HR 367: To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns

[carguychris]

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..."

[kraigwy]

Under current law, it is legal for one to build a firearm for his/her own use.

Can I assume suppressors will be treated the same?

Since the 68 GCA required serial numbers be place on all firearms made, will the same apply to suppressors?

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by kraigwy

Under current law, it is legal for one to build a firearm for his/her own use... Since the 68 GCA required serial numbers be place on all firearms made, will the same apply to suppressors?

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.

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.

[dajowi]

Like "Black Talon" ammunition I'm waiting for the boneheaded media to announce that silencers increase the lethality of firearms.

[kilimanjaro]

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.

[Technosavant]

For the record, it costs the taxpayers about $150 to process a refund or payment of any amount. Kiss it goodbye, sez me.

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.

[Gunnut17]

If this passes, my tinnitus symptoms from someone forgetting to call for me and others to put on our hearing pro. before firing their 9mm CZ-75 in 2013 without warning will not feel like a struggle for nothing.

[DMK]

FYI: S.59 (with the same name as HR 367)has also been introduced to the senate:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ll/59/all-info

[MagnumWill]

Thanks DMK. Any idea when they may hear either of them?

[DMK]

Unknown at this point. Keep an eye on those links to Congress.gov for the progress of the bills.

[carguychris]

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:

1. The term "silencer" would be stricken from the NFA definition of "firearm" in the Internal Revenue Code.
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. The bill would broadly preempt any state regulation of silencers!

I don't think there will be any refunds unless this is encompassed in #2 above, which I don't really understand.

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.

[barnbwt]

The 'why' is all about the gang wars of Chicago during the alcohol prohibition years

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]

Originally Posted by carguychris

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!

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]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

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?

For a FFL-made commercially-purchased silencer, yes, it would.

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.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It's an improvement, but not much of one.

Agreed.

However, the bill does include this little gimme:

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that, as a condition of lawfully making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, imposes a tax on any such conduct, or a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement with respect to the firearm silencer, shall have no force or effect.

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.

[vicGT]

Originally Posted by carguychris

4. The bill would broadly preempt any state regulation of silencers!

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!

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by vicGT

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?

I believe you are correct; as I read it, the bill does not preempt a state from enacting an outright ban.

FWIW it also doesn't explicitly preempt a state from requiring a license to carry a silencer, depending on how one interprets the words "possessing" and "transporting," and/or whether the license fee could be considered to be a tax.

If the law passes, restrictive states are likely to pass both bans and licensing requirements, and there will likely be legal challenges which may not be worked out for some time.

The main thing is that this clause (a) appears to exempt suppressors from state-imposed UBCs, which would impose a record-keeping requirement above and beyond the minimum requirement in federal law; and (b) forestalls conflicts with state laws that make silencer possession legally conditional upon NFA registration which has ceased (as I discussed earlier).

[ARSG12]

If this bill went through to become law, I could see an enormous drop in the price of suppressors since they aren't all that expensive to produce, and are relatively simple to construct. It would no doubt become legal for people to publish articles and videos on how to construct your own. Once people learn how to build one for prices ranging from free to maybe $20, people would be less willing to pay $200 or more for one.

[johnwilliamson062]

It would no doubt become legal for people to publish articles and videos on how to construct your own.

I believe doing so is legal currently.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

I believe doing so is legal currently.

I believe you are correct. However, anyone who watches such videos has to worry about the BATFE raiding their home and confiscating their eyeballs ...

[DMK]

Contact your reps about these bills with the NRA's convenient form here:

https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1422


If that doesn't work for you, follow the "Write Your Reps tool" link at the bottom of this article:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...on-act-of-2017

[Armorer-at-Law]

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.

The law can also require a manufacturer or licensed seller to keep such lists, which are then subject to subpoena.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
Quote:
It would no doubt become legal for people to publish articles and videos on how to construct your own.
I believe doing so is legal currently.
I believe you are correct. However, anyone who watches such videos has to worry about the BATFE raiding their home and confiscating their eyeballs ...

Not really.

Originally Posted by ARSG12

If this bill went through to become law, I could see an enormous drop in the price of suppressors since they aren't all that expensive to produce, and are relatively simple to construct. * * * Once people learn how to build one for prices ranging from free to maybe $20, people would be less willing to pay $200 or more for one.

Yes, but there will still be a market for better quality suppressors, especially for higher pressure, centerfire calibers.

[ARSG12]

I believe doing so is legal currently.

Oh yeah, I've seen videos like that on Youtube, but I wasn't sure if those were there only for awhile and then taken down if someone said something about it. But on sites such as this forum or other gun forums, I've asked for tips on how to construct something simple in the past and was always told that posting instructions for illegal activities was forbidden. That's the sort of thing that would be a welcome change. Maybe a special section could even be set up for people to post their own construction projects for making your own suppressors (if the law allowing this to be done passes, of course). It would be a neat little project for hobbyists who like to do-it-yourself when possible.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by ARSG12

...on sites such as this forum or other gun forums, I've asked for tips on how to construct something simple in the past and was always told that posting instructions for illegal activities was forbidden.

Social media bans on "how-to" discussion of illegal activities aren't strictly contingent on the legality of the discussion itself.

Such bans have more to do with decorum, just like if you were to walk into a hotel lobby and loudly unleash a tirade of profanity, the management would have the right to throw you out. There are also liability issues to consider.

It's not necessarily a 1A issue because a private forum isn't bound by the 1A—only the government is.

[johnwilliamson062]

I've watched quite a few. Have a few books. Some prints.
I'm not all that worried about it.
There are multiple online communities dedicated to home gunsmithing and you can find the information on them. This site is very general, but information has been posted here in the past.

[carguychris]

Text of S.59 has been posted and can be downloaded in PDF form HERE.

I don't see any differences between this bill and H.R.367.