Removal of Silencers from NFA?

[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.