Last minute suppressor vote

[Gila]

Well it passed through the house…Congrats everyone….you got involved…called your representatives and got ‘er done! From Rep Clyde:

“One of my key priorities throughout this process has been restoring our constitutional 2A rights, which have been subjected to unconstitutional infringements for the last 90 years under the draconian NFA. The original bill text only removed the $200 transfer tax for suppressors. Now, the bill eliminates both the transfer and making tax for suppressors, as well as the registration. This is a massive 2A victory — one that takes important steps toward restoring our constitutional freedoms.

Unfortunately, the bill does not eliminate the taxation and registration of SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. Yet we CANNOT give up. Next, this legislation will move to the Senate, providing opportunities for additional positive changes. I’ll be working closely with Senate Republicans to add this provision, and I encourage folks to stay engaged on this matter as the budget reconciliation process moves forward.”

 

[Gila]

For those of you more in the know than I, how do the chances in the Senate look?

Very good. The Democrats have bigger fish to fry than to try and modify the 2A bill amendments. They would have a tough time arguing against hearing safety if they did.

 

[HighUintas]

This is great. So, it just needs to pass the Senate and then I should be able to sell my scythe on the 2nd hand market pretty easily, right?

Does anyone know when this might go into effect if it passes?

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

If it passes this would probably allow AB to start selling reflex and end caps separately again I expect? If was the ATF after all who said they could only be sold with a suppressor despite them not being serialized.

 

[Marshfly]

I would expect to see a ton of lower priced options appear on the market fairly quickly without the ATF red tape. As should happen.

 

[wyosam]

If it goes all the way through we not get to watch how the anti-gun legislators in CO address the issue (or don't) that possession (not just purchase) of a suppressor in the state requires a tax stamp currently. Its a felony to be in possession of a suppressor in the state without proof the ATF approved you to have one (ie the tax stamp is the proof), that would presumably apply to non-residents hunting here too.

Easily solvable if there was good will from the legislators but they haven't been operating in good faith here for numerous years.

Don't forget your weapons have to be in a locked hard case in your locked vehicle here now too if left unattended.

I could see this spurring more state level limitations on cans, unfortunately. Better for a lot of people but maybe not universally better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gila]

This is great. So, it just needs to pass the Senate and then I should be able to sell my scythe on the 2nd hand market pretty easily, right?

Does anyone know when this might go into effect if it passes?

Presidents signature which would be immediate I would think. I haven’t actually seen the exact verbiage in the House bill though. I doubt that the provision would change in the Senate Bill but it could.

 

[5811]

If this passes, can people sell cans private party to private party?

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I could see this spurring more state level limitations on cans, unfortunately. Better for a lot of people but maybe not universally better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends on the wording, I saw something saying the original act had a provision the states could not require additional permits or tax stamp. TBD I guess.

 

[Gila]

If this passes, can people sell cans private party to private party?

I would think so since Silencers would not be regulated for transfer, that is if the Senate passes the Bill with no changes to that provision.

 

[180ls1]

Does anyone have thoughts what this means for CA guys?

 

[Schmo]

Depends on the wording, I saw something saying the original act had a provision the states could not require additional permits or tax stamp. TBD I guess.

I sure hope it’s this way. I am for states’ rights and all, but as Americans we all have the 2A, and no state is free to infringe on that, although some do.

 

[Lawnboi]

If it goes all the way through we not get to watch how the anti-gun legislators in CO address the issue (or don't) that possession (not just purchase) of a suppressor in the state requires a tax stamp currently. Its a felony to be in possession of a suppressor in the state without proof the ATF approved you to have one (ie the tax stamp is the proof), that would presumably apply to non-residents hunting here too.

Easily solvable if there was good will from the legislators but they haven't been operating in good faith here for numerous years.

Don't forget your weapons have to be in a locked hard case in your locked vehicle here now too if left unattended.

Unfortunate there are not consequences for violating constitutional rights. Until we are there states will keep playing games.

 

[Schmo]

Unfortunate there are not consequences for violating constitutional rights. Until we are there states will keep playing games.

Glad I live and hunt in free states. No nonsense.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Does anyone have thoughts what this means for CA guys?

That even more of them will move to another state

 

[Lawnboi]

Glad I live and hunt in free states. No nonsense.

True, but Americans shouldn’t have to worry that one crap election could making you a felon.

 

[Schmo]

True, but Americans shouldn’t have to worry that one crap election could making you a felon.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. I was just speaking that I’m lucky that I don’t currently have to deal with states that are anti 2A

 

[Norcal18]

Does anyone have thoughts what this means for CA guys?

Wondering the same. I get people like to rag on CA but what does it mean for us?

 

[TaperPin]

I hope this sticks - it’s stupid to require all the red tape to own a can and I’m not even a can guy. A smoking hot large bore air rifle that will clobber a deer uses a can that is legal to buy online by a 16 year old, and that’s how all cans should be. As much as they aren’t for me, I would start getting them for the kids in the family.

 

[ChrisAU]

I would expect to see a ton of lower priced options appear on the market fairly quickly without the ATF red tape. As should happen.

Fairly quickly yes, but I also bet current inventories get sucked out super fast. Could be a suppressor desert in the market for a few months.