Removal of Silencers from NFA?

[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.

[CS1983]

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.

For now. But again, there is NO TEETH in this. It's just a removal of restrictions at the federal level and NOT a provision of PROTECTION wherein the Feds tell the States they will kick in their teeth if they try to violate it.

I don't care about Florida individually or Colorado or any particular state, but about the PRINCIPLE of states being able to decide and legislate over that which the Federal government, which ostensibly is in charge of interpreting the BoR, has already said is in fact legal and covered under 2A. That's not how subsidiarity works. It's the same sort of dumb shit when First Sergeants insert themselves into Commander level decisions. Sorry, it doesn't work that way for Top and doesn't work that way for States. And yet, it's allowed despite making the Fed superfluous in such decisions.

What is MOST likely to happen is states which previously punted to Federal oversight will no longer transfer that risk and will just outright ban as they have done other things.

It's asinine to assume that this will be anything remotely good. It's another myopic move by Republicans that will do nothing positive for most of the country and will cause more harm than good.

And, as far as state laws go: Kansas didn't do shit when 2 individuals were Federally convicted for violating Federal law while explicitly in compliance with in-state manufacturing and sale of suppressors. Now it will just be the inverse in most states: the states will convict over what is allowed in Federal law, and many will likely illegalize everything that gets "freed".

The language in the Bill which attempts to counter this

1) doesn't even include suppressors in the language (likely an oversight, but who knows)
2) Doesn't tell states they will have a JDAM dropped straight into the Governor's ass if any state law is passed to violate the 2nd Amendment. It's just gums with no teeth.

On the last point, this is a continuing problem since Heller, etc. If they were serious, they would pass law to do away with all state level encroachments on the 2A with the threat of prison for all politicians and law enforcement who attempt to counter it.

Most politicians are actually sort of retarded and probably 99.9% of those who can make this hurt don't even understand the reality of their legislation as concerns firearms and claims vs reality as to function, crime use, etc.

When the Feds grow a pair maybe it will work out.

I expect CO to move to ban quite quickly.