User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 3:41:03 AM EDT
[#1]
Won't happen so no sense speculating.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 4:14:33 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Won't happen so no sense speculating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 10:21:35 AM EDT
[#3]
Connecticut will "crack down on silencers" and pass still more shitty laws and make more instant felons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 10:28:18 AM EDT
[#4]
This is a problem in PA. It would turn people currently with them into criminals overnight so three options would happen. 1) prev registered cans would have to be turned in. 2) prev registered cans would be exempt and a law would have to be passed for that. 3) last and best option would be a new law deregulating cans like the federal law has done. Obv the first scenario is the worst and last one the best.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 10:49:27 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a problem in PA. It would turn people currently with them into criminals overnight so three options would happen. 1) prev registered cans would have to be turned in. 2) prev registered cans would be exempt and a law would have to be passed for that. 3) last and best option would be a new law deregulating cans like the federal law has done. Obv the first scenario is the worst and last one the best. I think your concerns would only apply to prospective purchases IF and when the feds decide to deregulate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 11:28:35 AM EDT
[#6]
If, and it sounds like an insurmountable if, it passes, that's one thing I wouldn't worry about here in ID. My senator, Mike Crapo is one of the sponsors.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 1:12:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a problem in PA. It would turn people currently with them into criminals overnight so three options would happen. 1) prev registered cans would have to be turned in. 2) prev registered cans would be exempt and a law would have to be passed for that. 3) last and best option would be a new law deregulating cans like the federal law has done. Obv the first scenario is the worst and last one the best. I found where this would apply to machine guns, but not to where it would apply to suppressors. I can see how it could be made to apply to guns with integral cans, but I'm not seeing how it would apply to suppressors themselves. I guess you can read it to make a firearm illegal when you put the can on, but then legal when you take the can off, but I'd be happy to take my chances with that one. I'm looking under section 908 Prohibited offensive weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 1:55:48 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you link this law? I found where this would apply to machine guns, but not to where it would apply to suppressors. I can see how it could be made to apply to guns with integral cans, but I'm not seeing how it would apply to suppressors themselves. I guess you can read it to make a firearm illegal when you put the can on, but then legal when you take the can off, but I'd be happy to take my chances with that one. I'm looking under section 908 Prohibited offensive weapons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is a problem in PA. It would turn people currently with them into criminals overnight so three options would happen. 1) prev registered cans would have to be turned in. 2) prev registered cans would be exempt and a law would have to be passed for that. 3) last and best option would be a new law deregulating cans like the federal law has done. Obv the first scenario is the worst and last one the best. I found where this would apply to machine guns, but not to where it would apply to suppressors. I can see how it could be made to apply to guns with integral cans, but I'm not seeing how it would apply to suppressors themselves. I guess you can read it to make a firearm illegal when you put the can on, but then legal when you take the can off, but I'd be happy to take my chances with that one. I'm looking under section 908 Prohibited offensive weapons. or that, with the exception of a bomb, grenade or incendiary device, he complied with the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. §5801 et seq.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 2:38:02 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct, section 908 under the exceptions portion. , Suppressors don't meet the definition of firearm in this section and are not listed under the definitions for offensive weapons in this section. Heck, if they wanted to they could probably outlaw all small handguns with that section, so it comes down to interpretation. Lacking case law (if you can quote some I'd read it) , I can't tell you how it would be interpreted, but I still think cans would likely be ok if the HPA passed. HPA will still never pass though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 3:40:44 PM EDT
[#10]
Texas has already passed laws to make it legal to own when the HPA does pass in what ever form that may be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 4:04:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So where does it mention suppressors at all? The closest thing is "firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge" Suppressors don't meet the definition of firearm in this section and are not listed under the definitions for offensive weapons in this section. Heck, if they wanted to they could probably outlaw all small handguns with that section, so it comes down to interpretation. Lacking case law (if you can quote some I'd read it) , I can't tell you how it would be interpreted, but I still think cans would likely be ok if the HPA passed. HPA will still never pass though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Correct, section 908 under the exceptions portion. , Suppressors don't meet the definition of firearm in this section and are not listed under the definitions for offensive weapons in this section. Heck, if they wanted to they could probably outlaw all small handguns with that section, so it comes down to interpretation. Lacking case law (if you can quote some I'd read it) , I can't tell you how it would be interpreted, but I still think cans would likely be ok if the HPA passed. HPA will still never pass though. Offensive weapons" Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2017 6:24:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True PA doesn't recognize cans as firearms but like you said, it could be interpreted if the HPA passed due to the silent discharge stipulation in 908 I would think as an "offensive weapon". Not the best situation to be in for sure, but not the worst either. If that were the case, I would most likely continue to use all my cans. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
