ASA ANNOUNCES HEARING PROTECTION ACT

[Irving]

Less laws please. Glad they aren't trying to make suppressors mandatory.

[dustdevil]

And it would make silencers illegal in Colorado unless they change existing Colorado laws.

•C.R.S. 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.
(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.
(5) It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon, or to the charge of possessing an illegal weapon, … ,or that said person has avalid permit and license for possession of such weapon.

A "valid permit and license" is your NFA Stamp. Take silencers off the registry and you can't get a NFA stamp. Without a stamp you don't have the affirmative defense.

Thank you for saying that. I wish people would look at the totality of law instead of just one aspect of it.

[lc_nab]

Thank you for saying that. I wish people would look at the totality of law instead of just one aspect of it.

TION TO FIREARM SILENCERS.21 Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is22 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Notwith-23 standing the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a24 political subdivision of a State that, as a condition of law-25 fully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transVerDateNov 24 2008 14:59 Oct 07, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\USERS\SJPROBST\APPDATA\ROAMING\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\ 7.0\GEN\C\SALMON~1.October 7, 2015 (2:59 p.m.)F:\M14\SALMON\SALMON_078.XMLf:\VHLC\100715\10 0715.162.xml (608912|7)31 porting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or for-2 eign commerce, imposes a tax on any such conduct, or a3 marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement with4 respect to the firearm silencer, shall have no force or ef-5 fect.’’.

[lc_nab]

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploa...ection-Act.pdf

[SAnd]

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploa...ection-Act.pdf

Thanks for posting. I couldn't find that. You would think the press notice would include that.

[lc_nab]

No worries, the press loves to use miss-information . We just need to dig around, it happens.

[Aloha_Shooter]

What lcnab was trying to post which is contained in the PDF is this:

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.’’.

The problem I see is that the portion of CRS that SAnd cited isn't trying to impose a tax or a marking, recordkeeping, or registration requirement. It just flat-out says possessing a dangerous weapon without a valid permit and license is a class 5 felony. Period, end of story. Now, I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me the anti-guns nutcases would argue the HPA doesn't apply and push for prosecutions. Maybe spqrzilla or someone else could give us a better idea of a positive defense on this.

[Gman]

I'd be happy to see this pass, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Justin]

Ok, maybe I'm just dumb, but why is it legal to own a can, SBR, SBS, etc. in Colorado now, despite this law, but passing the HPA would somehow ban cans?

[Irving]

Because owning those items is illegal in Colorado, with the exception of possessing a tax stamp. So if this were to pass and no longer require tax stamps for such items, you'd be illegally possessing the items without a tax stamp. So while this is a nice idea, the Colorado law would have to change as well, or it'd just be the same thing.