June 21, 2024
In a blow to Texas’s bid for firearm independence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging federal regulations on suppressors made and kept within the state.
This decision confirms that even suppressors manufactured entirely within Texas must comply with federal law, rendering them illegal under the National Firearm Act (NFA).
The lawsuit, driven by several Texas residents and the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG), sought to challenge federal oversight on suppressors through the Texas Suppressor Freedom Act (House Bill 957).
This 2021 law, championed by state Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), posited that suppressors made and kept in Texas should not be subject to federal regulation.
Under the act, Texas residents could request the OAG to obtain a federal court order to prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing federal suppressor regulations within the state.
Federal Judge Mark Pittman originally dismissed the lawsuit, citing lack of standing. Plaintiffs appealed, but the 5th Circuit panel, composed of Judges Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and James C. Ho, affirmed the dismissal.
The 5th Circuit’s 14-page opinion emphasized that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete plan to violate federal law.
The court noted that while the plaintiffs expressed intent to manufacture suppressors, they did not specify that they would bypass federal requirements, such as registering the suppressors, paying a $200 excise tax, and applying for federal approval. The court underscored that manufacturing a suppressor is not illegal if these procedures are followed.
Chief Judge Edith Brown Clement, writing for the panel, stated, “The declarations do not state any intention to engage in conduct proscribed by law. The plaintiffs must show an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
Texas Gun Rights expressed disappointment but remained defiant. President Chris McNutt criticized the ruling, asserting, “This decision is another example of federal overreach infringing on states’ rights and individual freedoms. Using a suppressed firearm is considered polite in other parts of the world, yet here in America they are regulated like a machine gun. It makes no sense. Texans should have the right to manufacture and possess suppressors without federal interference.”
For now, this ruling reaffirms the ATF’s authority to regulate suppressors, even those made and kept within a single state. The court’s decision also highlights the stringent requirements individuals must meet under the NFA, which categorizes suppressors as firearms, subjecting them to extensive regulations.
Texas argued that the federal suppressor regulations hinder residents’ ability to protect their hearing, a health and well-being issue. However, the court found this argument insufficient, stating that Texas’s interest was derivative of its citizens’ individual Second Amendment claims and did not constitute a valid quasi-sovereign interest.
Attorney Tony McDonald, representing the Texas residents, indicated plans to refine the lawsuit and refile with more specific allegations to better establish standing. McDonald stated, “We will go back to the trial court, re-tool our declarations and allegations, re-file the case, and ask the court to take up the rest of the summary judgment questions again.”
