I've neither heard nor seen anything along those lines mentioned anywhere. Since the way the approach is structured would seem not to put the applicant at any legal risk, I would think the AG's office will be inundated by applications, mainly from individuals looking to manufacture a silencer for themselves.I know this is an older thread, and looks like several threads were put together in one place. I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread or post here, obviously I Chose to post here.
My question is this; does anyone know of any plans by anyone to actively seek the AG to get a judgement? I ask this because I think it should happen, and because I have considered being the 'test case' for this. That is assuming there isn't a better option as to who it should be. I'm just wondering is there any organized effort by anyone within any group to move this forward?
I don't see the AG making a judgement, considering what happened with kansas. Which is absolutely nothing.
Thank you for providing some clarity and information @AndiTurner and confirming what I suspected.Okay, not sure who to reply to here. So I'll just post my (IANAL) opinion. The Kansas bill was much different than the Texas bill. Somebody was (in my opinion) correct when they said Texas won't be prosecuting. Someone also was correct when they said the Feds will. There are plans for this. NONE of you wants to be the test case. Today, Waller County asked for an AG opinion on this bill.
I anticipate that the AG, who is INVOLVED in the process of this bill (you have to file with them so the AG goes to get a Declaratory Judgement on your behalf if you want to manufacture Texas Suppressors) will be supportive of the new law.
The bottom line? Nobody is getting or should get a Texas Suppressor for Christmas who doesn't have a stamp for it. This bill was crafted to be tried in the courts and I have serious hope for it (but that's no guarantee we will win). The big difference between this and the Kansas bill is that every part of a Texas made suppressor has to be made in Texas--including the unmachined metal used in it's creation. There is an exception for say, a screw that can commonly be used in say chairs or whatever else but all the other parts have to be made in Texas and the suppressor cannot leave the state.
Does that help?
Okay, not sure who to reply to here. So I'll just post my (IANAL) opinion. The Kansas bill was much different than the Texas bill. Somebody was (in my opinion) correct when they said Texas won't be prosecuting. Someone also was correct when they said the Feds will. There are plans for this. NONE of you wants to be the test case. Today, Waller County asked for an AG opinion on this bill.
If you own a silencer, you technically could be the test case if a Texas Peace Officers arrests you for possession of it. With 529,150 registered silencers in Texas, I doubt anyone got rid of theirs to avoid being a "test case".
As for Waller county, what do they not understand and need an opinion on. It is very simple if you read the bill
philatelistsNothing to see here, I am just a stamp collector...
A ballistic tech will most likely look at a recovered bullet. If you had a baffle stick should be very obvious. Then I would think a suppressor might lower the velocity slightly & the powder residue.You are not wrong, but how would anyone know?
A baffle strike would deform the bullet. Might even contain metal & carbon fragments. Not know what all a ballistics person does I would think they have just about every gun, barrel length, & ammo combination in a computer program. You have seen enough cop shows were the match the bullet to the riflings of the gun, firing pins trick to the case extractor marks.How would they know it struck a baffle?
Can they tell the velocity from a recovered bullet?