- The Made in Texas Suppressor Law removed suppressors and silencers from the list of prohibited weapons in Texas
- The law provided a cause of action for the Texas Attorney General to sue for injunctive relief
- The case was dismissed for lack of standing as the State of Texas did not have standing to file the lawsuit
- The individuals involved in the case were not yet in a position where they were in danger of having the law enforced against them
- The case will now be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
The Made in Texas Suppressor Law, which removed suppressors and silencers from the list of prohibited weapons in Texas, has faced a recent setback. The law, enacted on September 1st, 2021, also provided a cause of action for the Texas Attorney General to sue for injunctive relief against the application of the National Firearms Act (NFA) to Texas residents who wanted to build suppressors made entirely in Texas.
However, the case has been dismissed for lack of standing. In order to bring a lawsuit, one must be a party who has suffered some sort of injury or has a cause of action. The State of Texas, in this case, did not have standing to file a cause of action on behalf of its citizens, as determined by the court. The individuals involved in the case were also found to not yet be in a position where they were in danger of having the law enforced against them.
The dismissal of the case raises questions about the constitutionality of the suppressor law. The case essentially challenges Congress' authority to regulate suppressors under the NFA, which is based on the power to regulate interstate commerce. The argument is that if a suppressor is made entirely in Texas by a Texas resident using Texas parts, it falls outside of Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce.
The next step in the legal process is an appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal will focus on whether the court abused its discretion when evaluating the criteria for standing. The chances of success on appeal are uncertain, as the court did not establish what evidence the individuals presented and whether they had standing. Additionally, there may be a consideration of whether there is a cognizable claim under the Second Amendment, as the federal government may be infringing on the right to bear arms.
The case highlights the controversy surrounding suppressors. While they are seen as safety devices that protect hearing, some view them as assassin weapons. The federal government has taken a middle road on suppressors since 1934, regulating, taxing, and tracing them. Texas chose to use suppressors in this case as they are not inherently dangerous and are easier for the general population to accept compared to machine guns.
In conclusion, the dismissal of the case for lack of standing is a setback for the Made in Texas Suppressor Law. The appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will determine whether the court abused its discretion and whether there is a cognizable claim under the Second Amendment. The case may take years to be resolved, as it is the first hurdle in the legal process. The outcome of the case will have implications for the regulation of suppressors and the extent of Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce.