative Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress) exempting firearms silencers or suppressors from federal regulations if they are manufactured, marked, and kept in the State of Texas.
The law empowers the Texas attorney general to file suit on behalf of private citizens who wish to manufacture a suppressor and to obtain a court order enjoining the federal government from enforcing federal firearms regulations before the citizen can move forward.
Under current federal laws, anyone purchasing a firearm suppressor must fill out an extensive background check application, pay a $200 tax, and wait for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to issue their approval — a wait that can sometimes take over a year.
Today’s ruling only allows the case to move forward and doesn’t guarantee either side a final victory.
The case has considerable importance not only on Second Amendment grounds, but on Tenth Amendment grounds as well. It is obvious that the Founders only intended to regulate commerce between states, not within a single state, and much government-expanding mischief has been wrought in the name of the commerce clause. Breathing new life into the Tenth Amendment would help remedy that.
Now we’ll see if the case can make it all the way to the Supreme Court…
Tags: federalism, Guns, Ken Paxton, Regulation, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, Tenth Amendment, Texas
Well, it’d be nice to see Wickard finally die the fiery death it has always deserved.
Wickard v. Filburn was a New Deal case, specifically about how a farmer was compelled to do less work/use less of his land/produce less food because we would somehow be more prosperous as a country if we drove up food prices.
In particular, grain a farmer grew on his own land to feed his own livestock was subject to federal interstate commerce quotas… because if he hadn’t grown it himself, he would have had to go to the wider market to feed his livestock.
The key bit of congruity here is that the ‘contraband’ was never leaving the state, but federal regulations were applied anyway.
[…] BattleswarmA lawsuit by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to exempt Texas-made suppressors from federal regulations will move forward, after federal Judge Mark Pittman on Monday ruled against a motion to dismiss the case.If the Supreme Court rules favorably on this, it has the potential to reshape commerce clause law dramatically. The power of the federal government to interfere with small businesses would be cut back dramatically. I see this case as being a direct challenge to Wickard v Filburn. […]