Hearing Protection Act

[XC700116]

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.

(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

[osok-308]

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.

[crays]

Expand scope of CCW Permit to cover suppressors.

Sent from my QMV7B using Tapatalk

[Irving]

Colorado is a blue state, so nothing would change here.

[KS63]

What makes a Ballistic Knife more dangerous than my 12" chefs knife?......

[Irving]

Depends if the 12" chef's knife has an adjustable stock or not.

[CS1983]

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.

If I'm reading this correctly, the HPA has a preemptive clause to deal with such things:

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.”.

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.

[Irving]

How is that any different than having a Class III item right now in 20ish states that prohibit them?

[CS1983]

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.

This article states:

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.

http://www.guns.com/2015/10/22/bill-...fa-regulation/

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.

[XC700116]

If I'm reading this correctly, the HPA has a preemptive clause to deal with such things:



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.

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.

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.