Removal of Silencers from NFA?

[Eric P]

If this happens, is it good news for those of us stuck in the Californicated Colorado?

If they are no longer "permitted" by purchase of a tax stamp, would future purchases be allowed in Colorado?

I wonder if this was a loophole some Blue state Republicans wanted to keep, even with $0.00 stamp, so that the federal "permit" to own superseded any state prohibitions?

[rondog]

Gee, maybe this po' old man can actually get one someday.....

[theGinsue]

I wonder if this was a loophole some Blue state Republicans wanted to keep, even with $0.00 stamp, so that the federal "permit" to own superseded any state prohibitions?

Also included in H.R. 1 is something called the SHORT Act. Among other things, the SHORT Act had a restriction within it preventing states and cities (counties too I suppose) from enacting firearms restrictions on things allowed by the federal government.

[bellavite1]

Also included in H.R. 1 is something called the SHORT Act. Among other things, the SHORT Act had a restriction within it preventing states and cities (counties too I suppose) from enacting firearms restrictions on things allowed by the federal government.

Well, that would also invalidate the trigger activators (FRT, Binart, Bump Stocks), provision of the 2025 AWB.
Now THAT will give them a cow! [Coffee]

[OneGuy67]

They are legal in Colorado and remain legal after the latest round of laws passed. CRS 18-12-102 covers it.

[th3w01f]

I just saw this, it had slipped by.

Does that mean if we have unused cans we may be able to sell them private party like firearms pre 2012. It looks like it removes them as firearms which should remove BGCs.

If that’s the case I’ll have about 10 to sell.

[def90]

1. The nfa amendment will never get out of the Senate.

2. Colorado will ban them as fast as they can if it some how makes it through.

[CS1983]

The amendment is stupid.

Without federal teeth backing it all it does is effectively ban suppressors in states where NFA is affirmative defense. Which is… the majority of states is it not? Aside from the few which outright ban ownership, tax stamp or not?

[def90]

The amendment is stupid.

Without federal teeth backing it all it does is effectively ban suppressors in states where NFA is affirmative defense. Which is… the majority of states is it not? Aside from the few which outright ban ownership, tax stamp or not?

Pretty much how it stands in reality.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

1. The nfa amendment will never get out of the Senate.

2. Colorado will ban them as fast as they can if it some how makes it through.

Everything at the national level screws at the local level. Until, now it seems if ever if, SCOTUS actually defends the 2A from these commies, all these ‘wins’ are nothing more than red capes for bulls to gore us of more rights. The cities will be the first to act- and we’ll be lucky to keep what we have NFA registered, since Denver never grandfathers anything.

[bellavite1]

1. The nfa amendment will never get out of the Senate.

2. Colorado will ban them as fast as they can if it some how makes it through.

They are already banned, together with SBR, SBS, Machine guns etc.

Our only saving grace is the Form 4 ($200 be damned).

[Oscar77]

Not an Attorney and maybe this isn't the current version but, read here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2395/text

And then read Section 4 para f:

".........any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon......"

So I'm not really sure where some of you are getting your comments.
Title 18 Chapter 44 are the usual "gun buying and possessing" Federal laws.

So for Colorado, under this we would buy/possess a MG, SBR etc like a "regular" firearm and under the CRS noted by Oneguy (CRS 18-12-102), the buyer would automatically have "valid permit and license for possession" under CO law.
Done and Done.

Now of course CO could react to this and amend or create new laws to address this but in the mean time............ salad days.

[def90]

Not an Attorney and maybe this isn't the current version but, read here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2395/text

And then read Section 4 para f:

".........any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon......"

So I'm not really sure where some of you are getting your comments.
Title 18 Chapter 44 are the usual "gun buying and possessing" Federal laws.

So for Colorado, under this we would buy/possess a MG, SBR etc like a "regular" firearm and under the CRS noted by Oneguy (CRS 18-12-102), the buyer would automatically have "valid permit and license for possession" under CO law.
Done and Done.

Now of course CO could react to this and amend or create new laws to address this but in the mean time............ salad days.

There are a lot of places that ban NFA firearms and suppressors unless you have a Federal Tax Stamp. Removing them from the NFA creates a situation where you can no longer get a tax stamp thus making current NFA items illegal to possess.

[Doc45]

I wish we could remove sbr before suppressors lol but I don’t think either will ever happen.

[Oscar77]

There are a lot of places that ban NFA firearms and suppressors unless you have a Federal Tax Stamp. Removing them from the NFA creates a situation where you can no longer get a tax stamp thus making current NFA items illegal to possess.

Sir:
Respectfully, you're missing the point and what is written.
Read the quote I listed............. "shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon........"
So simply put the 4473 you fill out for the transfer in effect would now be the "Federal Tax Stamp"............that is what the quote I've listed twice now means.
So yes, you'd have your "stamp" and the States/places would have to accept it.

[FoxtArt]

With all due respect...

The district attorney decides if you get charged, regardless of anyone's interpretation, and a judge determines if you get convicted, regardless of any jury (in essense). Neither a person's belief in what the law is, nor federal laws, Nor Donald Trump has any bearing on whether or not a person gets or can get convicted in state court. Even if they pass that attached to a budget bill saying "states gotta listen to this", well, they don't.

A person can scream from the bars of prison, but the system doesn't give a crap, and a sentence in a federal bill isn't going to spring you from jail, either. Colorado judges have been appointed by progressive/liberals for decades. The posters are correct here - in Colorado, "dangerous weapons" are prohibited.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/sites/cbi/files/C.R.S.%2018-12-102.pdf

I don't think I'd gamble on a progressive LGBT judge with colored hair agreeing with you that a 4473 - that you can't even necessarily readily prove exists under the rules of evidence - is a "permit". BTW, if they disagree with you, every level of appeals courts will rule against you for the next 5 years that you battle it out from behind bars, spending down everything you own. For most people, it wouldn't be worth the risk to try to create the case law, but YMMV.

[CS1983]

Sir:
Respectfully, you're missing the point and what is written.
Read the quote I listed............. "shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon........"
So simply put the 4473 you fill out for the transfer in effect would now be the "Federal Tax Stamp"............that is what the quote I've listed twice now means.
So yes, you'd have your "stamp" and the States/places would have to accept it.

Just like California accepts it? Like Florida accepts binary triggers, bump stocks, etc.? Just like Maryland and Jersey…

Right.

[Oscar77]

With all due respect...

The district attorney decides if you get charged, regardless of anyone's interpretation, and a judge determines if you get convicted, regardless of any jury (in essense). Neither a person's belief in what the law is, nor federal laws, Nor Donald Trump has any bearing on whether or not a person gets or can get convicted in state court. Even if they pass that attached to a budget bill saying "states gotta listen to this", well, they don't.

A person can scream from the bars of prison, but the system doesn't give a crap, and a sentence in a federal bill isn't going to spring you from jail, either. Colorado judges have been appointed by progressive/liberals for decades. The posters are correct here - in Colorado, "dangerous weapons" are prohibited.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/sites/cbi/files/C.R.S.%2018-12-102.pdf

I don't think I'd gamble on a progressive LGBT judge with colored hair agreeing with you that a 4473 - that you can't even necessarily readily prove exists under the rules of evidence - is a "permit". BTW, if they disagree with you, every level of appeals courts will rule against you for the next 5 years that you battle it out from behind bars, spending down everything you own. For most people, it wouldn't be worth the risk to try to create the case law, but YMMV.

Of for sure the States, well certain states, wont like it and will challenge it.
Just as anti-gun laws have been challenged in numerous ways.

But you also have answered your own concern.
You quote CRS 18-12-102 and in that is para 5......"(5) It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon.......... that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon."
Then look at the proposed bill language ...........""......shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon........"

Lastly, what does a Form 4 contain that a 4473 doesn't? Particularly since now an approved transfer includes a background check. It identifies you and firearm involved. The background check completed in conjunction with the transfer (supposedly) ensures you are not barred from possessing the firearm.
So what information or procedure is left out? Nothing.

Yes, I can what-if about what an DA might or might not do also. And you're right Trump has nothing to do with this. But here in Colorado, with that clear Affirmative Defense, and as an Attorney (I assume) you know those words have or carry a huge legal significance and I dont think any DA here is willing to "cross that bridge" and ignore it. What they will do is fight the Bill/law, if they are so inclined or change Colorado law.

This reminds me of the ATF SBR registration "amnesty" what 3yrs ago?
People were suspicious (and yes, never trust the Govt) of it, refusing to do it or saying you'd be arrested afterwords, or the States would come after you, etc etc
And in the end what happened? Nothing.
Well, except a few people got a bunch of SBR's registered for free and under lax conditions.

[Oscar77]

Just like California accepts it? Like Florida accepts binary triggers, bump stocks, etc.? Just like Maryland and Jersey…

Right.

I dont know what California, Maryland, NJ or Florida does.
Nor do I know their laws.
And I dont care, I live in Colorado.

You should contact and discuss your concerns with a true good attorney.
But here..... a quick google search:

Florida State Law

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms...........
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

So no, your law is even better......... it DIRECTLY defers to FEDERAL LAW.
Gravy.

[CS1983]

I dont know what California, Maryland, NJ or Florida does.
Nor do I know their laws.
And I dont care, I live in Colorado.

You should contact and discuss your concerns with a true good attorney.
But here..... a quick google search:

Florida State Law

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.?
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms...........
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

So no, your law is even better......... it DIRECTLY defers to FEDERAL LAW.
Gravy.





For now. But again, there is NO TEETH in this. It's just a removal of restrictions at the federal level and NOT a provision of PROTECTION wherein the Feds tell the States they will kick in their teeth if they try to violate it.

I don't care about Florida individually or Colorado or any particular state, but about the PRINCIPLE of states being able to decide and legislate over that which the Federal government, which ostensibly is in charge of interpreting the BoR, has already said is in fact legal and covered under 2A. That's not how subsidiarity works. It's the same sort of dumb shit when First Sergeants insert themselves into Commander level decisions. Sorry, it doesn't work that way for Top and doesn't work that way for States. And yet, it's allowed despite making the Fed superfluous in such decisions.

What is MOST likely to happen is states which previously punted to Federal oversight will no longer transfer that risk and will just outright ban as they have done other things.

It's asinine to assume that this will be anything remotely good. It's another myopic move by Republicans that will do nothing positive for most of the country and will cause more harm than good.

And, as far as state laws go: Kansas didn't do shit when 2 individuals were Federally convicted for violating Federal law while explicitly in compliance with in-state manufacturing and sale of suppressors. Now it will just be the inverse in most states: the states will convict over what is allowed in Federal law, and many will likely illegalize everything that gets "freed".

The language in the Bill which attempts to counter this

1) doesn't even include suppressors in the language (likely an oversight, but who knows)
2) Doesn't tell states they will have a JDAM dropped straight into the Governor's ass if any state law is passed to violate the 2nd Amendment. It's just gums with no teeth.

On the last point, this is a continuing problem since Heller, etc. If they were serious, they would pass law to do away with all state level encroachments on the 2A with the threat of prison for all politicians and law enforcement who attempt to counter it.

Most politicians are actually sort of retarded and probably 99.9% of those who can make this hurt don't even understand the reality of their legislation as concerns firearms and claims vs reality as to function, crime use, etc.

When the Feds grow a pair maybe it will work out.

I expect CO to move to ban quite quickly.

[Doc45]

Doesn’t look like we need to be concerned whether it was a good idea or not. Grrrr

[eddiememphis]

Doesn’t look like we need to be concerned whether it was a good idea or not. Grrrr

If you are referring to this- "...the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, determined the measure did not comply with the Senate’s Byrd Rule... ", there are ways around it. The bill can be rewritten or it can be voted on as-is but there are not enough votes for it to pass.

This provision was probably included as a bargaining chip. It's common for bills to contain elements that one side is willing to drop in exchange for keeping other priorities intact.

[Eric P]

A rule, not a law...

And why does this person have any say in what is in a bill? Is that job defined in the constitution?

[Doc45]

Yes, referred to the parliamentarian. I spent enough years in the state house to watch good bills go down in flames or bad ones succeed (at least good/bad to my way of thinking lol). I know things can change prior to passage but unfortunately I’m not too optimistic about these provisions surviving if the bill passes. I hope I’m wrong.

[FoxtArt]

A rule, not a law...

And why does this person have any say in what is in a bill? Is that job defined in the constitution?

I mean... this is shoved into a budget bill along with e.g. the land sale and all sorts of other pork.

This wouldn't be a problem if a bill was restricted to it's purpose, and we didn't have to worry about injected line items turning over your firstborn to the government.

I support the concept of this, but it really should be its own bill. The budget bill should strictly be budget. But, pigs flying and all that, so it's all gone to heck.

[Oscar77]

I mean... this is shoved into a budget bill along with e.g. the land sale and all sorts of other pork.

This wouldn't be a problem if a bill was restricted to it's purpose, and we didn't have to worry about injected line items turning over your firstborn to the government.

I support the concept of this, but it really should be its own bill. The budget bill should strictly be budget. But, pigs flying and all that, so it's all gone to heck.

This sort of "lumping" of bills has been going on for decades now, if not centuries.
I agree, not saying it's right, and it is an example of pork- in the sense of an unrelated bill being lumped into others.
But it also is a finance and tax question and so it has atleast some connection to the budget.

I'm more stunned by the responses here and I'm not pointing you out in particular.
I understand that some posters here are Democrats and some clearly support gun control.
This bill would've had little impact on gun ownership or, in other words, was really just a token gesture.
But the level of nonsense in opposing it was pretty impressive.
In a way I do sympathize with Politicians who do actually try to support us and are met with this whiny, and honestly mostly ignorant, mistrust from "gun owners."

[O2HeN2]

So, anyone else expecting the price of suppressors to jump by up to $200?

After all, "It's what the market will bear!"

No, I have nothing against capitalism, just a prediction.

O2

[Oscar77]

So, anyone else expecting the price of suppressors to jump by up to $200?

After all, "It's what the market will bear!"

No, I have nothing against capitalism, just a prediction.

O2

No, that money was never collected or kept by the dealers.
It was a tax collected by the Govt.
I doubt this will have much effect on prices or availability...............if I understand the final version correctly.

[Hoser]

The glass half empty part of me is concerned that down the road the tax might come back. And it could be ugly. Like 1934 ugly.

[eddiememphis]

Here is what I found online-

$200 excise‑style NFA tax dropped to $0 for specific items:
Suppressors (silencers)
Short‑barreled rifles (SBRs)
Short‑barreled shotguns (SBSs)
Any Other Weapons (AOWs)
Machine guns and destructive devices remain taxed at $200

NFA regulation remains intact:
Registration (Forms 1 & 4)
Fingerprints
Background checks
ATF oversight

So while the tax is gone, the regulatory and time barriers are not.

Look for an implementation of a "filing fee" or something similar that isn't a "tax"- ask Colorado DMV how to do that one.
Also, the tax on the remaining items will jump, probably about 10x, to cover the missing revenue.

Of course the usual suspects- Brady, Anytown, Giffords- will all be filing lawsuits in blue states to get a friendly judge.

Another thing- look for the same legislation to be proposed in Democrat majority states, written by Everytown lawyers, to end the nightmare of "Silent Deaths".

Watch for state-level tax, mental health screening, waiting periods, registries and outright bans.

Guaranteed that dumb fucker Tom Sullivan will try to push one through next session.

[kidicarus13]

Look for an implementation of a "filing fee" or something similar that isn't a "tax"- ask Colorado DMV how to do that one.
Also, the tax on the remaining items will jump, probably about 10x, to cover the missing revenue.


You mean this nonsense?https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250704/0f1b86f2fd9f9c2c17ad4454fd1da43d.jpg

[Oscar77]

Here is what I found online-

$200 excise‑style NFA tax dropped to $0 for specific items:
Suppressors (silencers)
Short‑barreled rifles (SBRs)
Short‑barreled shotguns (SBSs)
Any Other Weapons (AOWs)
Machine guns and destructive devices remain taxed at $200

NFA regulation remains intact:
Registration (Forms 1 & 4)
Fingerprints
Background checks
ATF oversight

So while the tax is gone, the regulatory and time barriers are not.

Look for an implementation of a "filing fee" or something similar that isn't a "tax"- ask Colorado DMV how to do that one.
Also, the tax on the remaining items will jump, probably about 10x, to cover the missing revenue.

Of course the usual suspects- Brady, Anytown, Giffords- will all be filing lawsuits in blue states to get a friendly judge.

Another thing- look for the same legislation to be proposed in Democrat majority states, written by Everytown lawyers, to end the nightmare of "Silent Deaths".

Watch for state-level tax, mental health screening, waiting periods, registries and outright bans.

Guaranteed that dumb fucker Tom Sullivan will try to push one through next session.

No, just no.
While the STATE of Colorado can and will continue with it's anti-gun agenda........... they have nothing to do with a FEDERAL tax that was removed.
It's the FEDERAL Govt which oversaw, managed and collected it thru the ATF. Thats why it was in a FEDERAL level bill/law.
So no States are missing revenue, it's the ATF and Federal Govt.
And we already have several State taxes on it---- to include the 6.5 Sin tax applies to all those already and isn't affected by this.

These reactions are reminiscent of that debacle that was the "Brace ban amnesty" or whatever it was called.
People lost their minds claiming it was a trap, that they'd reverse the decision (again) and seize the guns, they weren't "real" form 1's etc etc
And in the end what happened? Nothing. Some people got free forms approved.

No dont trust any Democrat to respect our Rights but this is a big-bag-of-nothin.
Partially because as you point out, the registration etc remains............ it's just free.

[Oscar77]

Actually...... here we go:

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/GOA-Filed-the-One-Big-Beautiful-Lawsuit/5-2802968/

It's the GOA filing a lawsuit, not the Dems.
If I'm reading it right, they essentially are trying to force it into it's orginal form.

I know some here really dont want that to happen........... so maybe you should start a petition against the GOA.

[bellavite1]

Tell you what:
On Thursday I purchased my 5TH can.

Why didn't you wait, you may ask?

Well, here's the different scenarios:
1) As soon as the new rules come into effect, a lot of people are going to buy, potentially drying out the supply for a few months. Nobody had what I wanted in stock, Gunbroker had one for $160 cheaper than SS.

2) ATF will be swamped with applications, chances are it will go back to the 13 months wait I had to endure for my first can (my last one was 21 hrs).

3) Lawsuit manages to get the removal from NFA back on the books. We are now in uncharted territory, here in CO. It may get dicey. They may ban them all together. Then we will sue. Then they countersue. You know this movie, we all saw it before.

All of this to save me $200 (how much does it cost to take the family to McDonalds these days? [hahhah-no]).

[Doc45]

Doesn’t this change January 1, 2026? If so then the $200 tax is still in effect until then, no need to do anything now unless we just have to have something now lol. My last item only took 6 days.

[kidicarus13]

Doesn?t this change January 1, 2026? If so then the $200 tax is still in effect until then, no need to do anything now unless we just have to have something now lol. My last item only took 6 days.

You were right. I was wrong.

[theGinsue]

Surprised no one else covered this yet.

With the passage of the "Big Beautiful Bill" and the elimination of the $200 tax stamp fee, it looks like the NRA and a couple of other pro-2A groups have filed a lawsuit against the ATF regarding the continuance of the NFA program. If they eliminate NFA, won't this then make things currently classified as "NFA items" illegal in CO and many other states?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250707/nra-and-2a-allies-announce-nfa-lawsuit

[Doc45]

Thanks kidicarus13. Oh crap, didn’t realize that potential fallout regarding the lawsuit. A no win situation?

[whitewalrus]

Doesn?t this change January 1, 2026? If so then the $200 tax is still in effect until then, no need to do anything now unless we just have to have something now lol. My last item only took 6 days.

6 days? That?s insanely quick. Electronic form 4?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OneGuy67]

6 days? That?s insanely quick. Electronic form 4?

That's the higher end of the norm now. There has been a consistent 24-72 hour turn around as of late. With electronic Form 1 and Form 4.

[eddiememphis]

https://www.silencershop.com/blog/hearing-protection-act-2025?utm_source=chatgpt.com#senate-compromise
https://www.nationalguntrusts.com/blogs/nfa-gun-trust-atf-information-database-blog/when-does-trumps-one-big-beautiful-bill-go-into-effect-and-tax-stamps-are-0?srsltid=AfmBOorHHpjX9IO79NN3a1vIZTpqVFcohDdvMevH 76DXjjQoZuUqoecy&utm_source=chatgpt.com

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

That means that 90 days after the end of the current quarter will be January 1, 2026 and the most likely date that this change will go into effect. That also aligns with the Federal Register publishing that takes place quarterly. Once the OBBB is published in the Federal Register (Q3 of 2025), 90 days will need to take place until the tax stamps for suppressors and short-barrel rifles will go to $0, which works out to be January 1, 2026.

[bellavite1]

21 hrs on my last from certification to approval...

[TEAMRICO]

Form 1 SBR 8 days.
Got the email today!

I don’t want to get caught up in the upcoming possible backlog next year.

[Eric P]

Surprised no one else covered this yet.

With the passage of the "Big Beautiful Bill" and the elimination of the $200 tax stamp fee, it looks like the NRA and a couple of other pro-2A groups have filed a lawsuit against the ATF regarding the continuance of the NFA program. If they eliminate NFA, won't this then make things currently classified as "NFA items" illegal in CO and many other states?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250707/nra-and-2a-allies-announce-nfa-lawsuit

That was my original point when I started this thread. The stamp is a permit to own. These lawsuit are idealistic, but they don't see the elimination of rights in many states if the "permit to own" stamps are ended.

[FoxtArt]

Surprised no one else covered this yet.

With the passage of the "Big Beautiful Bill" and the elimination of the $200 tax stamp fee, it looks like the NRA and a couple of other pro-2A groups have filed a lawsuit against the ATF regarding the continuance of the NFA program. If they eliminate NFA, won't this then make things currently classified as "NFA items" illegal in CO and many other states?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20250707/nra-and-2a-allies-announce-nfa-lawsuit

Absolutely***** (ETA here I initially read the prior post as "legal")

It will make all NFA permanently illegal in Colorado because you will lose the affirmative defense. Everyone needs to do this homework assignment and read the one paragraph of Colorado law. https://cbi.colorado.gov/sites/cbi/files/C.R.S.%2018-12-102.pdf

Trumps Big Borrowing Bill, coupled with a successful NRA lawsuit, would purge the ability to own any NFA in Colorado.

That said, there is about 0% chance of the NRA suit succeeding. Why? We have a judge-icial system, not a system of laws. Even the conservative judges we have don't want "insert whatever youthful hoodlum they personally despise" getting access to a legal fully-auto M16 for $600, with another $250 for a suppressor. You'd need 5 Clarence Thomas' on the bench for that to succeed, and we don't have it. 0% chance of success in any circuit appeal and the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately we live in a system where if they find the law unacceptable as written, they conform it to where they want the lines to be. Instead of, treating laws as they are written, and giving it to the legislative to fix any deficiencies, unintended consequences, etc. if necessary and with support of the constituency.

[Hoser]

Senator Chris Murphy just introduced an amendment to HR 3944 to raise the cost of NFA tax stamps. $4709 tax stamp.

Sooner than later we will wish still had $200 tax stamps.

Here it comes.

[kidicarus13]

$4709 seems like a reasonable, round #.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Oddly, if that opens the MG registry, it’s a’win’? How much is a registered sear now?

[Eric P]

Any permission slips ordered after January 1?