lefteye said:
I think you're looking for Carolyn McCarthy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
HR 367: To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns
- Thread starter DMK
- Start date
I think you're looking for Carolyn McCarthy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
dakota.potts
New member
Being treated as long guns, in most states they could also be sold via a private party transfer or made at home for anybody savvy with a lathe.
I tend to agree that they should be sold just like muzzle brakes, but the 4473 process is not all that troublesome and may actually save us should some trouble occur. For example, if sold openly I do believe gang members and other notorious violent criminals will probably beginning using them on each other and there will probably be a media outcry about that. Keeping them transferred through a 4473 and background check allows us a defense that they are being sold with due diligence. If no such problems happen, the transaction records of the 4473 will give us a pretty cogent argument about how many are sold versus how many actually are used in crime and may be used later as an argument to deregulate them altogether.
I tend to agree that they should be sold just like muzzle brakes, but the 4473 process is not all that troublesome and may actually save us should some trouble occur. For example, if sold openly I do believe gang members and other notorious violent criminals will probably beginning using them on each other and there will probably be a media outcry about that. Keeping them transferred through a 4473 and background check allows us a defense that they are being sold with due diligence. If no such problems happen, the transaction records of the 4473 will give us a pretty cogent argument about how many are sold versus how many actually are used in crime and may be used later as an argument to deregulate them altogether.
dakota.potts
New member
I am wondering about the registry also. It's my understanding that it's illegal for the Federal government to maintain a registry of any firearms not explicitly put under their control (National Firearms Act). That makes me think that when their legal status changes to "long gun" it would become illegal to maintain the registry. Does the bill say anything about that?
This is a "yes" and a "no" thing. There are lists, and then there are lists...
And, while there are laws that prohibit the govt from keeping certain lists, the govt does not always follow its own rules. Certain agencies have been taken to court over this.
Also there are people in govt who are expert in interpreting laws, rules, and regulations. They can be very ...creative.. sometimes.
The Govt has a list of guns registered when they are made/imported. They keep that, of course, I believe a law requires it.
Govt gets a list of everyone who buys a gun and goes through the instant check over the phone. That information is something that by law, they are not allowed to keep, over a certain time limit. But they have been caught, doing so.
The ones that get caught are the clumsy, stupid ones. The smart ones obey the letter of the law, but arrange things so they get what they want, anyway.
For example, if there is a law saying the GOVT cannot keep a list that contains A, B, and C, then they don't. One dept gets a list that has A and C, another dept gets one that has B and C, another one gets A and B etc. Since there is no single list that has A, B, and C, then they are obeying the law.
Regarding the silencer registry, why would you think that list would go away if the status of silencers changes? as we have argued, they are not firearms, so a law stating the GOVT cannot keep firearms records does not apply to them.
See if they don't try to have it both ways, until/unless a court specifically orders them not to.
carguychris
New member
Does anyone know whether the bill will undo or modify the 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for silencer use in a "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime" pursuant to 18 USC § 924(c)?
As I write this, the congress.gov webpage still says that "As of 01/17/2017 text has not been received for H.R.367..."
As I write this, the congress.gov webpage still says that "As of 01/17/2017 text has not been received for H.R.367..."
carguychris
New member
Technically, under the 68 GCA, only FFL manufacturers and importers are required to place serial numbers on firearms [27 CFR § 478.92(a)]. Unlicensed individuals building legal long guns often choose to do so for CYA reasons, but there's no cut-and-dried legal mandate.kraigwy said:
That said, IMHO the question certainly deserves to be addressed, along with the criminal punishment question I raised. The web of extra regulations and criminal penalties surrounding NFA firearms is not necessarily easy to untangle. One does wonder how oil-filter-adapter silencers would be treated.
The next question is how to address the myriad state laws that only allow possession of silencers contingent upon NFA registration, as the registry would presumably be eliminated upon enactment of the new federal law, including for existing silencers. Logic would dictate that state AGs would declare such laws to be unenforceable, but logic does not always dictate decisions in anti-gun states.
Last edited:
kilimanjaro
New member
The media is already claiming suppressors to be silencers, and only terrorists and murderers use them.
For the record, it costs the taxpayers about $150 to process a refund or payment of any amount. Kiss it goodbye, sez me.
For the record, it costs the taxpayers about $150 to process a refund or payment of any amount. Kiss it goodbye, sez me.
Last edited:
Technosavant
New member
I could see a cut off date for refunds, but I think it more likely the refunds would be junked.
Personally, I'd happily write off the three tax stamps I have for non-NFA status for suppressors. I do understand that some stamp collectors are interested in NFA stamps. It might be possible to recoup some of those funds by selling the stamp (I understand with the full paperwork it would be worth more to a collector, but I would be VERY leery of letting the form 4 hit the open market with the stamp). It wouldn't recover the full cost of the stamp, but in time it might increase in value.
FYI: S.59 (with the same name as HR 367)has also been introduced to the senate:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/59/all-info
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/59/all-info
MagnumWill
New member
Thanks DMK. Any idea when they may hear either of them?
carguychris
New member
Text for H.R. 367 posted!
Text of H.R. 367 been posted on Congress.gov and can be downloaded in PDF form HERE.
The bill is actually very brief. Highlights:
The bill does NOT explicitly address manufacturing. However, since a silencer is considered to be a firearm under 27 CFR § 478.11 and the bill does not address this, I presume that the manufacturing provisions in 27 CFR § 478.92—which requires FFLs to apply serial numbers—will continue to apply.
The bill does NOT explicitly address the fate of the existing registry nor the 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for a "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime" using a silencer. My assumption is that the registry would continue to exist and the mandatory minimum would remain in force, although the registry will presumably become a historical artifact in short order.
Text of H.R. 367 been posted on Congress.gov and can be downloaded in PDF form HERE.
The bill is actually very brief. Highlights:
- The term "silencer" would be stricken from the NFA definition of "firearm" in the Internal Revenue Code.
- From the bill: "In the case of the tax imposed by section 5811 of such Code, the amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to transfers after October 22, 2015." I'm not sure why this date was chosen or exactly what this provision would do; it doesn't appear to be a refund, so perhaps it means that tax payments made after 10/22/15 would not be processed. Can anyone enlighten me?
- Rather than totally removing all references to silencers in the Internal Revenue Code, the bill simply states that "...A person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act..." 18 USC Chapter 44 governs regular, non-NFA transfers; therefore, as I read it, this provision says that a regular transfer is considered to satisfy the NFA.
- The bill would broadly preempt any state regulation of silencers!
The bill does NOT explicitly address manufacturing. However, since a silencer is considered to be a firearm under 27 CFR § 478.11 and the bill does not address this, I presume that the manufacturing provisions in 27 CFR § 478.92—which requires FFLs to apply serial numbers—will continue to apply.
The bill does NOT explicitly address the fate of the existing registry nor the 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for a "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime" using a silencer. My assumption is that the registry would continue to exist and the mandatory minimum would remain in force, although the registry will presumably become a historical artifact in short order.
There was an awful lot of illegal poaching going on in federal/private property during the Great Depression. True be known, there was enough desperation to bankrupt ranchers & ruin game populations, but always felt it unseemly that a law was passed to ensure starving migrants would continue to suffer & die of malnourishment away from the cities (at a time when the government was destroying small-time cattle and farm produce to prop up prices for wealthy donors in that business)
Aguila Blanca
Staff
So other than the tax, a "silencer" would still be regarded as a "firearm," and would still have to be purchased or transferred through an FFL? It's an improvement, but not much of one. Suppressors should be unregulated. They are hearing protection, nothing more. I should be able to walk into Wal-Mart and find them on a pegboard display next to the earmuffs and ear plugs.carguychris said:
carguychris
New member
For a FFL-made commercially-purchased silencer, yes, it would.Aguila Blanca said:
However, 18 USC Chapter 44 does NOT prohibit an unlicensed individual from making firearms for personal use; it only prohibits an unlicensed individual from conducting business in the manufacture of firearms. Hence, unless the NFA would still apply to silencers in some way—and I don't think it would—I don't believe that an unlicensed individual would be prohibited from making a silencer.
Additionally, 18 USC Chapter 44 does NOT prohibit intrastate FTF transfers between unlicensed individuals, so I presume that an FFL-made silencer could lawfully change hands on the secondary market without an FFL transfer.
Agreed.Aguila Blanca said:
However, the bill does include this little gimme:
Unless I'm missing something, this provision would effectively exempt silencers on the secondary market from state-imposed UBCs, as they would impose a record-keeping requirement.
carguychris said:
Hope you don't mind another question, carguychris! I just read the text at your link a few times, and I can't understand how it broadly preempts any state regulation of silencers.
Hoping you can explain it to me. I see where it would preempt registrations and taxes ("a tax on any such conduct, or a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement") at the state level, but nothing else.
If a state has a law which is a general ban on the ownership / possession of silencers, this bill doesn't appear to preempt such a law, does it? Thanks again!