testtest

Hearing Protection Act: Are Silencers Legal Now?

Hmm, the only issue with still using the form 4473 is that ATF has already been caught and it is verified through a digitizing of the forms they have collected, photographed, etc to the tune of almost a billion-gun transitions over the past decades. This was deemed illegal in 1984 by.... wait for it, Congress. Since then, the SCOTUS has waffled all over the place with some Judges voting party agenda, over Constitutional Law. Which states in addition to the 2nd Amendment, the right to be secure from unreasonable searches for effects and papers (4th). Since Congress has stated and made a law that no registries are to exist, well... Want proof, look no further than the speed that the Antifa Minion that took a shot at the Mean Orange Tweeter was identified in PA. So, being a silencer is nothing more than a partially effective muffler (mandated on my scooter and sportscars), I am surprised they aren't already available over the counter. Like... wait for it, some European Countries. You just can't own the real gun part there without said paperwork. :rolleyes:
 
mikep said:
They will never allow them to be legal in nj, just like standard capacity mags and flash suppressors.
Click to expand...
True.... but a tiny bit of me hopes to see NJ infringements get taken away before i get bbqed.... like CCW got a little "freedom"....
 
Note that several states where possession of a silencer is currently legal actually have laws than make possession of silencers illegal UNLESS the purchase has been approved by or registered with ATF. When HR1 passes and silencers come out of the NFA, it could suddenly be illegal to purchase a silencer in states where they can be purchased now, AND some current owners might become instant criminals (subject to the exact wording in the particular state law and subject to whether the AG or local DA is pro-gun or anti-gun).
For example, in my state:
> GA Code § 16-11-122 (2020) "No person shall have in his possession any ... silencer except as provided in Code Section 16-11-124."
> GA Code § 16-11-124 (2020) "This part shall not apply to... 4. Possession of a ... silencer by a person who is authorized to possess the same because he has registered the ... silencer in accordance with the dictates of the National Firearms Act."
>> A pro-2A DA might say all silencers are legal because "IAW NFA" means no registration is required once HR1 becomes law.
>> An anti-2A DA would likely try to prosecute because it's not registered.

Check your state law. If you live in one of these states, contact your state gun rights organization as well as your state legislators.
 
m444ss said:
Note that several states where possession of a silencer is currently legal actually have laws than make possession of silencers illegal UNLESS the purchase has been approved by or registered with ATF. When HR1 passes and silencers come out of the NFA, it could suddenly be illegal to purchase a silencer in states where they can be purchased now, AND some current owners might become instant criminals (subject to the exact wording in the particular state law and subject to whether the AG or local DA is pro-gun or anti-gun).
For example, in my state:
> GA Code § 16-11-122 (2020) "No person shall have in his possession any ... silencer except as provided in Code Section 16-11-124."
> GA Code § 16-11-124 (2020) "This part shall not apply to... 4. Possession of a ... silencer by a person who is authorized to possess the same because he has registered the ... silencer in accordance with the dictates of the National Firearms Act."
>> A pro-2A DA might say all silencers are legal because "IAW NFA" means no registration is required once HR1 becomes law.
>> An anti-2A DA would likely try to prosecute because it's not registered.

Check your state law. If you live in one of these states, contact your state gun rights organization as well as your state legislators.
Click to expand...
I would think, based on this, if you have a suppressor already registered and have your stamp, you'd be ok. However, if you got a new one under the new NFA guidelines, there is the possibility of trouble. You can also interpret this as if the NFA doesn't require a stamp anymore, you are in compliance with Federal Law. It will certainly be an interesting point of contention...
 
uspatriot1960 said:
I would think, based on this, if you have a suppressor already registered and have your stamp, you'd be ok. However, if you got a new one under the new NFA guidelines, there is the possibility of trouble. You can also interpret this as if the NFA doesn't require a stamp anymore, you are in compliance with Federal Law. It will certainly be an interesting point of contention...
Click to expand...
I think you have to look at this not in the light of reasonableness from the POV of someone who supports 2A but from the POV of bureaucrats who exist to regulate, from the POV District Attorneys who like to get convictions (esp those who have disdain for 2A), and perhaps also from the POV of a gun store owner's insurance company. It is, at the very least, ambiguous - which favors busy bodies and trouble makers.
It makes no sense to leave these laws as they are. They should be repealed, and people who want to own suppressors - or even people who don't but who want our rights protected - should pursue that end.
 
Great article and very promising legislation, except it’s moot for those of us stuck in one of the eight states that believe suppressors are evil.

And for those that say, “just leave”. We all know it’s not that simple. It’s on our radar and hopefully will happen in about two years.
 
First, I don't believe that the reconciliation bill is going to get out of the Senate in any currently recognizable form. Musk and a growing number of Senators don't like it as it is. Musk, and the fiscal hawks, think that the bill, as written now, contains way too few spending cuts and way too large an increase in the budget deficit. Given that everyone is DC seems to have their own system of accounting, it is hard to know wherein lies the truth. Suffice it to say that between the usual RINO naysayers, the closet Never Trumpers and the Fiscal Hawks, I think the bill is going to be torn apart and a lot of it rewritten. When it does finally clear the Senate, it then has to go back to the House with the changes. So, I don't look for it to be a "done deal" any time soon.

Second, I am a bit disappointed in the gun community for pushing so vehemently on the suppressor issue without giving as much attention to the SBR issue. The SBR issue has been treated as an afterthought since day one. Suppressors are an "add on" to a functional firearm. They are cool "bling" and, yes, they do offer hearing protection from loud pew pews. But the SBR bill deals with a huge number of actual, real live guns. As an official "old guy" now, my long range shooting of large bore weapons days are, unfortunately, over. It would be really nice to be able to transition over to shorter, lighter weapons so I can continue shooting as my arthritis, torn rotator cuff, bad back, etc.....allows. Further, there are a lot of disabled citizens....including a lot of disabled vets.....who need a shorter, lighter weapon to be able to enjoy sport shooting. The 2A community could have gotten the Americans With Disabilities folks on our side to push for the easy and painless acquisition of SBR's and pistol braces. Yet, we chose to relegate the SBR issue to almost an afterthought. And there is a good chance that adding it to the existing bill is going to get lost in the middle of a knock down, drag out fight over the rest of the bill. I'm just not sure that we had our priorities right on this issue.
 
Sgtpetes said:
Huh? Freedom adverse States? How is that exactly? Do the citizens of these states not have the rights to vote for their representatives? It’s odd how one party constantly is screaming about State's rights but then criticizes the States who exercise those rights?

The President and most States want the ability to control women’s reproductive health, but don’t want other States in control of their own gun laws?

When did we become the Country of hypocrisy? I give out exactly what I expect in return. We have the freedom of electing representatives and those representatives make decisions. The Government is meant to enact change slowly so there’s not a lopsided balance of power and change. The current administration thinks it’s funny to push and push their policies which will negatively effect our Country in the long term perhaps permanently.

As a Combat Veteran I have seen this damage first hand and how it tears apart a Country! Self serving patriotism is putting a knife into the backs of your friends and neighbors. At some point maybe we will have enough actual patriots again that believe in Country before self.

As far as representatives pushing back against the Hearing Protection Act it’s all lumped in with this One unbelievable bill that adds greatly to our National Debt while giving tax breaks to the richest. It should be pushed back on because of this bill. The Hearing Protection Act should be a stand alone bill and not lumped in with needless and costly pork!

Fingers crossed we will get gun legislation that makes sense and tax relief for the middle class! Musk and Bezos pay less in taxes than we do. If States can regulate Women’s Health then they can also handle their own gun laws. Let’s play fair like we used to and reap what we sow!
Click to expand...
It can't be a stand-alone bill if you want it to pass. It has to be part of the reconciliation bill or it would be blocked in the Senate.
 
m444ss said:
Off topic, but since you've posted incorrect information: "this One unbelievable bill ... giving tax breaks to the richest." It will reduces taxes for those making $30k to $80k per year by 15% on average.
Click to expand...
Incorrect
m444ss said:
It can't be a stand-alone bill if you want it to pass. It has to be part of the reconciliation bill or it would be blocked in the Senate.
Click to expand...
thats an opinion not a fact! It will be blocked on the Senate due to it being lumped in!
 
m444ss said:
just curious: if you don't support protecting this particular right, what are you doing here? and why do you think only one (perceived) right can be protected?
Click to expand...
When did I say I don’t support silencer ownership? Does everyone have to support your viewpoints only? Is that freedom sir?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top