Printable View
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
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:
Quote:
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-...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>
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:
Will update as I hear back from them.Quote:
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.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this unfolds.
Assumed General Counsel reply:
Reply from me to them:Quote:
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-...bill/3799/text
Best,
<redacted>
Quote:
<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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
That's actually good to hear, now all we have to hope for is that there isn't a new added ban pushed through.