H.R.367 - HPA of 2017 Legalizing silencers, No Stamp required

[Alabama358]

This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) eliminate the $200 transfer tax on firearm silencers, and (2) treat any person who acquires or possesses a firearm silencer as meeting any registration or licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer. Any person who pays a transfer tax on a silencer after October 22, 2015, may receive a refund of such tax.
The bill amends the federal criminal code to preempt state or local laws that tax or regulate firearm silencers.

Is this for real???

Could we be so lucky to see this thing pass? Now that the libtards are out of power it sure would be nice to see the pendulum swing in our direction for a few years. It has been so long… it is hard to get your hopes up.

358 Win. Cast boolit Subsonic loads with a can on the end would be like Christmas in the middle of the year.

[M-Tecs]

Its for real.

[mcdaniel.mac]

Yep. Contact your representatives, I'd love to turn my AR pistols into integral rifles.

[375RUGER]

It's real. Too bad the bill treats suppressors as firearm. Instead they should be treated like any other appendage, muzzle brake for example.

[Alabama358]

It's real. Too bad the bill treats suppressors as firearm. Instead they should be treated like any other appendage, muzzle brake for example.

True... but at least a move in the right dirrection

[Electric88]

Yep it's real. Hopefully it gains more ground than it has in years past.

Have one stamp I would get reimbursed for, and about to get a second. I wouldn't mind seeing a check (some day) to reimburse for 2 stamps. Even if they are treated as firearms instead of accessories, it's still better than what it is now.

[dragon813gt]

I expect the reimbursement provision to be removed. There is no reason for it. Sure, you want your money back. But at the time of purchase the $200 stamp was legally required. It's a good negotiating tactic to have it in there. Some things have to be sacrificed and I can see that being one of them.

Treating them as a firearm is plain dumb. If you have no gun a silencer is a poor excuse for a club. It's incapable of firing a bullet w/out a gun. This provision is a feel good one. I'd rather see them treated as the accessories they are. But compromising, I hate doing this w/ gun legislation, w/ a quick and cheap background check is "acceptable".

[Electric88]

I expect the reimbursement provision to be removed. There is no reason for it. Sure, you want your money back. But at the time of purchase the $200 stamp was legally required. It's a good negotiating tactic to have it in there. Some things have to be sacrificed and I can see that being one of them.

Treating them as a firearm is plain dumb. If you have no gun a silencer is a poor excuse for a club. It's incapable of firing a bullet w/out a gun. This provision is a feel good one. I'd rather see them treated as the accessories they are. But compromising, I hate doing this w/ gun legislation, w/ a quick and cheap background check is "acceptable".

And ultimately I would be ok even if the stamp reimbursement provision was removed, as long as the 9 month wait was eliminated. As for the silencer being nothing but a club without a firearm, I don't know why you would own one if you didn't have a gun for it.

Heck, a Hi-Point is little more than a club even with ammunition lol

[jimb16]

Heard a report on Fox news this morning that the BATFE was reviewing the proposal and didn't seem to have any particular objections to it at this time. Maybe, just maybe this thing could get off the ground.

[mcdaniel.mac]

I expect the reimbursement provision to be removed. There is no reason for it. Sure, you want your money back. But at the time of purchase the $200 stamp was legally required. It's a good negotiating tactic to have it in there. Some things have to be sacrificed and I can see that being one of them.

Treating them as a firearm is plain dumb. If you have no gun a silencer is a poor excuse for a club. It's incapable of firing a bullet w/out a gun. This provision is a feel good one. I'd rather see them treated as the accessories they are. But compromising, I hate doing this w/ gun legislation, w/ a quick and cheap background check is "acceptable".
I am 100% certain it would not pass without that provision, especially since integrally suppressed firearms are registered as silencers.

[dragon813gt]

I am 100% certain it would not pass without that provision, especially since integrally suppressed firearms are registered as silencers.

That doesn't mean removable silencers are firearms. Not all of them have to be treated the same. But it makes to much sense for the government to treat them that way. At the end of the day I'm not going to complain if they come off the NFA and I have to submit to a background check. Cost me $5 and about an extra minute of my time.

[Landshark9025]

Not only is it real, but the #2 guy at the ATF just published a white paper that goes even further:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/02/06/breaking-atf-white-paper-leaked/
Rumor has it many of the higher ups at ATF want the whole NFA gone so they can focus on bad guys.

[1988-4551]

Love it, whole heatedly hope this passes in full and hope they don't fumble this one just by focusing on silencer parts being considered whole silencers.

[TexasGrunt]

Love it, whole heatedly hope this passes in full and hope they don't fumble this one just by focusing on silencer parts being considered whole silencers.

Part of the white paper discusses that. They want a standard definition of what would be the serial numbered part. Could be an end cap or more likely the body.