Rep Mike Lee of Utah: Remove Federal restrictions on silencers

[TFOGGER]

https://kutv.com/news/local/sen-lee-pushes-new-bill-to-drop-all-federal-regulations-on-gun-suppressors?fbclid=IwAR1oqk8bQmqhQzgtOb5OrxbJNROJK sz-P30KT2dqnpo2L2xhCsVXs4jyOeA


?Suppressors can make shooting safer for the millions of hunters and sportsmen that exercise their constitutional right to use firearms every year,? Sen. Lee said. ?The current process for obtaining a suppressor is far too expensive and burdensome. Our bill would remove these unnecessary federal regulations and make it easier for firearms users to protect themselves.?

So, HPA Round 2...

[wctriumph]

Go, go, go ...

[Bailey Guns]

May have a chance in the senate. May. It'll never make it to the house floor for a vote. Pelosi will see to that.

[Will1776]

Of course they bring it up again when Democrats are in control so they can act like they care

[.455_Hunter]

Of course they bring it up again when Democrats are in control so they can act like they care

This! Two years of inaction and now it's suddenly important when nothing can be actually accomplished.

[Ramsker]

If only republicans had managed to achieve majorities in both house and the senate while there was a republican president where they could have had a chance to pass this if prioritized.

Oh, wait . . .


This is never going to happen with Pelosi and the dems in charge of the house.

[Zundfolge]

If only republicans had managed to achieve majorities in both house and the senate while there was a republican president where they could have had a chance to pass this if prioritized.

Oh, wait . . .


This is never going to happen with Pelosi and the dems in charge of the house.

Yep we're back to the state where Republicans actually act like fucking Republicans because they know they'll lose so it doesn't matter ... a pox on all their houses.


HPA and National CCW Reciprocity should have been passed and signed into law two fucking years ago.

[StagLefty]

Yup it's like the comment I made in the wall thread. Why didn't they get their act together before the mid-terms [facepalm]

[Ramsker]

Yup it's like the comment I made in the wall thread. Why didn't they get their act together before the mid-terms [facepalm]

This is what they do . . . they scream from the mountaintops about what needs to be done and what they will deliver WHEN they are in power and say "this is why you need to elect us". Then when they do get the house, senate and presidency, they can't find their arses with a funnel and a flashlight to pass this stuff. So they lose, go in the minority and rise/repeat.

[Rucker61]

If the executive branch can simply modify NFA 1934 to now include bump stocks without action by the legislative branch, why can' the executive branch cite current SCOTUS decisions Heller and Caetano and simply remove silencers (and SBRs) based on those decisions.

Heller: the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use for lawful purposes.
Caetano: The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)

As the foregoing makes clear, the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today. The Supreme Judicial Court offered only a cursory discussion of that question, noting that the “ ‘number of Tasers and stun guns is dwarfed by the number of firearms.’ ” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This observation may be true, but it is beside the point. Otherwise, a State would be free to ban all weapons except handguns, because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Heller, supra, at 629.

The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States. People v. Yanna, 297 Mich. App. 137, 144, 824 N. W. 2d 241, 245 (2012) (holding Michigan stun gun ban unconstitutional); see Volokh, Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights To Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 199, 244 (2009) (citing stun gun bans in seven States); Wis. Stat. ?941.295 (Supp. 2015) (amended Wisconsin law permitting stun gun possession); see also Brief in Opposition 11 (acknowledging that “approximately 200,000 civilians owned stun guns” as of 2009). While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

ATF records: silencers and SBRs possessed for lawful use exceed "hundreds of thousands".

[CS1983]

Rucker - tax stamps are paid permission to break the “law”; set bribes to the government. Common use as concerns that which is legal (today) doesn’t fall under that purview of permission.

[Skip]

Yep we're back to the state where Republicans actually act like fucking Republicans because they know they'll lose so it doesn't matter ... a pox on all their houses.


HPA and National CCW Reciprocity should have been passed and signed into law two fucking years ago.

This. Wall too! $5-7B is cheap.

[Erni]

Boy, the internal polling must be really bad.

[Justin]

HPA and National Reciprocity were looking like they were moving forward right up until the Vegas shooting. The timing of that event couldn't possibly have been worse concerning the advancement of those laws. After Vegas, both bills were DOA.

[CS1983]

HPA and National Reciprocity were looking like they were moving forward right up until the Vegas shooting. The timing of that event couldn't possibly have been MORE CONVENIENT concerning the advancement of those laws. After Vegas, both bills were DOA.

FIFY

[Justin]

Not sure why you're being all conspiratorial.

I mean, the press refused to investigate, and the FBI just announced they're closing the case and that they couldn't find a motive.

Totally normal.

[DDT951]

I am not sure for people in CO that this bill is a good thing.

Here is Colorado law.

18-12-102. Possessing a dangerous or illegal weapon - affirmative defense - definition
(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, a gas gun, or metallic knuckles.
(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


We can have the suppressors in CO because of the tax stamp. Without a tax stamp, you dont have the permit.

There is no state permit for suppressors and who thinks DEMs will pass a law giving a state level permit for a suppressor?

So without the tax stamp, the DEMs have essentially an automatic ban on new suppressors in CO.

Sometimes the devil is in the details. Be careful what we wish for.

[CS1983]

It would be interesting to see how such a thing would interact with state "law".

[Erni]

The idiots will make a big deal of it. Pelosi will let some blue dog dems of their leash so they can vote for it and remain in power by fooling the rubes. Last minute deal will insert wording so that the bill will not go against any state law.

[Eric P]

It would be interesting to see how such a thing would interact with state "law".

Same as the hi cap mag ban...wink, wink.

[Skip]

Same as the hi cap mag ban...wink, wink.

So I can buy them at Tanner for twice the price with a rivet through them?

[rondog]

So I can buy them at Tanner for twice the price with a rivet through them?

Know anybody in another state?

[Skip]

It was a joke. :)

And worst case scenario, I have a dremel I can use on the rivet (this is also a joke).

We all know what can/can not be done within the realm of capabilities which runs completely counter the fallacy of gun control.

If control doesn't keep actual firearms out of the hands of criminals, what good is controlling items that are peripheral to the firearm (mags, suppressors, stocks, barrel length, etc...)? Rhetorical question, we all know that gun control isn't aimed at criminals.

[MED]

This ship has sailed; It needed to be done in the first five months of the new administration, and congress f*cked around with it.

[Eric P]

Or solvent traps and a drill.