On the Texas suppresser law, other states have had this in place for years. IIRC the feds successfully went after a guy in Montana for marketing suppressers and or parts.I didn't say it's an empty gesture. I meant Texas was giving the feds the middle finger by telling them to go pump fudge with their "jurisdiction" over home grown and operated hearin protection devices.
I also don't know if it's really a forgone conclusion that it won't stand in court. I mean... the feds are using interstate commerce protection laws to require and impose the tax. It may be an uphill battle for them to overturn the law since no interstate commerce or transport is taking place. That's the whole premise of the law. Probably won't, but TX has sure put up a strong arguement against it and other states might take note and start reexamining their state vs fed law jurisdiction lines.
No matter how it turns out... I still think TX is friggin awesome for doing it. It's about time someone knocked them down a peg and put up a challenge to their "authority".
Getting back to the polymer80 suit and fine though.... if we can.
I agree that these state laws will help protect from state persecution however if the feds somehow learn you have a suppressor they may still come after you.
With the addition of 86e3 new armed federal "accountants" that may discover suppressors (etc.) in the performance of an on site audit what could go wrong?
