Hearing Protection Act - effect of state law

[dhoobler]

With the election of Trump, there is a real possibility suppressors will be removed from the list of class three devices and would be treated by federal law as an ordinary firearm.

Lest we forget, Texas law prohibits silencers unless they have an NFA stamp:

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:
(A) an explosive weapon;
(B) a machine gun;
(C) a short-barrel firearm; or
(D) a firearm silencer;

It would be a tragedy if federal was reformed, but state law was not. We could find ourselves in a catch 22 situation where Texans can only own NFA silencers which are no longer available. We could be locked out of the silencer market until the state legislature acts.

I think that repeal of 46.05(a)(1)(D) should be a high priority for the 2017 session.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This is a good point.

Chas.

[AJSully421]

46.05 (A)(1) shall be repealed if any federal law, regulation, rule, order, or other directive which removes the requirement of registration with the NFA to possess an item in this section.

[Ruark]

46.05 (A)(1) shall be repealed if any federal law, regulation, rule, order, or other directive which removes the requirement of registration with the NFA to possess an item in this section.

1. You don't need the "which" in there.

2. It's a no-go, anyway. As it reads (assuming you mean (a)(1), not (A)(1), which doesn't exist), the entire section is repealed if any one item is removed. In regard to silencers (46.05 (a)(1)(D)), it should read:

46.05 (a)(1)(D) shall be repealed if any federal law, regulation, rule, order, or other directive removes the requirement of registration with the NFA for possession of a firearm silencer.

Personally, I'm also discomforted by the use of the word "silencer" here, although I'm probably grasping at straws. These devices aren't "silencers," not even close.

[ELB]

I always wondered why there was a Texas statute dealing with NFA items in the first place. Trump or not, that's a good place to start removing unnecessary gun laws from Texas books.

[TexasJohnBoy]

Call me super hopeful, but strike all of 46.05(a)(1).

[Pawpaw]

Personally, I'm also discomforted by the use of the word "silencer" here, although I'm probably grasping at straws. These devices aren't "silencers," not even close.

The original inventor, Hiram Percy Maxim, would disagree with you.

[The Wall]

It doesn't say anything about suppressors!

[Dave2]

Personally, I'm also discomforted by the use of the word "silencer" here, although I'm probably grasping at straws. These devices aren't "silencers," not even close.

The original inventor, Hiram Percy Maxim, would disagree with you.

Typical marketing exaggeration... They don't make anything silent, especially if you aren't shooting subsonic ammo.

[Ruark]

I think it goes without saying that the primary obstacle to getting this one passed will be the widespread, almost universal belief that guns with silencers just go "pfft, pfft, pfft." Because of that, I strongly suspect this bill will be DOA.

[ScottDLS]

I always wondered why there was a Texas statute dealing with NFA items in the first place. Trump or not, that's a good place to start removing unnecessary gun laws from Texas books.

It may date back to the Uniform Machine Gun Act which was a suggested law for states by the Feds around the time of the 1934 National Firearms Act.

[juno106]

My understanding is that at present, there are multiple versions of a potential Hearing Protection Act, each slightly different, which potentially could be passed and sent to the new President for his signature.

That being said, there is apparently at least one version floating around, which will effectively preempt (Texas) state law on this matter.

If this version is enacted, your worries are likely for naught.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... /3799/text

SEC. 4. Preemption of certain State laws in relation to firearm silencers.

Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “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.”.

Not saying repeal of 46.05(a)(1)(D) is a bad thing, but perhaps not a necessary thing.

With the election of Trump, there is a real possibility suppressors will be removed from the list of class three devices and would be treated by federal law as an ordinary firearm.

Lest we forget, Texas law prohibits silencers unless they have an NFA stamp:

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:
(A) an explosive weapon;
(B) a machine gun;
(C) a short-barrel firearm; or
(D) a firearm silencer;

It would be a tragedy if federal was reformed, but state law was not. We could find ourselves in a catch 22 situation where Texans can only own NFA silencers which are no longer available. We could be locked out of the silencer market until the state legislature acts.

I think that repeal of 46.05(a)(1)(D) should be a high priority for the 2017 session.

[RogueUSMC]

My understanding is that at present, there are multiple versions of a potential Hearing Protection Act, each slightly different, which potentially could be passed and sent to the new President for his signature.

That being said, there is apparently at least one version floating around, which will effectively preempt (Texas) state law on this matter.

If this version is enacted, your worries are likely for naught.

I wouldn't want to see federal preemption in this...leaves the door open for 'preemption' of other forms...

[nightmare69]

I never understood why suppressors were so regulated in the first place.