Daniel SoundGuard Suppressors
On July 18, Judge Mark T. Pittman, presiding in the Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division, determined that the plaintiffs in the case of Ken
Paxton v. Gary M. Restaino (the case name changes with the changing head of
the ATF) had no standing for their lawsuit. This was due to the absence of
substantial harm suffered by them. The case has been dismissed without
prejudice, allowing it to be refiled should new evidence surface. This case
resulted from the implementation of Texas bill HB 957, which instructed the
Texas Attorney General to challenge the constitutionality of the federal law
controlling the possession and regulation of silencers. HB 957 became law on
September 1, 2021.
The lawsuit was initiated by Ken Paxton, the Texas State Attorney General,
on February 24, 2022, in compliance with Texas Bill HB 957. The legal
arguments were reinforced by the Bruen decision issued on June 22, 2022.
Achieving the declaration of a federal law as unconstitutional is
challenging. This task was simpler before the ideological Progressives
gained control of the government, starting with President Theodore
Roosevelt's era. The government was moderately curtailed under President
Calvin Coolidge, amplified under President Woodrow Wilson, and driven into
high gear during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration and World War
II. Since the Progressive revolution in the Supreme Court during the 1930s,
the Court has shown greater resistance to overturning federal laws, assuming
a presumption of constitutionality if passed by the legislature.
For entities challenging laws, they must possess “standing”, meaning they
have suffered a real “concrete injury to a legally protected interest”.
However, standing has increasingly been used as a method for judges to
select the cases they wish to preside over. Judges have extended standing to
individuals in environmental cases due to their "interest" in future
enjoyment of nature trails, as an example. It's difficult to gain standing
against federal criminal law without being accused of the crime in question.
Nevertheless, even momentary denial of Constitutional rights is considered a
concrete injury. In Judge Pittman's words:
The guidance from our high court on standing remains to be "a morass of
imprecision" - a quote from N.H. Rt. to Life Pol. Action Comm. v. Gardner,
99 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1996). At best, standing is now "unsettled in nature
[and] beset with difficulties" - from Thompson v. Cnty. of Franklin, 15 F.3d
245, 247 (2nd Cir. 1994). However, fortunately for this Court, although no
one can pinpoint the height of the doctrine’s “amorphous” bar, it is easy to
see that these Plaintiffs have not reached it.
Judge Pittman acknowledges the environmental case Paxton referred to as a
way to assert Texas has standing in this case, but Pittman did not accept
the argument. From his
judgement:
Texas is not protecting any interest similar to the "earth and air within
its domain." Texas does not allege that it has any imminent injury specific
to the state or its administration. See Biden, et al. v. Nebraska, et al.,
143 S.Ct. 2355, 2358 (2023) (holding that Missouri established standing by
showing it "suffered... a concrete injury to a legally protected interest,
like property or money"). By its own admission, Texas seeks to protect the
ability of its residents to produce firearm silencers at home.
Supporters of the Second Amendment may argue that fundamental constitutional
rights are of higher importance than regulating car or factory emissions.
Judge Pittman, however, disagrees. No ruling has yet declared that silencers
are protected arms, though they seem to meet all the criteria given in the
Supreme Court decisions of Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen. Judge
Pittman extricated himself from the case by ruling the plaintiffs do not
have standing, without prejudice. In a previous case, Judge Mark T. Pittman
overruled a Texas law prohibiting 18-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in
public.
The case is likely headed for an appeal, though it's not guaranteed. AG Ken
Paxton, who is seen as a rival by Republicans and their Democratic party
allies,
has been impeached. Over the past several years, Paxton has been a constant target of lawfare
actions. With the impeachment process in progress, Paxton no longer leads
the Attorney General office. His successor might not view the silencer case
as crucial. This will be determined in the coming months.
The intense regulation of silencers/gun mufflers/suppressors puzzles firearm
users worldwide. Many countries have minimal regulation of these devices.
The heavy regulation in the U.S. is hard to comprehend. Silencers are rarely
used in crime and offer numerous benefits such as protecting hearing,
reducing noise pollution, aiding in training and increasing use in the
military. They provide evident advantages for home defense and hunting.
Those advocating for population disarmament likely aim to maintain heavy
silencer regulation precisely because of the devices' many benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment