Hearing Protection Act

[CS1983]

The HPA folks sent out a form letter last week. I don't have access to personal email right now to show it, but unless I completely missed something in the email/letter, they've gotten informative claims down to a political science. Makes me wonder if they hired Bennet's reply writer(s) -- write a lot, say practically nothing.

Perhaps someone else who got the email can chime in w/ it.

[CS1983]

Here it is:
http://americansuppressorassociation...rd-of-the-asa/

I found this comment interesting, along with its reply:

Russ Terry
Posted March 17, 2017 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

What is being done regarding Colorado’s classification of Suppressors as dangerous weapons and possession allowed as an affirmative defense only by their licensure afforded by the Fed statutes? Why is everyone overlooking this? If the HPA passes, new suppressors will suddenly become de facto illegal in Colorado unless state laws are changed or somehow preempted by the HPA.
Reply

ASA
Posted March 20, 2017 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

Russ,

The HPA does address this issue (it is an issue in nearly a dozen states that specifically reference the NFA and/or NFRTR) and something that we made sure to address from the outset so that removing them from the NFA would somehow make them immediately illegal in states where they are currently legal.
Reply

#1 - the phrasing is hilariously not what they meant to say
#2 - it doesn't jibe w/ what their legal counsel emailed me and I posted in this thread however many pages back.

[CS1983]

My reply to ASA's reply to Russ:

(awaiting moderation...)

ASA,

Your reply to Russ doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy.

#1 - I believe you meant to write "... would *not* somehow make them immediately illegal..."

#2 - as shown on this thread: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/159470-...tion-Act/page3

You can see that the replies from your Legal Counsel do not offer the same level of protection as you would intimate. In fact, he plainly admits that they would then be subject to State laws as enacted, including illegalizing or state-level hoops as we now jump through. Frankly, I don't find this very reassuring for Colorado, where we are subject to knee-jerk anti-gun bills and a governor and Denver Metro area more than willing to pass them.

Do you honestly expect us Coloradans to believe that Hickenlooper and company won't immediately rush to make life hell in this regard? Please don't tell me it's raining in your reply...

[brutal]

ROFL, I also quoted one of your eloquent posts here to my own comment, and linked to our thread - they "moderated" that out, but left my full name in place.

I should have paid more attention to their form. Oh well.

[CS1983]

The only HPA position is their own Reich-like narrative, I guess.

I'm not surprised, since they would just clump us in the "haters gonna hate. Wanna see us fail" category. I don't want to see them fail, I just want to see them succeed in a meaningful manner instead of some victory with a bunch of companies which bends over Colorado and any other state in a similar position.

[CS1983]

Russ writes:

Perhaps I should just post the CRS so you can read it and understand it for yourselves.

18-12-102. Possessing a dangerous or illegal weapon – affirmative defense

(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.

“or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon.”

Who is going to issue said license or permit if the ATF doesn’t? Colorado surely isn’t going to permit silencers given our current political makeup.

They replied to Russ' reply with Sections 3 and 4 of the HPA:

Russ,

These state laws referencing licenses and/or permits are addressed in section 3 and section 4 of the HPA with preemption clauses:

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SILENCERS.

Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(f) Firearm Silencers.—A person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this subsection) with respect to such silencer.”.

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.”.

I replied:

Assuming HPA passes and Section 3 and 4 put the kibosh on state-registration of suppressors for items previously owned under NFA, and disallow state-level registration, please answer the following:

Does the HPA stop Colorado, et al., from simply making suppressors illegal a la California?

As I read the 3rd and 4th sections, it simply states that

3 -- Registered under NFA = grandfathered under NFA
4 -- States cannot institute a state-level registration, etc. It says nothing about them simply illegalizing it.

Will be interesting to read their reply since the 4th section does not outright ban state-law from being made in such effect.

[brutal]

They're trying to say that Section 3 is their pre-emption and meets the license requirements.

I'd like to believe that, but still don't see how it preempts CRS 18-12-102 as it currently stands.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer, just a realist.

[CS1983]

They're trying to say that Section 3 is their pre-emption and meets the license requirements.

I'd like to believe that, but still don't see how it preempts CRS 18-12-102 as it currently stands.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer, just a realist.

Right, but California and a few other states don't care and simply made them illegal. So that's not really a backstop.

[Hummer]

I believe this is a new development that could promote passage of the HPA:


LINK:

Read more: http://americansuppressorassociation...#ixzz4k5D3jspy
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Hearing Protection Act Language Incorporated Into Comprehensive Sportsmen’s Bill
Posted on June 14, 2017 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson


American Suppressor Association WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- The House Committee on Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing for the morning of June 14, in which the Federal Lands Subcommittee will hear a discussion draft of the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. The SHARE Act, which is being championed in a bipartisan manner by Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) Co-Chairs Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Representative Gene Green (D-TX), is a comprehensive package that covers a wide range of hunting, fishing, and outdoor related issues. Included in the legislation is Title XVII, a strengthened version of the Hearing Protection Act.

Since the re-introduction of the Hearing Protection Act by Rep. Duncan and Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) in January (H.R. 367, S. 59) the American Suppressor Association (ASA) has met with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on multiple occasions to discuss technical amendments to the language. As a result, we were able to create several technical amendments that were incorporated into the current draft of the SHARE Act. These include:

Sec. 1702: Removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act, subjecting them to the same instant NICS background check as long guns, and issuing a refundable tax credit to anyone who has purchased a suppressor since the HPA’s original date of introduction
Sec. 1703: Ensuring that suppressors will remain legal in all 42 states where they are currently legal, after suppressors are removed from the National Firearms Act
Sec. 1704: Preempting states from levying taxes or registration requirements on suppressors. However, this will not make suppressors legal in any state where state law currently prohibits them.
Sec. 1705: Granting the ATF 365 days to destroy all suppressor related records from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR)
Sec. 1706: Developing a “keystone part” definition, and requiring that such keystone part is serialized on every suppressor. This will ensure that individual suppressor parts, like pistons and endcaps, will not require serialization.
Sec. 1707: Imposing a 10% Pittman-Robertson excise tax on the manufacture of each new suppressor, a tax that is currently imposed on all Title I firearms

“The inclusion of the Hearing Protection Act in the sportsmen’s package highlights the commitment of the Sportsmen’s Caucus to make the hunting and recreational shooting experiences safer and more enjoyable for all,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “We know for a fact that exposure to noise from recreational firearms is one of the leading causes of hearing loss, which is why the CDC, NIOSH, and the National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) have all recommended using suppressors as a tool to mitigate the danger. We look forward to working with the Sportsmen’s Caucus to make this legislation a reality.”

Suppressors have been federally regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Currently, prospective buyers must live in one of the 42 states where they are legal, must send in an application including fingerprints and passport photos to the ATF, pay a $200 transfer tax, and wait for an indeterminate amount of time for the ATF to process the application. As of June, 2017, wait times are in excess of 10 months. In stark contrast, many countries in Europe place no regulations on their purchase, possession, or use. This legislation will remove suppressors from the onerous requirements of the NFA, and instead require purchasers to pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used during the sale of long guns. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories.

[Great-Kazoo]

7.1.18 will see the HPA take effect.



By then everyone will be hungry enough for a suppressor, i'll be able to sell off my Suppressor collection (for a loss) and not worry who gets what when i forget who i am and even care i pissed myself. Like this morning