View Full Version : Hearing Protection Act
Rucker61
11-11-2016, 13:35
How long after Trump takes office will this pass, and how long after that before we can buy 16.1" integrally suppressed barrels over the counter?
SamuraiCO
11-11-2016, 13:45
Has the best chance as any time for this. i am also on board for the TSA check box for quick security through airports when we do our background checks. Streamline the Gov.
How long after Trump takes office will this pass, and how long after that before we can buy 16.1" integrally suppressed barrels over the counter?
I'd certainly be in favor but I don't see Trump spending any political capital on it. Maybe it could emerge as part of a larger crime bill package but the press would vilify him for it and the namby-pamby rinos would kill it.
DangerLee_Industries
11-11-2016, 15:13
Cool thing is if or when it passes and if it holds true I think any stamps paid after October of 2015 will come back as tax credits.
I won't be paying property tax for the next 50 years if that happens!
newracer
11-11-2016, 15:23
I read somewhere that they think it can be passed within 60 days of him taking office.
If it passes, I cannot wait for the TBAC group buy.
I'd brand it the "Silent Majority Group Buy" with the slogan, "Thunderbeast, not Hildebeast!"
We all need to let our congress critters know that we support this measure. Also, if they haven't signed on or supported it, let them know they should support it.
Wyoming’s two Senators have already approved HR3799 (hearing protection act), and hopefully our new House Representative Liz Cheney will support it. I think she will. The NFA needs to end soon. Trump already said he'd sign it if it gets to his desk. We need to make every attempt to see that it happens.
We all need to let our congress critters know that we support this measure. Also, if they haven't signed on or supported it, let them know they should support it.
Wyoming’s two Senators have already approved HR3799 (hearing protection act), and hopefully our new House Representative Liz Cheney will support it. I think she will. The NFA needs to end soon. Trump already said he'd sign it if it gets to his desk. We need to make every attempt to see that it happens.
Is there a site set up with an official "Hi I'm a constituent and please support this bill" form email we can send to all our reps based on zip code?
There's this one:
http://americansuppressorassociation.com/
You can also go onto the SilencerCo website, and join "the suppressed", part of the "fight the noise" campaign. They have a link to send letters to your reps and Senators.
This is a good video of Donald jr. talking with the SiCo President.
https://youtu.be/0vlu2G5UkXk
osok-308
11-13-2016, 08:04
This would be amazing if it did pass, then I could finally get around to getting the suppressors I've been looking at.
XC700116
11-13-2016, 10:21
Just a heads up, you may not be basking in the glory of OTC suppressors as quickly as you think. Even if the HPA passes, you've still got the issue of CO law to deal with. In which Federal Registration (tax stamp) is affirmative defense, ie. Suppressors aren't just perfectly legal in CO, and many other states. Without the Federal Registration on them, the laws in CO needs to change before you can take advantage of the HPA's provisions.
(1) As used in this section, the term “dangerous weapon” means a firearm silencer, machine gun, short shotgun, short rifle, or ballistic knife.
(2) As used in this section, the term “illegal weapon” means a blackjack, gas gun, metallic knuckles, gravity knife, or switchblade knife.
(3) A person who knowingly possesses a dangerous weapon commits a class 5 felony. Each subsequent violation of this subsection (3) by the same person shall be a class 4 felony.
(4) A person who knowingly possesses an illegal weapon commits a class 1 misdemeanor.
(5) It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon, or to the charge of possessing an illegal weapon, that the person so accused was a peace officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or Colorado National Guard acting in the lawful discharge of his duties, or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon.
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18....1NrcA6M8.dpuf (http://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-12-102.html#sthash.1NrcA6M8.dpuf)
osok-308
11-13-2016, 11:02
True, suppressors would either have to be removed from the list, or CO begins to issue licenses for them. Uphill battle, but one worth fighting.
Expand scope of CCW Permit to cover suppressors.
Sent from my QMV7B using Tapatalk
Colorado is a blue state, so nothing would change here.
What makes a Ballistic Knife more dangerous than my 12" chefs knife?......
Depends if the 12" chef's knife has an adjustable stock or not.
Just a heads up, you may not be basking in the glory of OTC suppressors as quickly as you think. Even if the HPA passes, you've still got the issue of CO law to deal with. In which Federal Registration (tax stamp) is affirmative defense, ie. Suppressors aren't just perfectly legal in CO, and many other states. Without the Federal Registration on them, the laws in CO needs to change before you can take advantage of the HPA's provisions.
If I'm reading this correctly, the HPA has a preemptive clause to deal with such things:
SEC. 4. Preemption of certain State laws in relation to firearm silencers.
Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that, as a condition of lawfully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, imposes a tax on any such conduct, or a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement with respect to the firearm silencer, shall have no force or effect.”.
There is no provision with state law to do such a thing, and the NFA supersedes (and I would assume that section of CO "law" is in deference to NFA), so therefore the "lawfully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" should supersede CO "law". Otherwise, one could be arrested for breaking state law while following Federal law.
How is that any different than having a Class III item right now in 20ish states that prohibit them?
How is that any different than having a Class III item right now in 20ish states that prohibit them?
CO doesn't prohibit them. I have no idea how it deals with other states. The question was CO law. The Bill's text is a little lacking in its specificity.
This article states:
While the bill is short in text, an important provision would allow for federal preemption of suppressor regulation over state laws, which would have the effect of keeping suppressors legal in states whose laws specifically mention that only those registered under the NFA are allowed.
http://www.guns.com/2015/10/22/bill-introduced-to-remove-suppressors-from-nfa-regulation/
While this would seem to throw it back into the states' corner, which is unfortunate since it's ancillary to a right, it is at least a good incremental step.
XC700116
11-13-2016, 13:18
If I'm reading this correctly, the HPA has a preemptive clause to deal with such things:
There is no provision with state law to do such a thing, and the NFA supersedes (and I would assume that section of CO "law" is in deference to NFA), so therefore the "lawfully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" should supersede CO "law". Otherwise, one could be arrested for breaking state law while following Federal law.
That's simply stating that they can't force a creation of a state registry for them, nor tax them specifically "as a condition of lawfully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce", like the current NFA.
It does nothing to override the outright ban on them in a state. It can't The federal government doesn't have the power to do that.
I'd like to hear what NFA Trust Guy has to say on the subject specifically, but Reading the HPA text, I don't see anything that says it preempts state law.
I would assume the Guns.com Article is saying that a 4473 type BGC resulting in an approval would constitute the "licensing" but I'm not sure on that. I wouldn't want to pursue it too far either.
Point being, best thing to happen and would need to happen would be to remove them from the "dangerous weapons" list in CO law. Which is a tough battle to win right now.
EDIT: I should be clear that I REALLY hope I'm wrong on this.
Legal under NFA = illegal under CO law? There's already a disconnect if such is the case.
If the CO law is predicated on the presence of NFA, the dissolving of NFA *should* dissolve any problems in CO.
My only problem with the bill is it lacks a lot of specificity which is needed to resolve such questions as you raise.
XC700116
11-13-2016, 21:01
Legal under NFA = illegal under CO law? There's already a disconnect if such is the case.
If the CO law is predicated on the presence of NFA, the dissolving of NFA *should* dissolve any problems in CO.
My only problem with the bill is it lacks a lot of specificity which is needed to resolve such questions as you raise.
Not really, CO law isn't tied to the NFA at all, it simply states "Dangerous Weapons" are illegal unless "the person so accused was a peace officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or Colorado National Guard acting in the lawful discharge of his duties, or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon"
For these purposes an approved form 4 constitutes a valid permit and license for possession. Getting rid of NFA doesn't get rid of the CO law, therefore some other form of license/permit needs to be in place OR they need to be removed from the CO "Dangerous Weapon" definition.
And I agree it does lack some of that specificity, but even if there was a law passed that completely obliterates the NFA on a federal level, the problem still exists in CO and other states unless said states recognize an approved 4473 as an approved "license/Permit", OR remove the same items from prohibition within their laws.
Basically it becomes a situation of state law being more restrictive than federal, just like our mag bans, "universal BGC", CBI BGC vs NICS, The vast stupidity that is CA firearms laws, etc. Long story short, it'll be vastly better on the federal side, but the state laws and or processes will have to adjust as well.
Barring that change to state laws we would need individual Supreme court decisions striking down the old laws in each state.
Sounds like a good reason to contact the group advocating for this and ask how they plan to not make it actually worse than it is now.
ETA:
Just emailed them the following:
Hi,
My thanks for your efforts to rid the NFA list of suppressors. As a trustee in possession of a suppressor, I'm a supporter of your efforts in theory. However, in the following thread, it was brought up that this may actually worsen the situation in Colorado:
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/159470-Hearing-Protection-Act
My username on there is CavSct1983. As you can see on page 2 of the above link, username XC700116 brought up the fact that this could actually harm suppressor ownership in Colorado due to their definition as a "dangerous weapon".
I'm sure that virtually every other state that doesn't outright ban suppressors have similar laws. So I have three questions:
1) How does your organization and the HPA address the potential of an effective national ban of suppressors via the states?
2) Does the HPA, if passed, entirely supersede the state laws in effect for suppressors?
3) If it then places it in the hands of the states, what foreseeable protections might suppressor owners have, i.e., couldn't this outright cause more problems?
Thanks,
<redacted>
XC700116
11-14-2016, 00:58
Hopefully they have some answers.
It shouldn't effect those of us that currently own them due to the approved form 4's but going forward could get sticky. Should be very interesting to see what they have to say.
First reply:
Thanks for the email. We are aware of several states, including Colorado, that have specific references in their state code to registration within the NFA and other verbiage that would be affected by the passage of the Hearing Protection Act. We have been careful to review and hopefully address those issues within the HPA, but I am forwarding your message to our General Counsel to get a definitive answer to your questions.
Will update as I hear back from them.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.
Assumed General Counsel reply:
Thank you for reaching out <redacted>. Section 3 of the HPA was crafted with exactly these problems in mind, as many states have similar provisions. See the text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3799/text
Best,
<redacted>
Reply from me to them:
<redacted>,
Just to be clear, are you stating that suppressors would then be simply subject to the same process as purchasing a firearm?
If so, what protections are in place for places like CO which may decide to then ban suppressors altogether as there would then be no NFA backstop for the preference of registration/licensing/etc.? Or, if they do not ban them altogether, enact a similar registration/de facto tax stamp like in the case with Concealed Carry?
In CO, unless one has it registered under NFA, it is considered a "dangerous weapon"; so I ask again, "Does the HPA, if passed, entirely supersede the state laws in effect for suppressors?"
Regards,
<redacted>
Reply to above doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy.
You are correct that once the HPA passes, suppressors would be purchased just like long guns. And like long guns, states could if they chose impose new restrictions on them through legislation. However, such a decision would be met with backlash from voters and citizens, and would be something we actively fight against.
To your final point, section 3 of the HPA states that suppressors would be treated as if they are registered under the NFA, so they would not be treated as dangerous weapons under current Colorado law. But no, the HPA does not supersede state laws.
All CO would have to do is reclassify them or outright ban. That there would be voter backlash is not a great argument given our asinine mag restrictions and the repeal of ability to do face to face sales sans FFL involvement.
I'm now torn. Prima facie, the HPA seems pretty cool. But with these answers, I'd almost rather have the hassle of a wait and $200 than cast my lot with the jackasses in Denver.
It really sucks CO has gone that far left. I moved to WY after the state politicians rammed those bullshit laws down our throats. While I do hope HR3799 passes, I do understand where you're coming from as it may not benefit those in CO like it would here.
XC700116
11-14-2016, 20:01
That's actually good to hear, now all we have to hope for is that there isn't a new added ban pushed through.
The more times people with NFA toys poke their heads out of the whole and say "Look at us" the worse it could get.
It sucks now but think about how bad $200 stamps could be if adjusted for inflation...
And when cans are removed from the NFA how will states regulate their possession/sale/use/ect?
Things nobody wants to talk about.
The more times people with NFA toys poke their heads out of the whole and say "Look at us" the worse it could get.
It sucks now but think about how bad $200 stamps could be if adjusted for inflation...
And when cans are removed from the NFA how will states regulate their possession/sale/use/ect?
Things nobody wants to talk about.
The ASA sure as hell didn't do us any favors with what ended up being 41F...
I've replied to Ken Buck and Cory Gardner's canned responses as well with concerns about how the HPA might detrimentally affect us here in Colorado. It will be interesting to see if I get any responses.
All I care about is in the end, suppressors are legalized and sold over the counter. It's just a damn muffler. They can keep the stupid tax, force a ridiculous background check, whatever... The fact that there is a wait for a muffler is stupid, plain and simple.
The more times people with NFA toys poke their heads out of the whole and say "Look at us" the worse it could get.
It sucks now but think about how bad $200 stamps could be if adjusted for inflation...
And when cans are removed from the NFA how will states regulate their possession/sale/use/ect?
Things nobody wants to talk about.
I don't disagree with you very much, but I firmly believe that the more people are exposed to suppressors, the better. The sooner they realize that Hollywood is full of shit, and that suppressors aren't silent, the better. The more our politicians are exposed to them, and realize they are just a muffler, the better.
The problem with NFA owners and politics is we're either too short to be easily seen and/or too quiet to be easily heard.
The problem with NFA owners and politics is we're either too short to be easily seen and/or too quiet to be easily heard.
I see what you did there... [Flower][Coffee]
...or talk too fast to be understood.
O2
Anyone have any updates on this, if the creators have figured out anything for Colorado, and such states? I'm debating starting the process to buy my first suppressor and wondering if I should wait for this, or just suck it up and get the forms started. I know trump isn't not in office yet, but that doesn't mean the Act's creators haven't.thought of a work around yet.
Anyone have any updates on this, if the creators have figured out anything for Colorado, and such states? I'm debating starting the process to buy my first suppressor and wondering if I should wait for this, or just suck it up and get the forms started. I know trump isn't not in office yet, but that doesn't mean the Act's creators haven't.thought of a work around yet.
I wouldn't count my legal Acts until they're signed and in force. By the time this all goes down, if it does, you'd be probably 5 months into the process.
Delfuego
12-14-2016, 18:41
You guys really think the gov't gets anything done quickly?
I will have grown a ZZ Top beard, Fu Manchu nails and my screen-name will be Methuselah before any of those clowns in Washington get any work done.
Eh, call me an optimist...
cfortune
01-10-2017, 19:16
You guys really think the gov't gets anything done quickly?
I will have grown a ZZ Top beard, Fu Manchu nails and my screen-name will be Methuselah before any of those clowns in Washington get any work done.
Eh, call me an optimist...
Valid point. I'm getting started on two more cans at the end of the week. I can't see this becoming a reality by the time I get the go ahead.
Bill has been reintroduced as of 1/9/2017
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170109/nra-applauds-the-introduction-of-the-hearing-protection-act-hr-367
Delfuego
01-10-2017, 20:36
I will happily eat crow if this passes. Finger crossed.
paddywagon
01-10-2017, 22:10
I will happily eat crow if this passes. Finger crossed.
I would too!
Here's a blurb by SilencerCo on the reintro of the HPA:
HPA REINTRODUCED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday was a momentous occasion for Second Amendment supporters across the country: the Hearing Protection Act was reintroduced to the 115th Congress as H.R. 367. Originally introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) in 2015, this historic piece of legislation is now sponsored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) and Rep. John Carter (TX-31), and a long list of co-sponsors. Along with H.R. 367, a companion bill (S.59) has been introduced by Senator Mike Crapo (ID) to the Senate.
The HPA seeks to remove suppressors from the NFA and instead have their purchase and transfer treated the same as a long gun - no more $200 tax or extensive waiting period - customers will now undergo an instantaneous NICS background check. Also included in the bill language is a provision to refund the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchased a suppressor after October 22, 2015 - the original date of introduction.
SilencerCo, along with many like-minded members of Congress, believes that citizens should not be taxed for trying to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights. Even though the House, Senate, and Presidency will be controlled by sympathetic advocates for the Second Amendment, bills take time to become law. Although we are optimistic about the Hearing Protection Act, it will take time. Between now and the passage of this bill, we encourage our customers to continue to support the industry and to take advantage of the $200 tax refund provision.
What can you do to help?
Go to fightthenoise.org and take action to write your Representative and Senators and tell them you support the Hearing Protection Act.
By tomorrow I'll be at 6 months waiting.... The government doesn't need to regulate suppressors. The long wait time for approval is an utterly shameful display of government arrogance and inefficiency. The background check also is excessive but that could go away in time if the trend of the expansion of 2A rights continues.
I've sent emails to both Senators and my Representative. I didn't see any of their names on the list. Hopefully they'll respond favorably. Enzi and Barrasso had cosponsored the previous HPA, and Liz Cheney is new so I'm not sure where she stands on suppressors. She did just cosponsor the concealed carry reciprocity bill.
The thing to remember is the NFA was enacted to discourage ownership not facilitate it , it was never about anything other than making the process as painful and cost prohibitive as possible .
I give the bill slim to no chance of passing , the government never lets go once they have their fingers in something .
But have you contacted your congressmen to voice stance on the matter? Or are you just going to sit on your pessimism and do nothing?
The NFA was enacted by idiots who used scare tactics, and fake statistics to get it passed. The laws can be reversed. It happened with prohibition.
But have you contacted your congressmen to voice stance on the matter? Or are you just going to sit on your pessimism and do nothing?
The NFA was enacted by idiots who used scare tactics, and fake statistics to get it passed. The laws can be reversed. It happened with prohibition.
Yeah, but the asshats who would do so cannot have someone else drink for them; they can have someone else use a machine gun on our families though and have no need to do it themselves -- no need for us to have solid protection and ability to fight back.
Done more than my fair share . But I also understand reality as well , and part of that reality is the ASA are the people that opened the ATF's eyes to how people were using trusts and brought about the changes to how they are handled now . Which in turn caused all the panic buying that jacked the wait times up again .
If the bill passes suppressor availability is going to get worse because all the panic buyers are going to buy up all the available stock and then the manufacturers will have to catch up with demand . The other thing is the cost of quality products will only marginally change because the forms to manufacture and transfer dealer to dealer are free and the SOT costs and now the added ITAR stuff is not going to change . Yes you will get some new companies that will make low cost stuff but it will be louder and less durable than the quality stuff . The American suppressor market is what it is because for the most part a suppressor is a forever purchase and not something that is easily or cheaply repaired or upgraded .
It's a pipe dream to think the government will deregulate the suppressor industry which is what it would take to significantly reduce the cost to the end user .
Just look at all the company's that started building AR's when the insanity was going on , how are they doing now that the bottom has fallen out of it .
newracer
01-14-2017, 22:52
Easy way to contact representatives.
http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/write-a-letter?0&engagementId=273153&lp=0
Got a mail out from Lamborn w/ a detachable post card. In the extra comments section I mentioned this bill.
It will pass. Its the best thing and the least amount of work to shut up the pro 2nd amendment crowd.
It will pass. Its the best thing and the least amount of work to shut up the pro 2nd amendment crowd.
I see it as a good step toward restoring our constitutional right.
It will pass. Its the best thing and the least amount of work to shut up the pro 2nd amendment crowd.
It won't shut us up, it will just make us quieter.
It will pass. Its the best thing and the least amount of work to shut up the pro 2nd amendment crowd.
It won't shut us up, it will just make us quieter.
[emoji23]
Bu-dump-bump-ch
Here is another piece of reality for you , suppressors are considered dangerous weapons under Colorado law ,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.R.S.+18-12-101
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.R.S.+18-12-102
and the NFA transfer is considered an affirmative defense which allows the possession of them , no NFA equals no affirmative defense and suppressors are now prohibited . Ain't reality grand .
https://youtu.be/g9MoCyr4-F0
There is a part at 1:10 that says it would remove a tax and record keeping from states. That might be a start to removing it as a dangerous weapon.
It won't shut us up, it will just make us quieter.
Nice!
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
There is no tax or record keeping at the state level in Co and there is no preemption clause in the bill , the law will have to change at the state and local level also .
The state will have to change the law and then deal with all the law suits from the municipalities because of the state level preemption law that is on the books here . What do you think are the chances of Denver and most of the metro area not throwing a fit about suppressors being non regulated , they don't like it the way it is now .
The concept behind the bill is good but the execution is crap . And the end result here is be careful what you wish for when you don't do the research and may end up worse than when you started . So take it with a grain of salt when your representative says they support this because you can be certain they know what the CRS says and the end result of the bill passing .
Link to contact your representatives and Senator about this very important issue.
http://www.fightthenoise.org/take-action/?mc_cid=18d9ed9cf3&mc_eid=ce1cf56aea
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Delfuego
01-17-2017, 17:17
Jeez Chuck, you're killin my buzz [gohome]
I though I might actually show up at a match with a can if this passes...
Jeez Chuck, you're killin my buzz [gohome]
I though I might actually show up at a match with a can if this passes...
Bust out the Visa and get busy .
I'd like nothing better than to ring Shane up and get a new can when ever I liked but this is easy political capitol for these idiots to bargain with , if they bargain it away for something else there is no loss or gain with leaving things the way they are .
The thing that worries me most is if this passes and suppressors come off the NFA does that mean the previous transfers are null and void in the eyes of Colo and the affirmative defense for people that have them go away and instant criminal status happens ?
Bust out the Visa and get busy .
I'd like nothing better than to ring Shane up and get a new can when ever I liked but this is easy political capitol for these idiots to bargain with , if they bargain it away for something else there is no loss or gain with leaving things the way they are .
The thing that worries me most is if this passes and suppressors come off the NFA does that mean the previous transfers are null and void in the eyes of Colo and the affirmative defense for people that have them go away and instant criminal status happens ?
Is there a precedent for a federal law being no longer applied to an item and then States using existing laws, or creating laws to ban the private, otherwise legal ownership of said items?
If current legal NFA ownership is currently overiding Colorado view of suppressors as dangerous weapons, then wouldn't the Feds view of suppressors as nothing more than the purchase of a handgun, or long gun wouldn't that also preempt Colorado law?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Is there a precedent for a federal law being no longer applied to an item and then States using existing laws, or creating laws to ban the private, otherwise legal ownership of said items?
If current legal NFA ownership is currently overiding Colorado view of suppressors as dangerous weapons, then wouldn't the Feds view of suppressors as nothing more than the purchase of a handgun, or long gun wouldn't that also preempt Colorado law?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
You mean kind of like how federal law doesn't restrict owning a magazine with a capacity greater than 15 rounds but Colorado does?
You mean kind of like how federal law doesn't restrict owning a magazine with a capacity greater than 15 rounds but Colorado does?
Aside from the AWB there was never a federal ban on magazine capacity.
Err "restriction on magazine capacity"
But I get your point, makes sense.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Great-Kazoo
01-17-2017, 20:08
Is there a precedent for a federal law being no longer applied to an item and then States using existing laws, or creating laws to ban the private, otherwise legal ownership of said items?
If current legal NFA ownership is currently overiding Colorado view of suppressors as dangerous weapons, then wouldn't the Feds view of suppressors as nothing more than the purchase of a handgun, or long gun wouldn't that also preempt Colorado law?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
NFA items are approved / allowed under state laws. As CA, NY and other states do not allow any or specific ones. WA last year passed a law prohibiting Form 1's . It's the fed's that approve one's application, the states allow ownership.
The pot shops in Co are a perfect example of conflict between state and federal laws .
The thing with an " affirmative defense " in Co law does not mean so much as to assume it is legal but that it is an acceptable excuse . Both Aurora and Denver in the past have seized Legally transferred and possessed NFA items that people had to go to court to get returned .
The problem with the bill is there is no preemption clause in it and that means state law would come in , Like the multiple states now that prohibit NFA items all together .
DireWolf
01-18-2017, 01:17
What needs to happen is that the NFA/GCA/etc. need to be repealed in their entirety (not just unconstitutional, but unlike most of the bogus Nazi claims being thrown around in the media lately, my understanding is that the NFA can be directly tied to Nazi-era Germany's gun laws), and at the same time, a replacement law enacted to explicitly prohibit any other Federal OR State level restrictions (for law abiding citizens with no violent/DV related felonies) on any firearms, destructive devices, or related items which are in common use by any Military branch. A side benefit of this would likely reinvigorate small-arms development in the private sector beyond just basic and/or cosmetic enhancements to existing platforms.
This would also be fully consistent amd defensible with regard to both the letter and intent of the Constitution/BoR, from multiple points and perspectives, and could completely nullify any State-level bullshit. Fuck them and their utterly unconstitutional "dangerous/deadly weapon" bullshit....
Also, I get that some folks have made a significant investment in Pre-86' items no longer available (and thus vastily and artificially inflated in value due to laws of supply and demand), and I'm sure this only applies to a small subset of those individuals, but holy shit, they need to be willing to take one for the fucking team and stop lobbying to keep those laws in place just to keep the prices/value high for those items. I mean, file an insurance/loss claim, write it off for tax purposes (not 100% sure if thats possible), but damn, there's only one "right" side on this issue, the alterative is utterly hypocritical and the antithesis of adherence to constitutional & American principles....
ETA: Just to qualify that last statement, I think folks from all walks can agree that there's a metric shit-ton of BS laws on the books at all levels (I'll refrain from quoting "Dr. Ferris"), but if someone has no affinity towards, or respect for the bedrock laws and charter of our nation, which incidentally define the entirety of the foundational structure of our government and upon which all other laws are based (and thus provides them with legitimacy - both laws and the legislators themselves), then those individuals can either get themselves right in the head, or can GTFO and go somewhere more in line with their world view...
The National Firearms Act of 1934 has nothing to do with Nazi's and everything to do with prohibition and the shity economy of the late 20's and early 30's right here in the USA .
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Firearms+Act+of+1934
And the supreme court has already seen a case and ruled on the constitutionality of the law in 1939 ,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
Gun control laws in the US have always been a knee jerk reaction by politicians to a perceived problem that they just have to do something about not some grand Nazi conspiracy . Is there a financial interest by some to remove the NFA , maybe but the buyers and sellers of 50 K plus collectable full auto's are a minuscule part of the gun owning public . Did the NFA and more importantly the 86 ban on newly constructed full auto kill private small arms development in the US , absolutely . The thing here is people knowing how the government operates and them never releasing control of something once they get their fingers in it and only continually making things worse even when saying they will make it all better , look at the health care debacle that went from repeal to repeal and replace .
It is always funny to me where you get all the people thumping their chests about states rights and how the founding fathers put that in the constitution for a reason , which I whole heartily agree with , just look at any of the pot threads on here for many examples of this but as soon as it goes the other way and state law is the hang up its the job of the feds to remedy it with federal law . This is how we got in this place to begin with and the goal should be to eliminate the federal laws beyond the constitutional reach of the government not make it larger .
Great-Kazoo
01-18-2017, 09:11
And the supreme court has already seen a case and ruled on the constitutionality of the law in 1939
While it may never happen in the next few years. The Supreme Court was my reason for voting Trump. There's 1 to possibly 2-3 nominations waiting for the incoming president. Having a 5-4 is nice, having a 6-3 would be ideal for gun owners, Hopefully for states like CA & NY, as laws become more restrictive for those who follow the law.
The court case was almost a slam dunk that would have struck down the law . The defendant , a depression era moonshiner arrested for a short barreled shotgun was a no show and a default judgment was found against him . There are many legal historians that have looked at the case and pretty much all agree that if he would have showed up the NFA of 34 would have been struck down .
...my understanding is that the NFA can be directly tied to Nazi-era Germany's gun laws...
No.
...not some grand Nazi conspiracy.
Well, it depends. Turns out that the Nazi weapon law was used as a template for the gun control act of 1968. JPFO did an excellent job of translating the Nazi weapon law and placing it side-by-side with GCA68, even includes the untranslated version for those doubting thomas' that can read german.
Turns out that even the Library of Congress was in on the act, translating the german for then Senator Dodd -- all fully documented.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/gateway.htm
O2
Just because the GCA68 is vastly similar to the Nazi era stuff does not make a Nazi conspiracy , all the nations that restrict firearms have vastly similar laws , look at most of Europe where some of these laws were in place for decades before WW2 .
DireWolf
01-18-2017, 11:31
It is always funny to me where you get all the people thumping their chests about states rights and how the founding fathers put that in the constitution for a reason , which I whole heartily agree with , just look at any of the pot threads on here for many examples of this but as soon as it goes the other way and state law is the hang up its the job of the feds to remedy it with federal law . This is how we got in this place to begin with and the goal should be to eliminate the federal laws beyond the constitutional reach of the government not make it larger .
I agree to a point, and think that prohibition in general is a bit ridiculous; That said, there's somewhat of an apples-to-oranges comparison there, as there are no constitutional protections that I'm aware of which cover the "Right" to get inebriated (although if getting smashed makes you happy, there might be a viable argument there as long as it doesn't nullify the rights of anyone else...), whereas the RTKBA is explicitly codified.
It's not about "remediating" social issues, and I agree that we have way too many laws on the books as it is - this would be something simple to explicitly prevent subversion of the restrictions put into place by the BoR, and to directly provide for swift & harsh punative action against ANYONE (legislators, judges, etc.) acting to deliberately subvert those protections.
There are many legal historians that have looked at the case and pretty much all agree that if he would have showed up the NFA of 34 would have been struck down .
This is why I believe it's doable with the proper SC makeup. I also think (non-attorney opinion, so I may be missing something) that any American citizen would have proper standing to bring action against this without needing to be a criminal defendant, simply because it directly affects and inhibits our rights which have been codified in the BoR.
Turns out that the Nazi weapon law was used as a template for the gun control act of 1968. JPFO did an excellent job of translating the Nazi weapon law and placing it side-by-side with GCA68, even includes the untranslated version for those doubting thomas' that can read german.
Thank you. I knew it was in there somewhere, but must have been mis-remembering (I'm more of a "hobby scholar" and by no means a legal expert)
Just because the GCA68 is vastly similar to the Nazi era stuff does not make a Nazi conspiracy , all the nations that restrict firearms have vastly similar laws , look at most of Europe where some of these laws were in place for decades before WW2 .
I don't think there's any "Nazi Conspiracy" as such, but evil begets evil, and in my opinion completely delegitimizes any derivatives - "fruits from the poison tree", as it were....
For example, kiri-sute gomen existed long before Nazis, Communism, etc., but that doesn't mean we should be willing to accept as law anything which is similar or derivative of that, as that would be about as antithetical as I can possibly imagine to the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness....
Just because the GCA68 is vastly similar to the Nazi era stuff does not make a Nazi conspiracy , all the nations that restrict firearms have vastly similar laws , look at most of Europe where some of these laws were in place for decades before WW2 .
Guess you missed the "well depends" part of the sentence. Appears that it was used to help write GCA68.
O2
The example of the pot threads was about the states rights provisions in the constitution not about dope being legal or not , don't care one way or the other there . The point is you can't have it both ways either the feds are in your business or there not , I prefer not .
To get the case before the supreme court there will need to be another agreaved party and the process started all over again . And now even the conservative justice's are more liberal than what was in place in 1939 .
Government is about power and control and with ours turning from public service as originally designed to a career path is why we're sliding down this path
Untill that changes we're pretty well screwed . The apathy of the general public and the free shit army that have figured out they can vote themselves other people's money are going to be hard to change .
Delfuego
01-18-2017, 18:20
Chuck, Did see your new title? Fucking classic. Must be Hoser...
Yes I did and yes he did .
Aloha_Shooter
01-19-2017, 12:24
The Supreme Court was my reason for voting Trump. There's 1 to possibly 2-3 nominations waiting for the incoming president. Having a 5-4 is nice, having a 6-3 would be ideal for gun owners
Agreed. It was extremely important to not give the Dems a chance to replace Scalia with another Sotomayor or Kagan. Getting to replace Ginsberg or Kennedy with someone like Scalia or Alito would restore balance and be a Godsend. I repeat -- RESTORE balance. Obama's and Clinton's appointments threw the Court off-balance in the first place and the Bush appointments haven't helped offset that as hoped.
Agreed. It was extremely important to not give the Dems a chance to replace Scalia with another Sotomayor or Kagan. Getting to replace Ginsberg or Kennedy with someone like Scalia or Alito would restore balance and be a Godsend. I repeat -- RESTORE balance. Obama's and Clinton's appointments threw the Court off-balance in the first place and the Bush appointments haven't helped offset that as hoped.
you mean re-writing the .gov's argument instead of simply ruling on it? Roberts should be tried for treason and hung til dead.
Give me the job. I would be a great SCJ. I will have the Racist Sotomayer and gun grabber Kagen shooting three gun competition with in a year.
Some more reality for you , https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ar15news.com%2F2017%2F02% 2F13%2Fsilencerco-layoffs-hpa-ron-martinez-ceo-gemtech-offers-perspective%2F&h=ATMN0zizW3jALa2t_uEi5dTxqwp9J7k_Ou7NOv-UdLItTozZPmMCi-VBLfjuNacL6lUm0AmYkTo7cf-9S5p4Zqdo63Ei_SaUgRjgka35AkI8XNMRFB6_AkrN3deDJ1M-dKV33Q&enc=AZMoGYTrfpkfqHn6cZYQ8WjHRpKg2QCHmM967zenD7Lq96 c1Vx99Xe0T9I2glzPqEvpk6Ni6FvSJUBSftQuUTBX6ojU4D-9jS68kI1lZGdTTooKLW358Ygw2MDZ6Iivo1lG7_xGbqRCryRzq 85wkR9YHPXKaR2Fghw10zkFuyWkQHv2Wndfd97izTC_ifDRYKo JR5QEKjB0mahehUo_l3mbjoCHky_z0ihd6JtNmNB1ZqYSF6qZw-hz-6PfMhDqwXVBuJ-VmedQJXPtjfdDa4qsQ-ut36mWWEdM1t3kDQsEWCDe8VuKU6CL81o7d9qim9lI&s=1 , even the ASA says the HPA is a non starter untill at best after the mid terms in 2018 .
Because politicians are cowards and only care about protecting their jobs, not our hearing.
Because politicians are cowards and only care about protecting their jobs, not our hearing.
They don't care about saving us money either. We are just sheep that need watched until they need us slaughtered.
I originally supported the HPA because I misunderstood what it actually would do -- probably because the proposed law is so utterly vague and doesn't address state consequences. As seen on page 3 or 4 of this thread, I provided quotes from the sponsor's General Counsel on the legal ramifications of its passing which dig into those consequential concerns. The end result is that it will effectively place NO Federal backstops against a state level ban, and only shifts the blame of unconstitutional banning and/or taxation, permitting, etc. into the state's control.
Some states already ban. CO doesn't, but I believe that's because it hasn't been a whack-a-mole issue due to the backstop of Federal regulation.
I foresee a ban in CO if the HPA passes, or at the very least a state-level version of the federal headache we now experience. As such, I wholeheartedly disavow all support for the HPA. and would encourage everyone here to do the same, until there is placed in it a provision which keeps states from taking adverse action against suppressors.
It's utterly retarded and legally ignorant (not to mention philosophically daft) to clamor for a Federal deregulation under the guise of Constitutionality, and then just shift that into State violation with a grin on one's face. If it passes as is, it would not only be a Pyrrhic victory, it would be a real life version of the devil you don't know.
And it will be just as big a headache as buying a muffler for your prius. I don't see how removing any regulation on any level of Government can have a negative effect let alone be the beginning the Apocalypse.
Gov never gets smaller.. just sayin
And it will be just as big a headache as buying a muffler for your prius. I don't see how removing any regulation on any level of Government can have a negative effect let alone be the beginning the Apocalypse.
It's the devil you know. Given the political climate of Colorado, it would be a bit naive to think that the devil we don't know would be better.
And it will be just as big a headache as buying a muffler for your prius. I don't see how removing any regulation on any level of Government can have a negative effect let alone be the beginning the Apocalypse.
Reference post # 57 in this thread . Suppressors are ILLEGAL in Co with an affirmative defense of having a " permit " for them being used to make them legal , the NFA being that permit .
Pretty simple after that no NFA no suppressors .
I originally supported the HPA because I misunderstood what it actually would do -- probably because the proposed law is so utterly vague and doesn't address state consequences. As seen on page 3 or 4 of this thread, I provided quotes from the sponsor's General Counsel on the legal ramifications of its passing which dig into those consequential concerns. The end result is that it will effectively place NO Federal backstops against a state level ban, and only shifts the blame of unconstitutional banning and/or taxation, permitting, etc. into the state's control.
Some states already ban. CO doesn't, but I believe that's because it hasn't been a whack-a-mole issue due to the backstop of Federal regulation.
I foresee a ban in CO if the HPA passes, or at the very least a state-level version of the federal headache we now experience. As such, I wholeheartedly disavow all support for the HPA. and would encourage everyone here to do the same, until there is placed in it a provision which keeps states from taking adverse action against suppressors.
It's utterly retarded and legally ignorant (not to mention philosophically daft) to clamor for a Federal deregulation under the guise of Constitutionality, and then just shift that into State violation with a grin on one's face. If it passes as is, it would not only be a Pyrrhic victory, it would be a real life version of the devil you don't know.
Reference post # 57 in this thread . Suppressors are ILLEGAL in Co with an affirmative defense of having a " permit " for them being used to make them legal , the NFA being that permit .
Pretty simple after that no NFA no suppressors .
I've been saying the same thing, and asking relevant sponsors of the HPA, to include the ASA, to clarify, comment, and assuage our concerns. Crickets.
I get flamed as a naysayer or FUDD bringing the issue up on other venues - gun boards, bookface, etc.
I get flamed as a naysayer or FUDD bringing the issue up on other venues - gun boards, bookface, etc.
Me too. But nobody wants to hear anything other than how the HPA is going to save the world.
Shhh
Jk. The cold hard truth will do.
Still. I will take it. The liberals can't be in power here in Colorado forever. R's come and go in power.
hurley842002
02-20-2017, 09:25
Still. I will take it. The liberals can't be in power here in Colorado forever. R's come and go in power.
Ummm yes they can, states are much different than the country as a whole, when it comes to election cycles.
There has been exactly 1 Republican governor in the last 42 years in the state . The political make up of the population centers that have the most impact on elections has steadily moved to the left for the last 10 plus years . I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you .
None of this changes the fact the the HPA has fundamental flaws in the bill and we may very well be worse off here in Co if it passes . Looking at it with rose colored glasses isn't going to make it any better .
Everybody looks at the ASA and the HPA like they are the savior's when it is just another lobbying organization that is doing what they think is best for their clients , this is business nothing more nothing less . The only thing the ASA cares about the general public for is as customers for their clients . The other thing everybody fails to remember is the ASA is directly responsible for 41P , they went to the ATF to talk about removing the LEO sign off and in the process opened their eyes to the trust process which put in to motion 41P .
68Charger
02-20-2017, 10:16
There has been exactly 1 Republican governor in the last 42 years in the state . The political make up of the population centers that have the most impact on elections has steadily moved to the left for the last 10 plus years . I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you .
^^^ THIS
over 1/2 the population of Colorado lives in the Denver metro area... which is now 2nd to San Francisco in LGBTQ population, and consistently blue. The cold, hard truth of politics in CO are that if you don't agree with Denver, you don't matter.
Well that explains why I don't get lost in Denver anymore. There is aids on every corner.
hurley842002
02-20-2017, 12:38
Well that explains why I don't get lost in Denver anymore. There is aids on every corner.
This is one of the most ignorant things I've heard in awhile. Get out of the 80's, being gay in 2017 doesn't automatically equal aids...
What is the arrest record for having a dangerous weapon? Is it a law thats on the books but not enforced unless its an add-on charge like no seat belt with a speeding ticket? Tilting my rose colored glasses down for a second but I'm not taking them off just yet.
This is one of the most ignorant things I've heard in awhile. Get out of the 80's, being gay in 2017 doesn't automatically equal aids...
I was never in the 80's. Maybe I just wanted to see if you were the hypersensitive easily triggered snowflake type. And that JOKE is still very popular in San Fransisco. A gay guy told it to me when I was there a few years back.
ETA: We laughed at his expense to break the ice. Its nice to get a long. Its not so nice to be at each others throats over what someone says.
hurley842002
02-20-2017, 13:17
I was never in the 80's. Maybe I just wanted to see if you were the hypersensitive easily triggered snowflake type.
AKA Troll? I'm far from a snowflake.
Great-Kazoo
02-20-2017, 13:27
Still. I will take it. The liberals can't be in power here in Colorado forever. R's come and go in power.
My friend said that about CA, 35 years ago. he still believes it.
No idea on the arrest stats but I have no desire to be the crash test dummy for a felony conviction , you wanna be the test case and end your life for at least 5 years working through the legal system more power to you .
What is the arrest record for having a dangerous weapon? Is it a law thats on the books but not enforced unless its an add-on charge like no seat belt with a speeding ticket? Tilting my rose colored glasses down for a second but I'm not taking them off just yet.
Anyone that filed as an individual or has since notified LEO post 41P is going to have to deal with the fact that someone knows* what you have.
* It's my understanding that 41P paper goes through a shredder in DougCo, but I've no direct evidence.
I suppose it's also possible that should they go looking, the feds may be compelled by the state to report on any NFA items in one's possession? Frankly, I don't know the law in that regard.
While I am of the same mind as Chuck in regards to the legal issues owners in CO may face if the HPA passes, passage will take a long time, if ever.
The average for Federal legislation to become law is 23 months. Contentious issues, longer. After passage, the HPA would have some period of time before taking effect wherein rulemaking would occur as some Federal Agency (currently the ATF) which would take several months at a minimum. So, say three years maybe before it might become law. Then (akin to the AR15 market) you will get morons entering the fray and the good companies struggling to meet demand. Depending on what you want, might take a few months to a few years to come in stock. So, IMHO, I'd bet on a 4 year time period, at a minimum, to be able to buy 16.1" integrally suppressed barrels OTC, if Trump or Pence win the Presidential Election in 2020. If a D wins in 2020, NEVER.
Those with tax stamps would still have their permit to own a gun mufflers.
No one in Colorado would be able to obtain future mufflers unless our laws are changed.
Do other state require background checks when purchasing a muffler?
Those with tax stamps would still have their permit to own a gun mufflers.
No one in Colorado would be able to obtain future mufflers unless our laws are changed.
Do other state require background checks when purchasing a muffler?
Meaning essentially, that we could not apply for refunds like other red blooded Americans in freedom loving states. Welcome to Komirado.
The state firearms laws vary greatly especially with the NFA , https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.3gtactical.com/nfa/nfa-state-restrictions&ved=0ahUKEwj-yKX_jqDSAhXqhVQKHeOJAw8QFggcMAE&usg=AFQjCNGSlCaPVC9QGMiM9iexRI9cdl0PHA&sig2=-aUTYkHOhZQT_wGGHKLhVQ .
This is why the HPA having no preemption language in it is a reason for concern and if they remove suppressors from the NFA the states will be free to regulate them with state law .
Like I said before it's a pipe dream to think suppressors will be deregulated and available over the counter like some European countries .
The thing is that NFA owners are a miniscule percentage of the gun owning public and like every tiny lobbying group it's easy to blow smoke up your ass when the politicians have no intention of changing anything .
Contentious banter aside- and polarizing debate notwithstanding, is there any update on the HPA? Congress' website on the bill states that on 2/6 it was referred to the subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, but nothing else.
Also had a chat with a coworker about the state law issue and if the HPA passed and became law, since there is no licensing ability they would be "defacto" illegal, but that would simply invite a request to the legislature to remove that language from the statute or institute some sort of licensing. Neither is likely to happen with our blue legislature, but enough noise made about turning honest gun owners into criminals might raise the issue.
If you kept your stamps, wouldn't those serve as your permission slip to own a muffler?
It would end all new purchases, transfers or manufacturing of mufflers in Colorado.
Great-Kazoo
03-08-2017, 09:49
If you kept your stamps, wouldn't those serve as your permission slip to own a muffler?
It would end all new purchases, transfers or manufacturing of mufflers in Colorado.
Why wouldn't you keep your stamps? They're proof of ownership, especially for those who built them.
Why wouldn't you keep your stamps? They're proof of ownership, especially for those who built them.
Part of the HPA is an option to have the $200 tax stamp refunded.
Part of the HPA is an option to have the $200 tax stamp refunded.
Can't I just tell them "I'll take the money, but I'm keeping the paperwork"?
cfortune
03-08-2017, 23:28
I thought they would only be refunding the tax for applications received after some date in October of last year.
Interesting about how this impacts Colorado. I have 4 stamps pending and 4 on the books. Might need to add to that.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
I thought they would only be refunding the tax for applications received after some date in October of last year.
Interesting about how this impacts Colorado. I have 4 stamps pending and 4 on the books. Might need to add to that.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Yes, October 22, 2015, the date of introduction of the bill.
Teufelhund
03-09-2017, 10:50
For all you folks saying you'll wait until HPA passes to buy a can, have you considered the effects it will have on supply and demand? Currently, the purchase of a suppressor is cost prohibitive and the application process wait time and expense puts most people off. If HPA passes, EVERYONE is going to try to buy a suppressor or two. There is no way the current supply is going to accommodate that increased demand, and not only will there be long out-of-stock issues, the price of in-stock items will instantly increase. I think it's going to take a long time for it to get to the point where you can just go to the gunshop and pick up a new can at a reasonable price.
Thinking out loud... if you were thinking of getting setup to manufacture suppressors for sale (legally of course), you'd probably be in a great position to make some money if HPA passes. Demand will be astronomical.
Go buy one now and get your money back later. Sounds like a great investment.
Go buy one now and get your money back later. Sounds like a great investment.
Kind of like what happened after Sandy Hook and Aurora when the dems were making talk about banning "assault weapons." The price gouging was incredible, but that's the law of capitalism, buy low, sell high.
I think Teufelhund is onto something- figure out how to manufacture quality suppressors and you're in business.
For all you folks saying you'll wait until HPA passes to buy a can, have you considered the effects it will have on supply and demand? Currently, the purchase of a suppressor is cost prohibitive and the application process wait time and expense puts most people off. If HPA passes, EVERYONE is going to try to buy a suppressor or two. There is no way the current supply is going to accommodate that increased demand, and not only will there be long out-of-stock issues, the price of in-stock items will instantly increase. I think it's going to take a long time for it to get to the point where you can just go to the gunshop and pick up a new can at a reasonable price.
Thinking out loud... if you were thinking of getting setup to manufacture suppressors for sale (legally of course), you'd probably be in a great position to make some money if HPA passes. Demand will be astronomical.
So, I had a squirrelly idea. Supposing one could talk their local dealer into it, how about paying for an in-stock suppressor today and just have it set aside until the whole HPA thing plays out?
If it passes and goes into effect you go take possession. If it doesn't pass you go send in the paperwork and wait. Or, if it passes and suppressors suddenly become out of stock everywhere and prices skyrocket you could sell the one you already paid for and make a profit.
I don't think people should stop buying them. As of right now nothing has changed so if you are in the market for one you should go ahead like normal. Pay the fees do the BS paperwork. And sit back and wait. It will help remind you why we need a bill like repealing the NFA or passing the HPA. I bought my first can back in January. I'm not waiting. I'm sure there will be a supply shortage if this passes. Even if its just artificially created one. Right now might be the best time to buy because it sounds like a buyers market.
So, I had a squirrelly idea. Supposing one could talk their local dealer into it, how about paying for an in-stock suppressor today and just have it set aside until the whole HPA thing plays out?
If it passes and goes into effect you go take possession. If it doesn't pass you go send in the paperwork and wait. Or, if it passes and suppressors suddenly become out of stock everywhere and prices skyrocket you could sell the one you already paid for and make a profit.
That would be trading a relatively known wait time (~9 months) with a clock timer that starts when you mail off the forms, for a totally unknown wait time which, even worse, is dependent on congress. If they don't pass the HPA, you've wasted all that time waiting when you could have mailed off the forms to begin with. If it does pass before the ATF issues you the stamp, you go pick it up anyways, plus the tax credit. Seems like a terrible idea to me, but then I don't know how other people look at it.
If the HPA passes will it become legal to roll your own?
If the HPA passes will it become legal to roll your own?
That's already legal in Colorado.
Oh, wait. You mean suppressors.
That's already legal in Colorado.
Oh, wait. You mean suppressors.
Yes, roll your own just like starting with an 80% frame.
But would we have to register, and serialize?
Yes, roll your own just like starting with an 80% frame.
But would we have to register, and serialize?
We don't have to do register or serialize it now. We just can't sell it or at least not make it to be sold.
We don't have to do register or serialize it now. We just can't sell it or at least not make it to be sold.
Really? Everywhere I've read states that if you plan to build a suppressor, you need to file a Form 1 with ATF before modifying any of the parts.
Kaiser.Shooter
03-10-2017, 21:13
Really? Everywhere I've read states that if you plan to build a suppressor, you need to file a Form 1 with ATF before modifying any of the parts.
Right on, first get form1 approved then build and engrave your homemade can.
I mean for building your own gun. I'm sure it will be similar when suppressors are deregulated.
I mean for building your own gun. I'm sure it will be similar when suppressors are deregulated.
Except they will then not be "licensed" and very likely illegal for new purchase or manufacture in Colorado based upon the current wording in the law.
Miss part of the thread discussion?
Except they will then not be "licensed" and very likely illegal for new purchase or manufacture in Colorado based upon the current wording in the law.
Miss part of the thread discussion?
Once suppressors are removed from the illegal weapons list. It should be legal to roll your own. Once everyone starts demanding them on rifles who live near shooting ranges. I hope.
Great-Kazoo
03-11-2017, 08:57
Once suppressors are removed from the illegal weapons list. It should be legal to roll your own. Once everyone starts demanding them on rifles who live near shooting ranges. I hope.
IF, which is the key word. IF when removed the states either continue them to be allowed under State Law or not.
Horse and water , the CRS has been discussed multiple times and keeps getting ignored .
spqrzilla
03-18-2017, 22:27
The court case was almost a slam dunk that would have struck down the law . The defendant , a depression era moonshiner arrested for a short barreled shotgun was a no show and a default judgment was found against him . There are many legal historians that have looked at the case and pretty much all agree that if he would have showed up the NFA of 34 would have been struck down .
No, not at all. The case was a set up specifically to get a Supreme Court ruling that NFA was constitutional. There wasn't any chance of it being found unconstitutional. The District Court ruling that struck it down was written by a judge known to be pro gun control. It was a set up. Frankly, in my opinion, incompetently done, as Justice McReynolds' reputation on the Supreme Court was that of a less than competent opinion writer.
IF, which is the key word. IF when removed the states either continue them to be allowed under State Law or not.
While I think that suppressors should be removed from the firearm list and demoted to a humble threaded attachment. It should make it easier to pick one up out of a spontaneous sales box like ear plugs or National Enquirer at the check out line. We should see if the powers at hand would be willing to remove the silencer or suppressor line now? What do you think?
I say we mandate that all firearms must come from the factory equipped with noise suppression devices. You know, just like cars, motorcycles, etc. have to have mufflers and meet certain decibel requirements.
That's a great idea in theory. It should be voluntary from gun makers. Giving any gov control over something will turn so so bad, it will be cruel and tragic as soon as welfare to work moron to oversee the new Department of Duh gets a little power.
I remember a Park Ranger pulling me over on my dirt bike and going over it to look for any violation. He checked for oil and fuel leaks and even shined a light down the tailpipe to check for a spark arrester. I didn't know what that was but he found the one in the muffler damaged and gave a 13 year old a ticket for it. I could see them doing random safety checks like that at a gun range too.
I can see your point.
It would be tragic to see guys modifying or deleting their suppressors to make their guns louder and getting tickets for it. Lol.
I can see your point.
It would be tragic to see guys modifying or deleting their suppressors to make their guns louder and getting tickets for it. Lol.
I know some of this is in jest, but who would remove a suppressor from a firearm to make it louder, unless you were signalling in a survival situation?
There's enough Federal regulations as it is when it comes to firearms, maybe Trump can sign an executive order requiring that for every new regulation passed, two old ones have to repealed. So we get cans and then full autos and short barrels have to be removed from the NFA, leaving only AOW's in place.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
I know some of this is in jest, but who would remove a suppressor from a firearm to make it louder, unless you were signalling in a survival situation?
Probably the same guys that put obnoxiously loud exhaust on their diesel trucks or their Ford Mustangs. Or the guys that straight pipe their Harleys.
(Once again, take this with a mix of seriousness and jest or sarcasm.)
And the same guys who special order fireball and flachette shotgun shells. And have bayonets on pistols. And shoot .357 SIG.
Or the guys with SBR's but no suppressors.
And the same guys who special order fireball and flachette shotgun shells. And have bayonets on pistols. And shoot .357 SIG.
.357Sig would just blow out any can anyway.
Or the guys with 7.5" pistols and flaming pigs.
FIFY
Great-Kazoo
03-19-2017, 14:11
It should be voluntary from gun makers..
Hopefully that was mentioned as sarcasm. However There should be Absolutely NOTHING Voluntary done by any manufacturer, at all.
wctriumph
03-19-2017, 20:29
While I would like a suppressor for my AR, I don't want one for my M1 or 1903A3.
Hopefully that was mentioned as sarcasm. However There should be Absolutely NOTHING Voluntary done by any manufacturer, at all.
Why not? Shouldn't the free market decide. Gov regs requirements is what got us in this predicament to begin with. Sorry if I'm not getting the gist of what was said here.
Hopefully that was mentioned as sarcasm. However There should be Absolutely NOTHING Voluntary done by any manufacturer, at all.
I think they would. The have tons of gimmicks going around like colors and grips. Why not have a model that comes out with a threaded barrel and x brand suppressor pre installed? It would be like buying a gun with night sights or because it comes with an extra magazine. I hope they don't do that because I would pull the trigger on something like that.
Great-Kazoo
03-20-2017, 00:33
Why not? Shouldn't the free market decide. Gov regs requirements is what got us in this predicament to begin with. Sorry if I'm not getting the gist of what was said here.
To me Voluntary is the first step before mandatory, when it comes to anything firearms related. Like there should be voluntary micro stamping of ammunition, voluntary smart guns etc.
spqrzilla
03-24-2017, 09:48
Also, if its "voluntary", plaintiffs' lawyers will still use it as the basis for claiming its a standard and claim negligence if omitted.
The HPA folks sent out a form letter last week. I don't have access to personal email right now to show it, but unless I completely missed something in the email/letter, they've gotten informative claims down to a political science. Makes me wonder if they hired Bennet's reply writer(s) -- write a lot, say practically nothing.
Perhaps someone else who got the email can chime in w/ it.
Here it is:
http://americansuppressorassociation.com/united-we-stand-a-factual-review-of-the-hearing-protection-act-from-the-board-of-the-asa/
I found this comment interesting, along with its reply:
Russ Terry
Posted March 17, 2017 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
What is being done regarding Colorado’s classification of Suppressors as dangerous weapons and possession allowed as an affirmative defense only by their licensure afforded by the Fed statutes? Why is everyone overlooking this? If the HPA passes, new suppressors will suddenly become de facto illegal in Colorado unless state laws are changed or somehow preempted by the HPA.
Reply
ASA
Posted March 20, 2017 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
Russ,
The HPA does address this issue (it is an issue in nearly a dozen states that specifically reference the NFA and/or NFRTR) and something that we made sure to address from the outset so that removing them from the NFA would somehow make them immediately illegal in states where they are currently legal.
Reply
#1 - the phrasing is hilariously not what they meant to say
#2 - it doesn't jibe w/ what their legal counsel emailed me and I posted in this thread however many pages back.
My reply to ASA's reply to Russ:
(awaiting moderation...)
ASA,
Your reply to Russ doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy.
#1 - I believe you meant to write "... would *not* somehow make them immediately illegal..."
#2 - as shown on this thread: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/159470-Hearing-Protection-Act/page3
You can see that the replies from your Legal Counsel do not offer the same level of protection as you would intimate. In fact, he plainly admits that they would then be subject to State laws as enacted, including illegalizing or state-level hoops as we now jump through. Frankly, I don't find this very reassuring for Colorado, where we are subject to knee-jerk anti-gun bills and a governor and Denver Metro area more than willing to pass them.
Do you honestly expect us Coloradans to believe that Hickenlooper and company won't immediately rush to make life hell in this regard? Please don't tell me it's raining in your reply... ;)
ROFL, I also quoted one of your eloquent posts here (https://www.ar-15.co/threads/159470-Hearing-Protection-Act?p=2052310&viewfull=1#post2052310) to my own comment, and linked to our thread - they "moderated" that out, but left my full name in place.
I should have paid more attention to their form. Oh well.
The only HPA position is their own Reich-like narrative, I guess.
I'm not surprised, since they would just clump us in the "haters gonna hate. Wanna see us fail" category. I don't want to see them fail, I just want to see them succeed in a meaningful manner instead of some victory with a bunch of companies which bends over Colorado and any other state in a similar position.
Russ writes:
Perhaps I should just post the CRS so you can read it and understand it for yourselves.
18-12-102. Possessing a dangerous or illegal weapon – affirmative defense
(1) As used in this section, the term “dangerous weapon” means a firearm silencer, machine gun, short shotgun, short rifle, or ballistic knife.
(2) As used in this section, the term “illegal weapon” means a blackjack, gas gun, metallic knuckles, gravity knife, or switchblade knife.
(3) A person who knowingly possesses a dangerous weapon commits a class 5 felony. Each subsequent violation of this subsection (3) by the same person shall be a class 4 felony.
(4) A person who knowingly possesses an illegal weapon commits a class 1 misdemeanor.
(5) It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon, or to the charge of possessing an illegal weapon, that the person so accused was a peace officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or Colorado National Guard acting in the lawful discharge of his duties, or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon.
“or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon.”
Who is going to issue said license or permit if the ATF doesn’t? Colorado surely isn’t going to permit silencers given our current political makeup.
They replied to Russ' reply with Sections 3 and 4 of the HPA:
Russ,
These state laws referencing licenses and/or permits are addressed in section 3 and section 4 of the HPA with preemption clauses:
SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SILENCERS.
Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(f) Firearm Silencers.—A person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this subsection) with respect to such silencer.”.
SEC. 4. PREEMPTION OF CERTAIN STATE LAWS IN RELATION TO FIREARM SILENCERS.
Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that, as a condition of lawfully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, imposes a tax on any such conduct, or a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement with respect to the firearm silencer, shall have no force or effect.”.
I replied:
Assuming HPA passes and Section 3 and 4 put the kibosh on state-registration of suppressors for items previously owned under NFA, and disallow state-level registration, please answer the following:
Does the HPA stop Colorado, et al., from simply making suppressors illegal a la California?
As I read the 3rd and 4th sections, it simply states that
3 -- Registered under NFA = grandfathered under NFA
4 -- States cannot institute a state-level registration, etc. It says nothing about them simply illegalizing it.
Will be interesting to read their reply since the 4th section does not outright ban state-law from being made in such effect.
They're trying to say that Section 3 is their pre-emption and meets the license requirements.
I'd like to believe that, but still don't see how it preempts CRS 18-12-102 as it currently stands.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer, just a realist.
They're trying to say that Section 3 is their pre-emption and meets the license requirements.
I'd like to believe that, but still don't see how it preempts CRS 18-12-102 as it currently stands.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer, just a realist.
Right, but California and a few other states don't care and simply made them illegal. So that's not really a backstop.
I believe this is a new development that could promote passage of the HPA:
LINK (https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/hearing-protection-act-language-incorporated-into-comprehensive-sportsmens-bill/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=ff6f5c8b25-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-ff6f5c8b25-20933857#axzz4k56KbgdS):
Read more: http://americansuppressorassociation.com/hearing-protection-act-language-incorporated-into-comprehensive-sportsmens-package/#ixzz4k5D3jspy
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Hearing Protection Act Language Incorporated Into Comprehensive Sportsmen’s Bill
Posted on June 14, 2017 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson
American Suppressor Association WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- The House Committee on Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing for the morning of June 14, in which the Federal Lands Subcommittee will hear a discussion draft of the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. The SHARE Act, which is being championed in a bipartisan manner by Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) Co-Chairs Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Representative Gene Green (D-TX), is a comprehensive package that covers a wide range of hunting, fishing, and outdoor related issues. Included in the legislation is Title XVII, a strengthened version of the Hearing Protection Act.
Since the re-introduction of the Hearing Protection Act by Rep. Duncan and Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) in January (H.R. 367, S. 59) the American Suppressor Association (ASA) has met with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on multiple occasions to discuss technical amendments to the language. As a result, we were able to create several technical amendments that were incorporated into the current draft of the SHARE Act. These include:
Sec. 1702: Removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act, subjecting them to the same instant NICS background check as long guns, and issuing a refundable tax credit to anyone who has purchased a suppressor since the HPA’s original date of introduction
Sec. 1703: Ensuring that suppressors will remain legal in all 42 states where they are currently legal, after suppressors are removed from the National Firearms Act
Sec. 1704: Preempting states from levying taxes or registration requirements on suppressors. However, this will not make suppressors legal in any state where state law currently prohibits them.
Sec. 1705: Granting the ATF 365 days to destroy all suppressor related records from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR)
Sec. 1706: Developing a “keystone part” definition, and requiring that such keystone part is serialized on every suppressor. This will ensure that individual suppressor parts, like pistons and endcaps, will not require serialization.
Sec. 1707: Imposing a 10% Pittman-Robertson excise tax on the manufacture of each new suppressor, a tax that is currently imposed on all Title I firearms
“The inclusion of the Hearing Protection Act in the sportsmen’s package highlights the commitment of the Sportsmen’s Caucus to make the hunting and recreational shooting experiences safer and more enjoyable for all,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “We know for a fact that exposure to noise from recreational firearms is one of the leading causes of hearing loss, which is why the CDC, NIOSH, and the National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) have all recommended using suppressors as a tool to mitigate the danger. We look forward to working with the Sportsmen’s Caucus to make this legislation a reality.”
Suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Currently, prospective buyers must live in one of the 42 states where they are legal, must send in an application including fingerprints and passport photos to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax, and wait for an indeterminate amount of time for the ATF to process the application. As of June, 2017, wait times are in excess of 10 months. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use. This legislation will remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.
Great-Kazoo
06-15-2017, 17:16
7.1.18 will see the HPA take effect.
By then everyone will be hungry enough for a suppressor, i'll be able to sell off my Suppressor collection (for a loss) and not worry who gets what when i forget who i am and even care i pissed myself. Like this morning ;)
I'd like to think some of that improvement (if recent) is due to the noise some of us have been very vocal about on message boards, facebook, and the ASA site.
There were many that labeled those of us pointing out the simple facts as naysayers and detractors, and even as FUDS, but pushing the message about how Colorado's statutes read, was necessary.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.