Twitchy regular and 2nd Amendment expert Stephen Gutowski has a new article out on the “real danger of the new Texas silence law” that he’s condensed into this must-read thread:
Analysis: The Real Danger of the New Texas Silencer Law https://t.co/mhj4Zq1mZq
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 22, 2021
First up, he’s warning that “Texas telling its citizens it can nullify federal law could create unsuspecting federal felons as recent history shows”
Silencers don't work like they do on TV. They're rarely used in crime. Decriminaling them is unlikely to create many problems. But Texas telling its citizens it can nullify federal law could create unsuspecting federal felons as recent history shows. https://t.co/mhj4Zq1mZq
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 22, 2021
Here’s why:
As Kevin Williamson pointed out in @NRO, Wickard and Raich are bad decisions which imply the feds have unlimited power through the commerce clause to regulate nearly any action even if it isn't interstate or, really, commerce. It's sensible to want to chip away at this concept.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 22, 2021
But Williamson's analysis stops after 2005's Raich and implies the 2021 court may see things differently due to its new makeup. And he supports using Texas's silencer nullification law to get there. But that leaves out extremely significant recent history.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 22, 2021
Something similar happened in Kansas a few years back:
Texas isn't the first state to pass a silencer nullification law. Kansas did the same thing a few years back and two men bought into the idea the state could protect them from federal law. They ended up being convicted of federal felonies.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 22, 2021
The Kansas duo attempted to appeal to SCOTUS but failed:
And, guess what, they appealed to the Supreme Court on the exact same argument the Texas law now makes. In 2019, the Court denied them cert. It didn't even hear their case. The Court has since swapped Ginsburg for Barrett and could always take up a similar case.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 22, 2021
According to Gutowski, “These laws don’t invite Second Amendment challenges. These are commerce clause cases”:
But there's been little movement on this issue in the courts for nearly 80 years. Heck, Scalia even wrote a concurring opinion in Raich. This also doesn't have anything to do with gun-rights. These laws don't invite Second Amendment challenges. These are commerce clause cases.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 22, 2021
The worry here is that Texas is “misleading people into committing federal felonies in order to get legal guinea pigs”:
I don't have any issues with people challenging the standing interpretation of the commerce clause. I think the current interpretation is far too broad. But I do have an issue with misleading people into committing federal felonies in order to get legal guinea pigs.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 22, 2021
Read the whole thing here:
You can read a lot more on the topic here: https://t.co/mhj4Zq1mZq
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 22, 2021
***
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.