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?
Printable View
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
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.
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!
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmg8550
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
This would be amazing if it did pass, then I could finally get around to getting the suppressors I've been looking at.
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.
Quote:
(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
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.
If I'm reading this correctly, the HPA has a preemptive clause to deal with such things:Quote:
Originally Posted by XC700116
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.Quote:
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.”.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
This article states:
http://www.guns.com/2015/10/22/bill-...fa-regulation/Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
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.
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoser
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoser
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]Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
...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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by skoodge
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...