Yeah now the main effect is that it basically creates a price floor for silencers. Doesn't really make sense to have a silencer that costs less than 2-3x the price of the stamp. So if it went to $0, that price floor is gone even if there's still the annoyance/rights violation of the registration process.
To what extent does option #2 open the door for challenging the constitutionality of suppressors being registered on the NFA? If the tax is no longer a tax, does the scaffolding supporting the registry begin to collapse? I
am not a constitutional lawyer, so I expect there is an obvious to the experts reasons why this isn't being more widely discussed.
There would definitely be a court case about that. Obamacare had a similar legislative history and people tried to get it struck down on that same theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Texas) but SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing and didn't opine on the underlying question.
Option 2 is safest for those of us in states with "conditional bans", especially those of us in such states with anti-gun political environments. The tax is eliminated, but we still get ATF-stamped get out of jail free cards.
In my specific state (OR), the ORS 166.272 says the following:
166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers.
(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.
(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.
(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.
(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]
So, the basic law is "Silencers are illegal unless registered as required under federal law." The tricky part is what happens if silencers are no longer required to be registered under federal law. This can be read a couple of different ways, and some would say the "as required" bit is controlling, making silencers no longer illegal because registration isn't required. Another reading says that doesn't matter because the registration itself is the important part of the exceptions and no registration means no defense.
Based on the current political environment in Oregon, my bet is that interpretation by the AG and State Police will fall to "Illegal and no paperwork means jail" regardless of why there is no paperwork. If it becomes a popular topic of discussion, I fully expect the legislature, who has spent a good amount of time trying to pass gun restrictions, to eliminate the ambiguity. I doubt it will go well for us. My guess is we will be stuck with whatever cans we have at the time of enaction.
> my bet is that interpretation by the AG and State Police will fall to "Illegal and no paperwork means jail" regardless of why there is no paperwork. If it becomes a popular topic of discussion, I fully expect the legislature, who has spent a good amount of time trying to pass gun restrictions, to eliminate the ambiguity. I doubt it will go well for us. My guess is we will be stuck with whatever cans we have at the time of enaction.
What an ironic (and unfortunately plausible) outcome of federal deregulation that would be.
$200 used to be a significant amount of money, especially in 1934.
Today it's one dinner out for 5 at Chili's.
Yeah now the main effect is that it basically creates a price floor for silencers. Doesn't really make sense to have a silencer that costs less than 2-3x the price of the stamp. So if it went to $0, that price floor is gone even if there's still the annoyance/rights violation of the registration process.
Not to the point of non-servicable $40 aluminum hunting cans yet, but a big barrier to oil filter adapters is out of the way.
At least it would be if the bill had any hope of getting through the senate intact, which it surely won't.
Oh, you posted about our 320 vid!
We are still working on research into how the 320 internals have been updated, and should have new videos coming out soon.
Nice! Excited to watch it. This is seriously industry-changing work that you're doing. We need to keep raising the bar.
To what extent does option #2 open the door for challenging the constitutionality of suppressors being registered on the NFA? If the tax is no longer a tax, does the scaffolding supporting the registry begin to collapse? I
am not a constitutional lawyer, so I expect there is an obvious to the experts reasons why this isn't being more widely discussed.
There would definitely be a court case about that. Obamacare had a similar legislative history and people tried to get it struck down on that same theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Texas) but SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing and didn't opine on the underlying question.
Option 2 is safest for those of us in states with "conditional bans", especially those of us in such states with anti-gun political environments. The tax is eliminated, but we still get ATF-stamped get out of jail free cards.
Could you elaborate? Is it that some states have a law that says something like "NFA items are banned unless they stay in the NFA"?
In my specific state (OR), the ORS 166.272 says the following:
166.272 Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers.
(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer.
(2) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is a Class B felony.
(3) A peace officer may not arrest or charge a person for violating subsection (1) of this section if the person has in the person’s immediate possession documentation showing that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer is registered as required under federal law.
(4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) of this section that the machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer was registered as required under federal law. [1989 c.839 §13a; 1997 c.749 §8; 1997 c.798 §1]
So, the basic law is "Silencers are illegal unless registered as required under federal law." The tricky part is what happens if silencers are no longer required to be registered under federal law. This can be read a couple of different ways, and some would say the "as required" bit is controlling, making silencers no longer illegal because registration isn't required. Another reading says that doesn't matter because the registration itself is the important part of the exceptions and no registration means no defense.
Based on the current political environment in Oregon, my bet is that interpretation by the AG and State Police will fall to "Illegal and no paperwork means jail" regardless of why there is no paperwork. If it becomes a popular topic of discussion, I fully expect the legislature, who has spent a good amount of time trying to pass gun restrictions, to eliminate the ambiguity. I doubt it will go well for us. My guess is we will be stuck with whatever cans we have at the time of enaction.
> my bet is that interpretation by the AG and State Police will fall to "Illegal and no paperwork means jail" regardless of why there is no paperwork. If it becomes a popular topic of discussion, I fully expect the legislature, who has spent a good amount of time trying to pass gun restrictions, to eliminate the ambiguity. I doubt it will go well for us. My guess is we will be stuck with whatever cans we have at the time of enaction.
What an ironic (and unfortunately plausible) outcome of federal deregulation that would be.
In Oregon, suppressors must be registered with the federal government.
Thanks