Removal of Silencers from NFA?

[def90]

The amendment is stupid.

Without federal teeth backing it all it does is effectively ban suppressors in states where NFA is affirmative defense. Which is… the majority of states is it not? Aside from the few which outright ban ownership, tax stamp or not?

Pretty much how it stands in reality.

[Oscar77]

Not an Attorney and maybe this isn't the current version but, read here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-...bill/2395/text

And then read Section 4 para f:

".........any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon......"

So I'm not really sure where some of you are getting your comments.
Title 18 Chapter 44 are the usual "gun buying and possessing" Federal laws.

So for Colorado, under this we would buy/possess a MG, SBR etc like a "regular" firearm and under the CRS noted by Oneguy (CRS 18-12-102), the buyer would automatically have "valid permit and license for possession" under CO law.
Done and Done.

Now of course CO could react to this and amend or create new laws to address this but in the mean time............ salad days.

[def90]

Not an Attorney and maybe this isn't the current version but, read here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-...bill/2395/text

And then read Section 4 para f:

".........any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon......"

So I'm not really sure where some of you are getting your comments.
Title 18 Chapter 44 are the usual "gun buying and possessing" Federal laws.

So for Colorado, under this we would buy/possess a MG, SBR etc like a "regular" firearm and under the CRS noted by Oneguy (CRS 18-12-102), the buyer would automatically have "valid permit and license for possession" under CO law.
Done and Done.

Now of course CO could react to this and amend or create new laws to address this but in the mean time............ salad days.

There are a lot of places that ban NFA firearms and suppressors unless you have a Federal Tax Stamp. Removing them from the NFA creates a situation where you can no longer get a tax stamp thus making current NFA items illegal to possess.

[Oscar77]

There are a lot of places that ban NFA firearms and suppressors unless you have a Federal Tax Stamp. Removing them from the NFA creates a situation where you can no longer get a tax stamp thus making current NFA items illegal to possess.

Sir:
Respectfully, you're missing the point and what is written.
Read the quote I listed............. "shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon........"
So simply put the 4473 you fill out for the transfer in effect would now be the "Federal Tax Stamp"............that is what the quote I've listed twice now means.
So yes, you'd have your "stamp" and the States/places would have to accept it.

[CS1983]

Sir:
Respectfully, you're missing the point and what is written.
Read the quote I listed............. "shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon........"
So simply put the 4473 you fill out for the transfer in effect would now be the "Federal Tax Stamp"............that is what the quote I've listed twice now means.
So yes, you'd have your "stamp" and the States/places would have to accept it.

Just like California accepts it? Like Florida accepts binary triggers, bump stocks, etc.? Just like Maryland and Jersey…

Right.

[Oscar77]

Just like California accepts it? Like Florida accepts binary triggers, bump stocks, etc.? Just like Maryland and Jersey…

Right.

I dont know what California, Maryland, NJ or Florida does.
Nor do I know their laws.
And I dont care, I live in Colorado.

You should contact and discuss your concerns with a true good attorney.
But here..... a quick google search:

Florida State Law

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms...........
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

So no, your law is even better......... it DIRECTLY defers to FEDERAL LAW.
Gravy.

[Doc45]

I wish we could remove sbr before suppressors lol but I don’t think either will ever happen.

[FoxtArt]

With all due respect...

The district attorney decides if you get charged, regardless of anyone's interpretation, and a judge determines if you get convicted, regardless of any jury (in essense). Neither a person's belief in what the law is, nor federal laws, Nor Donald Trump has any bearing on whether or not a person gets or can get convicted in state court. Even if they pass that attached to a budget bill saying "states gotta listen to this", well, they don't.

A person can scream from the bars of prison, but the system doesn't give a crap, and a sentence in a federal bill isn't going to spring you from jail, either. Colorado judges have been appointed by progressive/liberals for decades. The posters are correct here - in Colorado, "dangerous weapons" are prohibited.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/sites/cbi/f...018-12-102.pdf

I don't think I'd gamble on a progressive LGBT judge with colored hair agreeing with you that a 4473 - that you can't even necessarily readily prove exists under the rules of evidence - is a "permit". BTW, if they disagree with you, every level of appeals courts will rule against you for the next 5 years that you battle it out from behind bars, spending down everything you own. For most people, it wouldn't be worth the risk to try to create the case law, but YMMV.

[Oscar77]

With all due respect...

The district attorney decides if you get charged, regardless of anyone's interpretation, and a judge determines if you get convicted, regardless of any jury (in essense). Neither a person's belief in what the law is, nor federal laws, Nor Donald Trump has any bearing on whether or not a person gets or can get convicted in state court. Even if they pass that attached to a budget bill saying "states gotta listen to this", well, they don't.

A person can scream from the bars of prison, but the system doesn't give a crap, and a sentence in a federal bill isn't going to spring you from jail, either. Colorado judges have been appointed by progressive/liberals for decades. The posters are correct here - in Colorado, "dangerous weapons" are prohibited.

https://cbi.colorado.gov/sites/cbi/f...018-12-102.pdf

I don't think I'd gamble on a progressive LGBT judge with colored hair agreeing with you that a 4473 - that you can't even necessarily readily prove exists under the rules of evidence - is a "permit". BTW, if they disagree with you, every level of appeals courts will rule against you for the next 5 years that you battle it out from behind bars, spending down everything you own. For most people, it wouldn't be worth the risk to try to create the case law, but YMMV.

Of for sure the States, well certain states, wont like it and will challenge it.
Just as anti-gun laws have been challenged in numerous ways.

But you also have answered your own concern.
You quote CRS 18-12-102 and in that is para 5......"(5) It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon.......... that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon."
Then look at the proposed bill language ...........""......shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon........"

Lastly, what does a Form 4 contain that a 4473 doesn't? Particularly since now an approved transfer includes a background check. It identifies you and firearm involved. The background check completed in conjunction with the transfer (supposedly) ensures you are not barred from possessing the firearm.
So what information or procedure is left out? Nothing.

Yes, I can what-if about what an DA might or might not do also. And you're right Trump has nothing to do with this. But here in Colorado, with that clear Affirmative Defense, and as an Attorney (I assume) you know those words have or carry a huge legal significance and I dont think any DA here is willing to "cross that bridge" and ignore it. What they will do is fight the Bill/law, if they are so inclined or change Colorado law.

This reminds me of the ATF SBR registration "amnesty" what 3yrs ago?
People were suspicious (and yes, never trust the Govt) of it, refusing to do it or saying you'd be arrested afterwords, or the States would come after you, etc etc
And in the end what happened? Nothing.
Well, except a few people got a bunch of SBR's registered for free and under lax conditions.

[Doc45]

Doesn’t look like we need to be concerned whether it was a good idea or not. Grrrr