Does the (possible) NFA correction even matter

[1sigfan]

If we can’t have threaded barrels in CA anyway. Pistols specifically.

 

[treelogger]

That, plus suppressors are explicitly illegal in California: PC 33410.

 

[NATEWA]

Does it matter? Yes and No.

No - we can’t purchase a suppressor in CA.

Yes - the CRPA (please join) is joining the fight to ban suppressors - Sanchez vs Bonta. I would hope if suppressors are deregulated at the federal level, this would help us Californians win the lawsuit.

Yes - if you ever become a resident in another state, it will be easier and cheaper to get a suppressor.

UPDATE: CRPA Joins The Fight To Legalize Suppressors - CRPA

CRPA is excited to announce its support of a lawsuit challenging California’s ban on suppressors,...

crpa.org

I would love to have one for a shotgun while duck hunting.

 

[Dvrjon]

With all of the important cases pushing through the courts regarding basic gun rights, I have no interest in the “silencer” (suppressor) ban lawsuit. If they ban guns you won’t have a need for the suppressor. Put the money and effort on the core issues.

 

[Malibu]

As to California, I see it as a path forward for future generations. The courts will tie this up for many years, that is their effective strategy. It has worked well for them so far. While we may get suppressors far down the road, the point is that we can’t have them now, and you and I may be long gone by the time our grandchildren have them.

 

[boltstop]

With all of the important cases pushing through the courts regarding basic gun rights, I have no interest in the “silencer” (suppressor) ban lawsuit. If they ban guns you won’t have a need for the suppressor. Put the money and effort on the core issues.

Yep.

100%

 

[RoundEye]

You could also just be happy for your fellow gun owners who will be rewarded.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

You could also just be happy for your fellow gun owners who will be rewarded.

What is this “Happy” you speak of?

 

[bonesurf]

Well stated above. Not currently relevant to CA residents. BUT anything that makes suppressors more widely available is a good thing.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

I saw mention that AOW would also be removed from the NFA if passed. This is one thing that could we get benefit from? For people who have registered AWs, say an AR pistol, we can now add a vertical fore grip to it? And I guess even people who have a fixed magazine Ar pistol, they could add a vertical fore grip also if AOW were removed from the NFA?

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

I saw mention that AOW would also be removed from the NFA if passed. This is one thing that could we get benefit from? For people who have registered AWs, say an AR pistol, we can now add a vertical fore grip to it? And I guess even people who have a fixed magazine Ar pistol, they could add a vertical fore grip also if AOW were removed from the NFA?

This bill removes suppressors, aow, and sbr.

 

[Brandon Breeze]

In the short term? No.
In the long term? Maybe.

So many variables, but we gotta stay positive with it and home we can move some mountains before Trump is out of office. Stay on it!

 

[Jcwatchdog]

This bill removes suppressors, aow, and sbr.

Yes I understood that to be the case. But here in CA we have our own SBR and suppressor laws. The only thing we could be allowed to have is an AOW, with a $200 tax stamp. This is how things are now. If AOW gets removed also, we should be able to have AOW here without worry of a tax stamp and without worry of crossing a CA law since no AOW specific law exists, unless I missed something. Does anyone know? We could add forward pistol grips to pistols (assuming we are following the AW laws, fixed mag or registered AW).

 

[Gryff]

Personally, there are so many other issues that are more critical to 2A, I find this suppressor thing to just be frequency noise that is distracting us for the stuff with real impact. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but doesn't really address core issues like defeating the argument that firearm technology advancement should be excluded from civilian applications because they are "weapons of war."

 

[RoundEye]

Yes I understood that to be the case. But here in CA we have our own SBR and suppressor laws. The only thing we could be allowed to have is an AOW, with a $200 tax stamp. This is how things are now. If AOW gets removed also, we should be able to have AOW here without worry of a tax stamp and without worry of crossing a CA law since no AOW specific law exists, unless I missed something. Does anyone know? We could add forward pistol grips to pistols (assuming we are following the AW laws, fixed mag or registered AW).

I believe the AOW Tax is $5.00, and not $200.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

I believe the AOW Tax is $5.00, and not $200.

Transferring an AOW is $5, that’s true. Manufacturing an AOW, is $200. And manufacturing an AOW is as simple as adding a forward pistol grip to to an AR pistol.

 

[Dvrjon]

Unless and until Congress states that they “occupy” the laws regarding firearms and the Right to Bear Arms, and then occupies that area of law thereby superceding state intervention, we are screwed. Even if that happened, a flip of Houses and presidency would sound the death nell for 2A in this country. R’s would not be able to snuff the Progressive agenda in this.

The only solution is SCOTUS carving out explicit instructions to the states regarding 2A. This -footing around “nuances” and non-identical twins of whatever era they occurred needs to be squelched by SCOTUS with an absolutist decision. Unfortunately, the clock is running, and Justices are aging (Alito, Thomas).

Given Justice Kavanaugh's statement (in Snope) indicating the Court, “should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two", I’m seeing the light at the end of the tunnel as the headlight of an on-rushing train.

That’s why all of this suppressor and NFA flurry is just junk.

Focus and put the brain power and money on a strong 2A SCOTUS case in the next year (Duncan), get a clear, comprehensive ruling, let Alito and Thomas retire and get two new 2A folks in before we lose the appointive power.

Gutting the NFA restrictions won’t mean squat when they ban all semi-auto firearms.

 

[westsidearms]

The only reason I have kept my gun shop is to have suppressors. You should all get your 01 FFL and sell suppressors. Except California has made that extremely expensive and burdensome.

 

[M_N04H]

Well, I would still love a true 14 inch barrel Shockwave. One can dream.

 

[treelogger]

Unless and until Congress states that they “occupy” the laws regarding firearms and the Right to Bear Arms, and then occupies that area of law thereby superceding state intervention, we are screwed.

That wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in hell. The 10th amendment quells that. Where exactly in the constitution can you find that the federal government has the right to regulate gun laws? That isn't there. So there is no way federal law can occupy gun law, in the way that state law in California occupies it (against cities and counties).

Even if that happened, a flip of Houses and presidency would sound the death nell for 2A in this country. R’s would not be able to snuff the Progressive agenda in this.

And that is the flip side: We now see that the occupant of the White House changes every 4 to 8 years, recently more often 4 (remember, before Biden and Trump, the most recent presidents to not get re-elected were Carter and Ford, since WW2). And congress is also flip-flopping more often. We need more constitutional slowing down of rapid decision making, not less, to put the brakes on crazy people in positions of power in Washington.

The only solution is SCOTUS carving out explicit instructions to the states regarding 2A.

You mean like Miller? That decision lasted for about 60 or 70 years, and made it clear what the 2A means. But as Heller and Bruen have shown, we are now living in a different era, where Supreme Court justices are willing to upend existing agreement on the interpretation of the constitution.

Unfortunately, the clock is running, and Justices are aging (Alito, Thomas).

All of them are. We currently have a 6:3 conservative court, which in the last few years has brought quite a bit of sunshine to the 2A area (the Bruen decision). But the other interesting factor is this: Since the end of the Reagan presidency (and with the flames fanned by the elder Bush and Clinton), we have been willing to put extremists on the court, starting in those days with Bork (who was so extreme, even a significant number of republicans voted against him!), and then down the line. It doesn't take much for one or two retirements or deaths on the court to change its direction radically, and most justices today seem to be more interested in furthering their radical viewpoints than to provide stability and comity. It seems that right now Chief Justice Roberts is the last person standing in DC who wants to keep the US Government functioning.

By the way, I remember the Bork and Thomas debates well: Bork was not a friend of gun rights, he said many nasty things about the NRA, and he was of the opinion that congress should be able to override Supreme Court decisions with a supermajority. Viewpoints that today are anathema to conservatives. If he had made it to the Supreme Court, gun right people today would be hating him.

In the next decade or two, I expect the Supreme Court of flip-flop far more frequently. So if you are hoping for a court decision that reaches far and wide, expect it to not last long.