View Full Version : SHUSH Act Introduced S.1505
BladesNBarrels
07-07-2017, 15:29
From GunsAmerica website:
Introduced by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) last week the SHUSH, S.1505, Act would eliminate ALL the federal regulations covering the possession, purchase, transfer, etc. of suppressors!
That would be even better than the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) (https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/hearing-protection-act-introduced/)!
Under the SHUSH Act, suppressors would not only be removed from the NFA list, but they would also NOT be treated as firearms. That’s right. No FFL needed. No background check needed. Buying suppressors would be just like buying any other firearm accessory, e.g. new grips or new sights or lasers or lights.
A version of the SHUSH Act has also been introduced in the House, H.R.3139 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3139).
And it would effectively make them illegal in Colorado.
And it would effectively make them illegal in Colorado.
Wouldn't that depend on the actual text of the bill?
BladesNBarrels
07-07-2017, 17:20
Wouldn't that depend on the actual text of the bill?
I guess I don't understand why it would be illegal in Colorado?
The Colorado statutes about suppressors always confused me. By their definition, a suppressor is considered a "dangerous weapon" and possessing a "dangerous weapon" in Colorado is against the law. But is also says something to the effect that you can possess a "dangerous weapon" if you have a "valid permit and license" to do so. I'm not sure what a "valid permit and license" is with regards to owning a suppressor.
I guess I don't understand why it would be illegal in Colorado?
Based on the way the law reads, it seems that federal regulation via NFA is the only thing which Colorado allows. Remove the regulation without a law saying they can't then make it illegal use them, and the only logical conclusion is they will be banned.
thvigil11
07-07-2017, 21:31
According to the shush act, all state regs regarding silencers would be void. It's one of the provisions in the bill.
According to the shush act, all state regs regarding silencers would be void. It's one of the provisions in the bill.
Here's the official text as proposed:
https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=press-releases&id=F8686454-D68A-4B93-98B0-1654CCBFB1C3
The states-affecting section is the same language as the HPA, which still gives no protection from Colorado or any other state simply banning such "accessories". Based on the thread we have for that, and the replies I got from their legal counsel and posted in that thread, Colorado could turn around and simply ban them like they do mags over 15 rounds.
AKA-Spook
07-08-2017, 14:12
marijuana good, silencers bad. what if I used a silencer as a bong, would it be legal then?
bobbyfairbanks
07-08-2017, 16:52
Yes and you can smoke from it as well. Just as long as you purchase government weed
TEAMRICO
07-08-2017, 17:46
Medicinal and Recreactional Suppresors?
Would this act allow one to purchase mufflers out of state? If so, a Colorado ban on mufflers would be just as effective a the ban on standard magazines.
Would this act allow one to purchase mufflers out of state? If so, a Colorado ban on mufflers would be just as effective a the ban on standard magazines.
That would also depend on the enforceability, or statements made by current LEO, with no guarantee of future enforcement standards.
I still don't see this as a good thing for Colorado NFA folks.
I have my permits (stamps) if this passes. I only hope these stamps remain valid permits in Colorado or other places
As much as I hate federal powers, I would love to see a law that:
1 bans local and state requirements for ownership beyond what is required in the federal background check system. Would love to see this abolished also.
2 bans local and state accessory restrictions including clips, flash hiders & knife holders
3 bans federal, local and state restrictions on the type of guns one can own, purchase.
4 bans local and state restrictions/permitting on how gun are stored, carried or transported. Including concealed carry.
5 bans local and state restrictions/permitting on the type and quantity of ammunition.
6 bans local and state registration/permitting of guns
7 bans local and state designation of gun free zones. Exemption for security areas are permissible.
A pipe dream, but this is what we all need to fight for.
I would place no restrictions on upgrading sentencing or class of crime if a firearm is used.
Here we go again... Someone could introduce a bill with ZERO loopholes that makes Firearms & suppressors just like any other item for buying & selling & over half of our community would vote against it because they thought the government was somehow using it to earn our trust then take our guns. It's so damn annoying. No wonder all we get is tighter restrictions because it's all we can seem to agree on as a group.
Great-Kazoo
07-09-2017, 15:27
I have my permits (stamps) if this passes. I only hope these stamps remain valid permits in Colorado or other places
Why wouldn't they. Everyting with paperwork is grandfathered in.
Here we go again... Someone could introduce a bill with ZERO loopholes that makes Firearms & suppressors just like any other item for buying & selling & over half of our community would vote against it because they thought the government was somehow using it to earn our trust then take our guns. It's so damn annoying. No wonder all we get is tighter restrictions because it's all we can seem to agree on as a group.
* In general, things not regulated by the Fed can be regulated by the States (for example, magazines)
* Things regulated by the Fed can also be regulated by the States, so long as those regulations are not in violation of Fed law (for example, NFA items; contra example, marijuana)
* As such, given the political state of the State of Colorado, and lacking language which clearly makes this an issue not in the purview of states to regulate at all (for example, disallowing blacks the right to vote), I ask:
Why on earth would ANYONE in Colorado think that the removal of Suppressors from the NFA will NOT result in their illegalization? Particularly when state law classifies them as something to be feared, dangerous, unnecessary, and thus illegal except with the Federal backstop of the NFA process?
Riddle me that.
AKA-Spook
07-09-2017, 18:23
*
Why on earth would ANYONE in Colorado think that the removal of Suppressors from the NFA will NOT result in their illegalization? Particularly when state law classifies them as something to be feared, dangerous, unnecessary, and thus illegal except with the Federal backstop of the NFA process?
Riddle me that.
that they are currently legal for ownership and hunting ?
for some reason I dont see them bothering
Chief_of_Scouts
07-11-2017, 01:26
Even if the Feds were to write the law in such a way as to be enforceable in Colorado, legalizing suppressors, all our elected representatives would have to do is make threaded barrels illegal. Some states have already implemented this. There is always a loophole to deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights.
that they are currently legal for ownership and hunting ?
for some reason I dont see them bothering
They are currently legal with the provision of a permit , the NFA transfer being the defacto permit , no permit and they are ILLEGAL in Co .
This has been discussed multiple times in this thread https://www.ar-15.co/threads/159470-Hearing-Protection-Act
Even if the Feds were to write the law in such a way as to be enforceable in Colorado, legalizing suppressors, all our elected representatives would have to do is make threaded barrels illegal. Some states have already implemented this. There is always a loophole to deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights.
Pin and weld some sort of quick detach mount for your favorite can. No more threaded barrel.
Pin and weld some sort of quick detach mount for your favorite can. No more threaded barrel.
What about pin and weld thread attachment for direct thread... attachment is threaded, not barrel. :)
Zundfolge
07-11-2017, 09:29
Ugh. this is why we can't have nice things.
Look, I don't care if the SHUSH act causes cans to be illegal in Colorado. Its the first step toward ending the apostasy that is the NFA and that is a good thing. It'll mean we'll need to work harder at the local level to set things right, but there's no reason not to do it just because we'll be temporarily inconvenienced here in Colorado.
As for new laws like outlawing threaded barrels, there's nothing to stop Democrats in Denver from outright banning suppressors even with the NFA right now. Just look at California.
Oh and if Jared Polis is our next governor (especially if the D's take back the Senate), you can bet all of California's gun control laws are on their way here.
marijuana good, silencers bad. what if I used a silencer as a bong, would it be legal then?
I think Thunder Beast makes shot glasses out of some of their cans that fail QC.
Spoke with a DA friend of mine about this issue that keeps popping up. He's very pro-gun, and knowledgeable when it comes to federal firearms law and (obviously) CO statute regarding firearms. He doesn't think this will make them "defacto" illegal as people don't pay that much attention anyway, and that no one would really prosecute it. He also says to let this pass, and see if it just slips through the cracks. Worst comes to worst someone becomes a precedent case.
Yeah, not sure that "I heard from a guy on the internet, who heard from his attorney buddy that having this thing is cool" is a valid defense.
From the actual bill:
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.”.
So no, they won't be illegal in the State of Colorado. At least that's how I read that section...
That is about imposing a tax or registry which is why they reference interstate and international commerce nothing in there about making possession laws .
Zundfolge
09-21-2017, 20:37
That is about imposing a tax or registry which is why they reference interstate and international commerce nothing in there about making possession laws .
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 think the argument is that the bolded part negates the CO law requiring a "license".
bobbyfairbanks
09-22-2017, 04:48
decriminalize every thing that we can as soon as we can. Im sick of paying for other peoples moral beliefs.
The thing that you keep skipping over is there is nothing in the bill that prohibits laws making the possession illegal . There is no language in the bill to stop a state or local government from just outlawing them just language that prohibits a tax or registry .
Only way it ever works the way all the people who support this and the HPA is for the bill to be that suppressor's be reclassified as not a firearm and totally removed from the firearms laws equation . And the reality of that happening is no chance in hell .
All the people that have been saying I'm going to wait untill the HPA passes and then go crazy are just fooling themselves . Even if it does pass and doesn't go catastrophicly in Co the prices are not going to drop to the basement on quality suppressor's and the existing stock will be gone so fast that the wait will be on product instead of the govt . Which in turn brings supply and demand in to the works .
Yes new company's will start and like all small business in this country over half fail . The cheap cans will come about but the performance and features will not be close to a quality product . The money savings to the manufacturer will be minimal because they will still have to have all the licenses for manufacturer which won't be going away and manufacturer to dealer transfers are already free .
The end result of everyone waiting is it is hurting the industry , just look at the fact Silencerco laid off 2/3 of their work force .
The thing that you keep skipping over is there is nothing in the bill that prohibits laws making the possession illegal . There is no language in the bill to stop a state or local government from just outlawing them just language that prohibits a tax or registry .
+1; this is the exact thing you, me, and brutal have been screaming the entire time and the ASA's own legal counsel finally admitted is an issue.
It is my opinion that the arduous and unconstitutional NFA process is the only backstop to full illegalization currently in most states. If there is no language prohibiting post-Bill pass illegalization, then that might go out of our favor not only in Colorado but also states which we otherwise might not think about.
I'm not a fan of implicit promises when it comes to laws such as this. I would prefer to see the legal knife held to the throat of every state level politician with the promise of arrest on a felony for attempting to illegalize suppressors post-Bill pass.
Great-Kazoo
09-22-2017, 09:01
The end result of everyone waiting is it is hurting the industry , just look at the fact Silencerco laid off 2/3 of their work force .
Sure some are waiting.
However the fact SiCo let people go is the same as other firearm related companies. There is no threat to firearm ownership at the (Subject to change) moment. Look at inventory in some store fronts, same for the number of weeks some, if not most, guns in the TP have been listed.
Throw in the 41F change and there's no rush or demand for something that has been made easier to get, now that CLEO sign off is no longer necessary.
As for the rest of your reply. Unfortunately we have to wait and see. The way politicians move and lobbyist work, this "Bill" could die in some basement subcommittee or be back burnered another year.
DireWolf
09-22-2017, 09:16
I would prefer to see the legal knife held to the throat of every state level politician with the promise of arrest on a felony for attempting to illegalize suppressors post-Bill pass.
Yeah, right...hahaha.
For whatever reason, they can't even seem to go after state/city level politicians who come out publicly with statements along the lines of "fuck the feds, we ain't following your stinkin laws, so piss off".
I had never realized that simply winning an election at any level offered blanket personal immunity from federal law, but that's the way things seem to be going (any one of us would get a vacation in club fed for that kind of shit).
IMHO, a better way would simply be to introduce a bill that says something along the lines of:
"Upon passage of this bill, the provisions herein shall supercede any other U.S. law, State law, or local ordinance which may be in conflict, and shall prohibit any further restriction at any level of either supressors, threaded barrels, or their unrestricted use for any otherwise lawful pursuits, and any such conflicting laws or restrictions shall be considered null and void."
There...pretty unambiguous, an I'm neither a lawyer nor have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately....
Great-Kazoo
09-22-2017, 09:24
"Upon passage of this bill, the provisions herein shall supercede any other U.S. law, State law
Something like Suppressorcare
And now we're back to screaming that the feds need to make the states do something except there is that silly little 10th amendment the SHOULD have got in the way of most of the BS flowing from DC but never has . Can't have it both ways either bow down to the feds or let the states govern themselves as the founders envisioned .
This is the same argument you see about legal dope in Co , so how do you want it ?
The suppressor slow down is a direct result of the insanity that was bred by 41A , P , HPA not the general state of the firearms market . The ASA got everyone stirred up about the changes and the panic buying set in . Then when they didn't deliver on their promises for the HPA the bottom fell out because everyone is waiting for it to pass because the process that is in place isn't to their liking and they think the prices are going to come down exponentially which just isn't so .
It's not just Silencerco that has let people go but with them being the founders of the ASA the bet big and it backfired .
And now we're back to screaming that the feds need to make the states do something except there is that silly little 10th amendment the SHOULD have got in the way of most of the BS flowing from DC but never has . Can't have it both ways either bow down to the feds or let the states govern themselves as the founders envisioned .
This is the same argument you see about legal dope in Co , so how do you want it ?
The suppressor slow down is a direct result of the insanity that was bred by 41A , P , HPA not the general state of the firearms market . The ASA got everyone stirred up about the changes and the panic buying set in . Then when they didn't deliver on their promises for the HPA the bottom fell out because everyone is waiting for it to pass because the process that is in place isn't to their liking and they think the prices are going to come down exponentially which just isn't so .
It's not just Silencerco that has let people go but with them being the founders of the ASA the bet big and it backfired .
The idea of states vs feds, as some black and white rights issue, is a false dichotomy and fails to recognize the reality of subsidiarity as the Founding Fathers intended.
If we are to cast these things (firearms, suppressors, ammo) as endemic to the 2nd amendment, then YES it is the job of the Fed to try, convict, and EXECUTE every state, county, and city official who attempts to violate said amendment contra Federal law as such.
Similarly, it is the DUTY of every non-Fed official to RESIST any Fed attempts at jeopardizing the Fed level of responsibility. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, it is sometimes the duty of the subordinate to resist his superior in matters where the superior is wrong.
DireWolf
09-22-2017, 10:08
And now we're back to screaming that the feds need to make the states do something except there is that silly little 10th amendment the SHOULD have got in the way of most of the BS flowing from DC but never has . Can't have it both ways either bow down to the feds or let the states govern themselves as the founders envisioned .
^^^Apple's & oranges....
Its not about the making the States DO anything, it's about making sure the States CANNOT do something which is antithetical to the foundational legal structure upon which their very legitimacy to enact law is based, a concept which is FULLY aligned with Constitutional principals...
The 2A is exceedingly clear on this topic:
...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...
The 10A is exceedingly clear on this topic:
...POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES...
The 2nd amendment doesn't grant power to the federal government it states an individual right . The individual right and the ability of both federal and local government to make regulations that are "reasonable" have both been ruled on by the Supreme Court so the legal precedent has already been put in place allowing local government to enact their own laws .
DireWolf
09-22-2017, 10:43
The 2nd amendment doesn't grant power to the federal government it states an individual right
Agreed. It states an individual right which may not be infringed or superseded...
Also, since we're talking about SC rulings, I'll simply leave it at this:
Marbury v. Madison (1803):
"...The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written.
...
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
..."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137
Also,
16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
"...The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose..."
http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
The 2nd amendment doesn't grant power to the federal government it states an individual right . The individual right and the ability of both federal and local government to make regulations that are "reasonable" have both been ruled on by the Supreme Court so the legal precedent has already been put in place allowing local government to enact their own laws .
"Rights" that can be eroded and/or denied by States is EXACTLY a Federal issue to defend against. That's the point. It's not that the Fed needs to DO something, but enforce that States cannot do something.
Foxtrot has already addressed your last sentence 3000 times over in the past, so I won't rehash it.
I will say this though: We broke from the world's superpower of the time over far, far less than the situation in which we exist now.
The thing that you keep skipping over is there is nothing in the bill that prohibits laws making the possession illegal . There is no language in the bill to stop a state or local government from just outlawing them just language that prohibits a tax or registry .
Speaking of skipping over, did you miss something? (I've helped by color coding
"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.”
The idea is to treat them like any other firearm accessory and the text of the bill eliminates any registration requirement with regard to states individual laws. I'm no attorney, but the way I read the text above a registration requirement with respect to silencers will have no force or effect. As Colorado Revised Statutes states:
18-12-102. Possessing a dangerous or illegal weapon
(1) As used in this section, the term "dangerous weapon" means a firearm silencer, machine gun, short shotgun, short rifle, or ballistic 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.
...
(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.
Therefore- the bill, as written, makes CRS 18-12-102, with respect to silencers, null and void. Eliminating the need for it to be included in the affirmative defense and statute, as currently the tax stamp acts as a permit or license for possession of a silencer. Other theories I've read on this are that they will be treated as firearms, requiring a 4473 and background check, and THAT would fulfill any licensing or permitting requirements.
That's how I read all of this. I welcome any legal debate, but again, I'm no attorney, I'm just well read up on the law.
The language says " as a condition of lawfully possessing " there is nothing there saying the possession could not be made illegal .
Go to the HPA thread in NFA and read the statement from one of the ASA's lawyers that helped write the bill , they admit that the bill does nothing to prevent the local government's from making them illegal .
All the stuff from the 1800's is all well and good and I never said I agreed with any of the crap coming from government but the reality of the situation is that unless you want to end up in the slam there are a set of rules in effect right now that you have to live with right wrong or indifferent .
When it comes down to it, if the government wants you, you are getting slammed with more than a dozen felonies.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSA8V2-b7Vl5UsLYnXMl0u9_CSzxeu5h32MNixNwyYDOFRpr3jb
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
O2
DavieD55
09-23-2017, 10:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgGnBCDfCLM
DavieD55
09-23-2017, 11:04
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSA8V2-b7Vl5UsLYnXMl0u9_CSzxeu5h32MNixNwyYDOFRpr3jb
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
O2
Here's a couple of other good reads among many, many others.
http://bilder.buecher.de/produkte/37/37664/37664218z.jpg
https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1438306030i/25408894._UY500_SS500_.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.