6 buzillion dollars for Israel and Ukraine.
So tell me where the can & short act are now
- Thread starter Gunfighter14e2
- Start date
@Gunfighter14e2 - you asked a simple question and I'm actually not sure that between our standard descent into name calling and belittling, that you got an answer.
Wrt to the Hearing Protection Act portion that is in the Senate bill (and remember, we haven't have reconcilliation between House and Senate versions yet).
Below may be of interest to see the diff between requirements of GCA of '68 and NFA of '38.
Formatting didn't come over so may be far better to read at:
GCA Regulation of Firearms and Silencers
The GCA includes the principal federal restrictions on domestic commerce in firearms, including firearm silencers. The
statute:
requires all persons manufacturing, importing, or selling firearms as a business to be federally licensed;
prohibits interstate firearms transfers between unlicensed persons;
prohibits interstate sale of handguns generally;
sets forth categories of persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms and to whom firearms may not
be transferred;
authorizes the Attorney General to prohibit the importation of non-sporting firearms;
requires that dealers maintain records of all commercial gun sales; and
imposes heightened penalties for firearm use in a federal drug trafficking offense or violent crime.
Any unlicensed person seeking to acquire any firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) must undergo a name-
based background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS). An FFL may
proceed with the firearms transfer at his discretion if those checks are not completed within three business days.
The GCA generally prohibits the importation of NFA firearms, including silencers.
NFA Regulation of Silencers
The NFA regulates silencers, machineguns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, destructive devices (e.g., grenades), and
certain concealable firearms under the term "any other weapon" (e.g., pen, cane, and belt buckle guns). As part of the
Internal Revenue Code, the NFA taxes all aspects of the manufacture and distribution of such weapons and compels the
disclosure of the production and distribution system from manufacturer to buyer. To deal in NFA firearms, an individual
is required to be an FFL under the GCA and a special occupational taxpayer (SOT) under the NFA. The NFA imposes a
$200 making tax on unlicensed persons and a $200 transfer tax for transfers to unlicensed persons. ATF places a tax
stamp on a transfer document upon the transfer's approval, and the transferee may not take possession of the firearm
until he holds that document. Under the NFA, individuals must undergo a fingerprint-based criminal history background
check, which is arguably more thorough than a name-based check. There is no deadline for the completion of such
checks. It is a felony to receive, possess, or transfer an unregistered NFA weapon. Such offenses are punishable by up to
10 years imprisonment. In April 2017, there were 1,360,023 silencers registered to FFL/SOTs, law enforcement, and
unlicensed individuals in the ATF-maintained National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR).
HPA Provisions
By removing silencers from coverage under the NFA, H.R. 3668 would regulate them entirely under the GCA in a
manner parallel to long guns. It would preempt any state or local government from imposing a "tax, other than a
generally applicable sales or use tax, on making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearms silencer," as
well as any marking or recordkeeping requirements. It would also require ATF to destroy all records on silencers in its
NFRTR.
The bill would redefine the terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" as follows:
(A) The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the
report of a portable firearm, including the "keystone part" of such a device.
(B) The term "keystone part" means, with respect to a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, an externally visible part of a
firearm silencer or firearm muffler, without which a device capable of silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a
portable firearm cannot be assembled, but the term does not include any interchangeable parts designed to mount a
firearm silencer or firearm muffler to a portable firearm.
H.R. 3668 would require that FFL manufacturers and importers identify silencers by a serial number. It would levy a
10% excise tax on the making or importing of silencers.
State Laws on Silencers
Eight states and the District of Columbia ban silencers for civilian ownership. Those states are California, Delaware,
Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. H.R. 3668's preemption provision would not
cover those state prohibitions. In 42 states, state law does not prohibit ownership of firearm silencers, and an unlicensed
individual may acquire a firearm silencer under federal law. In 40 of those 42 states, it is legal to hunt with firearms
equipped with such silencers, according to the American Suppressor Association.
Wrt to the Hearing Protection Act portion that is in the Senate bill (and remember, we haven't have reconcilliation between House and Senate versions yet).
- Tucked within it is Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, which achieves a singular goal: removing suppressors from the NFA's purview. This provision: Eliminates the $200 Tax Stamp: The financial barrier, unchanged since 1934, is gone, making suppressors more affordable (typically $300-$1,000 each).
Below may be of interest to see the diff between requirements of GCA of '68 and NFA of '38.
Formatting didn't come over so may be far better to read at:
GCA Regulation of Firearms and Silencers
The GCA includes the principal federal restrictions on domestic commerce in firearms, including firearm silencers. The
statute:
requires all persons manufacturing, importing, or selling firearms as a business to be federally licensed;
prohibits interstate firearms transfers between unlicensed persons;
prohibits interstate sale of handguns generally;
sets forth categories of persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms and to whom firearms may not
be transferred;
authorizes the Attorney General to prohibit the importation of non-sporting firearms;
requires that dealers maintain records of all commercial gun sales; and
imposes heightened penalties for firearm use in a federal drug trafficking offense or violent crime.
Any unlicensed person seeking to acquire any firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) must undergo a name-
based background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS). An FFL may
proceed with the firearms transfer at his discretion if those checks are not completed within three business days.
The GCA generally prohibits the importation of NFA firearms, including silencers.
NFA Regulation of Silencers
The NFA regulates silencers, machineguns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, destructive devices (e.g., grenades), and
certain concealable firearms under the term "any other weapon" (e.g., pen, cane, and belt buckle guns). As part of the
Internal Revenue Code, the NFA taxes all aspects of the manufacture and distribution of such weapons and compels the
disclosure of the production and distribution system from manufacturer to buyer. To deal in NFA firearms, an individual
is required to be an FFL under the GCA and a special occupational taxpayer (SOT) under the NFA. The NFA imposes a
$200 making tax on unlicensed persons and a $200 transfer tax for transfers to unlicensed persons. ATF places a tax
stamp on a transfer document upon the transfer's approval, and the transferee may not take possession of the firearm
until he holds that document. Under the NFA, individuals must undergo a fingerprint-based criminal history background
check, which is arguably more thorough than a name-based check. There is no deadline for the completion of such
checks. It is a felony to receive, possess, or transfer an unregistered NFA weapon. Such offenses are punishable by up to
10 years imprisonment. In April 2017, there were 1,360,023 silencers registered to FFL/SOTs, law enforcement, and
unlicensed individuals in the ATF-maintained National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR).
HPA Provisions
By removing silencers from coverage under the NFA, H.R. 3668 would regulate them entirely under the GCA in a
manner parallel to long guns. It would preempt any state or local government from imposing a "tax, other than a
generally applicable sales or use tax, on making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearms silencer," as
well as any marking or recordkeeping requirements. It would also require ATF to destroy all records on silencers in its
NFRTR.
The bill would redefine the terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" as follows:
(A) The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the
report of a portable firearm, including the "keystone part" of such a device.
(B) The term "keystone part" means, with respect to a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, an externally visible part of a
firearm silencer or firearm muffler, without which a device capable of silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a
portable firearm cannot be assembled, but the term does not include any interchangeable parts designed to mount a
firearm silencer or firearm muffler to a portable firearm.
H.R. 3668 would require that FFL manufacturers and importers identify silencers by a serial number. It would levy a
10% excise tax on the making or importing of silencers.
State Laws on Silencers
Eight states and the District of Columbia ban silencers for civilian ownership. Those states are California, Delaware,
Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. H.R. 3668's preemption provision would not
cover those state prohibitions. In 42 states, state law does not prohibit ownership of firearm silencers, and an unlicensed
individual may acquire a firearm silencer under federal law. In 40 of those 42 states, it is legal to hunt with firearms
equipped with such silencers, according to the American Suppressor Association.
Last edited:
The answer is a resounding yes. If you looked the way he did, you would be mad all the time too. #cavetroll
- Nov 3, 2010
- 10,871
- 24,261
Do I really need to tell you to knock your shit off?
I was/am pretty skeptical this was going to pass myself. But as time goes by, I'm beginning to believe they're going to let us have it. Probably just to placate us so nobody really looks at what's in the BBB.
The surveillance state AI stuff bothers me. They're giving the AI development stuff free reign for 10 years and no state can question it.
The fact that it can’t be questioned should be the biggest red flag. Having the pro-2A stuff get passed won’t mean very much after 10 years of unmitigated surveillance state fuckabout
I am afraid that it will pass.
I have heard that there are democrat governors who have said that the only reason that they allow silencers is because it is federal jurisdiction.
From what I heard they have all ready stated that when they are no longer governed by the ATF that they are going to make them illegal in their state. I do not remember where I heard it though.
I have heard that there are democrat governors who have said that the only reason that they allow silencers is because it is federal jurisdiction.
From what I heard they have all ready stated that when they are no longer governed by the ATF that they are going to make them illegal in their state. I do not remember where I heard it though.
And, speaking of "red flags," the largest "elephant in the room" AFAIC, that we are all ignoring, are ERPOs. We could have the most perfect pro-2A society possible... carry whatever we want, wherever we want, however we want in all 50 states.... buy whatever gear we want (cans, FRTs, etc.), even Full auto. We could have it all! But none of that makes a goddam bit of difference if LE can just waltz into your house, unannounced, whenever they want, throw down an ERPO, and then confiscate every last item of your inventory, leaving you high and dry with nothing... and no hope of getting it back! You can kiss it goodbye! Even if one is completely cleared/acquitted upon the ERPO hearing (i.e. never was a danger to themselves or others), do you really think LE, having just confiscated all that inventory is going to hand it back so easily (i.e."OOPS, sorry... our bad... here ya go")???? NFW! They're going to hold onto them as long as they can... forever if possible. And LEAs are experts at obfuscating the process of getting one's property back.
Remember what ERPOs do for LE. They give them a tool to effect an underlying agenda item... "disarm the public and get weapons off the streets!" And the abuse comes when a LEA can go to a judge and say, "We need an ERPO on this subject... we think s/he's a danger to themself or others..." What does the judge know? THey don't! Do they seek verification of the LEA's petition, independently? Of course not! They commit the cardinal sin. They trust the LEA. Judge signs the order, and BOOM! Damage done.
It doesn't matter how many "pro-2A" accomplishments we get by legislation, until we fix the most critical one... eliminating ERPOs and the "red" laws that create them. And I don't see anyone moving in that direction. DeSantis says he wants to, but he's being blocked by the FL Legislature leadership... who I think is being blocked by people like "The Rodent,' the "FRF," the Florida Sheriffs Assoc., all the RENO RINOs in South Fl, all of that. I hope Texas gets it done. Hopefully that might fuel the fire in FL. Until then, we have to start thinking about some kind of litigation, not legislation. Maybe they can do the "Federal Funds" trick where they stop funding states that still maintain ERPO laws. But until then, none of the pro2A stuff we can acomplish will mean much.
Last edited:
Yeah it'll be a pretty moot point. Probably why they're giving it up.
Because he is a fed who is only here to sow chaos
So, I've head so so much doom and gloom about these assorted orders where LE can just come in and take all your shit. Even when I was a cop in CA, with our multiple types of assorted orders we could get (domestic violence, psychiatric issues, and "gun violence" [red flag] restraining order), on a rather conservative city where I can guarantee you thousands upon thousands or residents had firearms... I personally took someone's firearms 2 times in 10 years for either suicidal behavior or domestic violence. It's much more rare than you would think. Other officers at my agency roughly the same number depending on the circumstances. That's just my personal experience.
Opinion 1: Could the system be abused? Yes. Do I agree with the system? Not entirely. There are many people who should not have firearms. A quick scan through any leftist Facebook page with all the mental health cases on there shows I'm correct.
Opinion 2: Conversely I also believe we should legalize absolutely everything and let Darwin sort everything out.
Happy Wednesday. Christ is King.
I am hearing that there may be some public land provisions that we may not like that have been also added to the bill.
Two pages of someone proving that he's an honest to God self absorbed loser. I figured after Felipe it was going to take a while for someone to step up. I was wrong.
One of the sites that vet all before allowing in, has a interesting tab were you can exclude user names from posting in any or all threads you start. At the start of each new year if XYZ user has been excluded so many times by X number of members (don't know the number) they vanish.
ERPOs are different. They are "ex-parte." The defense doesn't even know about the petition/order until it's too late, let alone be present at court to argue against the petition/order (6th amendment violation), before the "sanction/punishment" is administered. ERPOs were designed to circumvent all those constitutional protections offered to citizens (ie. via FL "Baker Act," or CA "Sec. 5150" etc.). This, in order to expedite the confiscation of those weapons and for that reason... it was way too difficult/bureaucratic to get them out of the subject's hands via those traditional procedures. I get that. But the very design of the ERPO also makes it so much easier for LE to affect that "underlying agenda."
And while I certainly applaud you and your former agency for not having that "cultural mindset" (i.e. "only cops should have guns"), there are a significant number of LEAs/LEOs/CLEOs that *do* have it. And they use ERPOs to accomplish that objective. They did it all the time in my former state of the PRNJ, where that "cultural mindset" is omnipresent. (Yeah, I know... I know... I'm still thinking PRNJ)! But it doesn't erase the fact that it did happen, and probably still does.
Agreed, believe it or not. But, most of the time, it's usually in response to committing a crime and after a trial and adjudication by a judge. I'm perfectly OK with that. The justice system works! The big problem is, what do you do to "prevent" potential violent cirme if possible, without denying/abridging someone's civil/constitutional rights? Towards that goal, I offer the following.
The big problem with ERPOs is that LE is doing the seizing/storage. If there were other "alternative" storage options (where LE doesn't have custody/control), it would help solve the problem. For example, in PA, there is this company called "Gunsittters.com" They offer temporary storage of firearms/ammo for whatever reason. Mostly, it is used by Military people going "on deployment" for a while, where they don't want the weapons in the house while away. Others can voluntarily store their weapons there while there's a domestic violence situaion going on in the hosuehold. IF we had the option of using facilities like that, and where LE would not have custody/control of the weapons, that would solve the problem. I would even offer the ability for the court granting the order to slap a lock on that locker in the facility (along with the owner's lock). Both locks are there and neither party has has access to the property until the matter is fully adjudicated. Once done, the side that does not prevail has to take their lock off first. This may require some legilative changes as well (most storage places prohibit the storage of firearms/ammo. Not sure if that's a legal issue or an "insurance" issue).
Yeah, not so sure about that.
Similar threads
