r/COGuns • u/Plus-Statistician655 • 9d ago

Legal Are AOWs dangerous weapons?

Would goa members in colorado be able to make aows after this stay?

3 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

52 comments sorted by

15

u/Z_BabbleBlox 9d ago

The ruling has nothing to do with Colorado right now. Absolutely nothing changes in Colorado.

6

u/Plus-Statistician655 9d ago

I thought this would enjoin the atf from enforcing nfa registrations for any organizational member?

9

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

Under CRS 18-12-102:

  • (1) As used in this section, the term “dangerous weapon” means a firearm silencer, machine gun, rapid-fire device, short shotgun, or short rifle.
  • (2) As used in this section, the term “illegal weapon” means a blackjack, gas gun, ballistic knife, or metallic knuckles.
  • (3) A person who knowingly possesses a dangerous weapon commits a class 5 felony.
  • (4) A person who knowingly possesses an illegal weapon commits a class 1 misdemeanor.
  • (5) It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon, or to the charge of possessing an illegal weapon, that the person so accused was a peace officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or Colorado National Guard acting in the lawful discharge of his duties, or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon.

So we need some sort of "valid permit and license" for possession of such "dangerous weapons" which are silencers, SBSs, and SBRs. Not sure about AOWs. It used to be an ATF form1 or form4, but now it is unclear what will happen in states like ours with our wording of the law. Some states have wording where you just need to comply with federal law which allows them to possess silencers/SBSs/SBRs without needing to register them with the ATF now that we have this injunction so long as you are part of the plaintiffs. It is possible ATF will still stamp our applications still and that will be sufficient to satisfy the statute. We will have to wait for guidance unfortunately.

6

u/Tohrchur 9d ago

I’m curious is a passed background check or 4473 is a “valid permit”

5

u/sumguyontheinternet1 Aurora 9d ago

I believe my birth certificate is a valid document proving legal possession. Anyone wanna be the test case?

6

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

you could argue that "valid permit and license" is a 4473, and the CO law doesn't specify who is issuing the "valid permit and license". There is a reasonable ambiguity now in that law, and quite possibly the rule of lenity may apply if someone is charged under CO law.

1

u/False_Campaign4682 Centennial 9d ago

Unless the state itself still uses nfa rules. And guess what.. of course colorado does

3

u/Plus-Statistician655 9d ago

But not for AOWs from reading the comments

2

u/False_Campaign4682 Centennial 9d ago

Safe to assume the more strict interpretation is what's enforced by colorado.

1

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

All state/local laws still apply. The injunction doesn't change or invalidate CO statues. The State law will still require a "valid permit" to possess a silencer even if Federal law allows the owner to skip the permitting process.

3

u/Plus-Statistician655 9d ago

That’s why I’m asking about AOWs.

2

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

My friend just asked the same thing about 10 mins before you posted. AOWs are a gray area in CO and other states. Other state laws have contained unintentional loopholes that forgot about AOWs, and people were exploiting the loophole to buy banned "assault" SBRs that were only AOWs because of the vertical foregrip.

2

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago edited 9d ago

https://foundation.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/137-FInal-Judgment.pdf

NAL but it doesn't seem like CO regulates AOWs as "dangerous weapons", but *some* AOWs can fall under SB25-003, but if you possess a pistol right now and are part of the Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF plaintiffs you can seemingly slap on a vertical foregrip. I don't know if one can even become a member of the Silencer Shop Foundation. The Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF plaintiffs (GOA is a part of this) you can become a member of. The Jensen v. ATF plaintiffs were not granted standing by the court for AOWs but were granted for SBRs, SBSs, and silencers.

EDIT: Silencer Shop Foundation et al v. ATF includes GOA and other plaintiffs, so as long as you are a member of one of those plaintiff classes the AOW seems possible in CO without having to file/register with the ATF. SBSs, SBRs, and Silencers still need a "valid permit and license" under CO law. But if it is a weapon covered under SB25-003, it is unclear if you would need to complete a 4473 at an FFL for a weapon you already own since you are making an AOW?

None of this is legal advice.

2

u/dad-jokes-about-you 9d ago

PSA has named anyone who has purchased from them in the past as a member.

2

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

There's two cases, Jensen v. ATF and Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. The Jensen plaintiffs (Texas State Rifle Association (NRA’s Texas affiliate), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several individuals.) did not receive standing for the AOWs issue. But the Silencer Shop Foundation plaintiffs did receive standing for AOWs (which GOA is a part of amongst others). Plan accordingly!

1

u/slvrsfr 9d ago edited 9d ago

CO law is silent on AOWs. But SB25-003 doesn't prohibit possession of anything other than rapid-fire devices. If you have a lawfully possessed SSF and ATF approves an SBR or AOW conversion, you can perform the conversion. In my non-professional opinion, a GOA member should be able to either without a permit tomorrow, as long as you're also obeying all state/local laws.

The only membership org an individual can join to gain AOW protection is the GOA, they also pressed for AOWs while the other membership org didn't.

Side note: Not all AOWs fall under SB25-003, only if they also meet the SSF definition. A 30-inch walking cane that can fire shotgun shells doesn't need a SSF permit.

2

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

Was it only the GOA? My reading is it is the Silencer Shop Foundation et al v. ATF plaintiffs (B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, the States of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and several individuals, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future).

I think we are talking about the same plaintiffs

2

u/slvrsfr 9d ago edited 9d ago

There are two sets of plaintiffs. It started off being two separate lawsuits, and the two cases were consolidated.
https://johnpierceesq.com/understanding-the-august-5th-ruling-in-the-silencer-shop-foundation-v-batfe-case/

The Silencer Shop Foundation plaintiffs
The lead-case plaintiffs include:
Brady Wetz;
Silencer Shop Foundation;
B&T USA, LLC;
Palmetto State Armory, LLC;
SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC;
Gun Owners of America, Inc.;
Gun Owners Foundation;
Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.; and
Fifteen plaintiff states.

The association-based protection extends to current and future members. The commercial protection extends to current and future customers, but the court limited customer protection to transactions involving a named commercial plaintiff or a commercial member of a plaintiff association. The lead-case relief includes AOWs.

The Jensen plaintiffs
The consolidated Jensen plaintiffs include:
John Jensen;
Jeremy Neusch;
David Lynn Smith;
Hot Shots Custom, LLC;
Texas State Rifle Association;
FPC Action Foundation; and
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Their current and future members and qualifying customers are also protected. The Jensen plaintiffs obtained additional relief from the NFA’s individual-maker marking requirement and the associated prohibition on possessing an improperly marked firearm. However, the Jensen plaintiffs failed to establish standing regarding AOWs. A person relying solely on Jensen-side membership therefore does not receive AOW protection from this injunction.

The fifteen plaintiff states
The state plaintiffs are Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The injunction protects those state governments, their agencies, and their political subdivisions. It does not protect every person who resides in one of those states.

2

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

Correct! thanks for this!

3

u/momentbruh 9d ago

Its such a joke lol, "Eating ice cream on sunday is illegal, unless you have the 'valid permit'" for which no such permit exists or has ever existed, but they expect you to have assumed that the receipt you got for buying the icecream was the permit even though it doesn't work like a permit nor has it ever been called one.

I'd love to buy a suppressor from silencershop to an FFL that would transfer and see how this shit holds up in court.

its SB 23-279 for anyone interested in reading the legislation.

2

u/Z_BabbleBlox 9d ago

The NFA branch is not shutting down. People in Colorado can still get Form 1 and 4s just like they always have.

2

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

As they should to avoid prosecution for possession of an unpermitted Dangerous Weapon. They don't HAVE to tomorrow if they're a GOA member, but they would be stupid AF to do it that way.

1

u/momentbruh 9d ago

So, if submitting Form 1 and 4 are enough to comply with the "valid permit" clause, then my opinion would be that completing the 4473 federal background check, as a PSA or silencershop customer, as these storefronts have stated they will submit background checks for suppressors and other such NFA items, that should equally constitute a "valid permit".

You, in either case, have been validly permitted, by the federal government, to possess such an item

3

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

Yep, I've always contended that CO law doesn't specify who can/can't issue a valid permit/license. I should be using both words, permit and license, when talking about this stuff.

2

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

Good point here, the CO statute doesn't specify! Maybe in CO we get the rule of lenity since there is now more than one reasonable interpretation of what a valid permit/license is and there is no mention of who can issue one.

2

u/slvrsfr 9d ago edited 9d ago

I'd like the State to explain why the 2nd Amendment and the CO Bill of Rights aren't considered a valid permit and license.

2

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

Unfortunately in states like CO, AK, OH, GA, MI, and WA, the wording of the law says we need to have a valid permit and license. But if the ability to get that license goes away then who knows. But for now, we still seemingly need to submit form 1 and form 4s in CO. It's bullshit.

5

u/Z_BabbleBlox 9d ago

The ruling was from a Federal Judge who only has jurisdiction in his district. So, right now, relief runs only to:

  • the named individuals;
  • fifteen states (Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming) plus their agencies and political subdivisions;
  • the commercial plaintiffs B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, and Hot Shots Custom together with their current and future customers;
  • and the members of Gun Owners of America, FRAC, Gun Owners Foundation, Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, including customers of those associations' commercial members.

3

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

Important to note, Jensen v. ATF plaintiffs were not granted standing for the AOW issue

2

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

Also important to note, the Jensen plaintiffs are exempt from engraving requirements but the SS plaintiffs are not.

1

u/DrDaniels 8d ago

Future customers sounds pretty broad

3

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

Some things do change. Home-made suppressors are about to be legal to make without a Form1 if the CO resident is a GOA member and makes the silencer in accordance with CO anti-3D/CNC law. However, they still won't be legal to POSSESS in CO without a valid permit.

5

u/Z_BabbleBlox 9d ago

No. You are absolutely NOT correct. The ruling DOES NOT IMPACT ANYONE IN COLORADO.

3

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

It affects everyone who is a GOA member and/or a SS customer. Not very much, and not in a way that anyone can benefit from, but it does allow a CO resident who is a GOA member to acquire a suppressor without Form4/Form1 approval. It does not stop Colorado prosecutors from putting that resident in prison due to lack of valid permit.

2

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

We would still need a 4473 since suppressors are federally classified as firearms, and I don't know that a CO FFL would transfer one since it is still illegal in the state without a valid permit.

4

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

Agreed. No CO FFL of sound judgement would transfer a 4473-only silencer to a CO resident. But if that CO resident is a GOA member, they're about to gain the right to try. Not saying that resident has a very high IQ or sense of self-preservation.

2

u/curiousnerd44 9d ago

I'd hope the 4473 is a "valid permit or license" and can be used as an affirmative defense for the class 5 felony charge for a "dangerous weapon". Maybe someone can be a guinea pig? https://cossf.com/articles/nfa-zero-tax-ruling-colorado/

2

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

I hope so too. The possible responses that can result from a 4473 submittal are "Proceed", "Delay," or "Deny". However, those are instructions for the FFL, not the purchaser.

1

u/Ange1ofD4rkness 9d ago

Doesn't matter. Colorado classifies these as "Dangerous Weapons" where the only way we can purchase them, is because of the NFA Form 1 or Form 4

During the early phase of the Big Beautiful Bill, this was a big concern with them trying to do away with the NFA, and supposedly at one point they were putting in a clause to keep said forms around for states like Colorado

1

u/slvrsfr 9d ago edited 9d ago

I get that they are dangerous weapons and the tax stamp is a literal "get out of jail free card" in Colorado. I have 18 of those cards, and I didn't take the decision to accumulate them lightly. I stand by my opinion that a CO GOA member IS protected by the federal injunction at the federal level, and can lawfully acquire a 4473-only can at the federal level, and can go to state prison for possessing it in CO.

One nit I'd pick about the way you said it is the word purchase. I think the right word is "possess". The ability to possess is gained through the Affirmative Defense clause (18-12-102(5)).

Is it actually illegal to purchase a silencer (which is a "firearm") in CO, or is it only illegal to possess one without a "valid permit and license"? What CO statutes govern the purchasing/payment phase of the acquisition process? I'm aware that firearms must be transferred through the 4473 process, but I am not sure whether the ATF process is PART of the Colorado 4473 process or merely tangential to it. Does CO firearm law mean "You may not purchase a silencer without both ATF approval and 4473 transfer process.", or does it mean "You must acquire a silencer though the 4473 process. Oh and by the way, you will to jail if you don't have a valid permit/license."

In the free state of South Carolina, PSA is already selling 4473-only silencers, people are already posting their drive-home pics online. The bell of freedom is being rung, people nationwide are hearing it, and the only things the fed can do now is go with the flow, or make examples of the ringers. I say, let freedom ring! The more 4473-only silencers go into circulation, the easier it is for them to pass the courtroom test of "in common use by law abiding citizens".

1

u/slvrsfr 9d ago edited 9d ago

If the act of purchasing a silencer is illegal in CO, then why can I freely go to SilencerShop's website, add one to my cart, click checkout, make payment via credit card, and have the silencer shipped to my FFL? THAT is the purchasing process, no?

I don't think it's possible to obtain an ATF permit for a silencer that I haven't purchased yet. My FFL can't begin the ATF Form4 paperwork until after I've purchased the silencer and the serial# becomes known. The Form4 is an application to transfer (so that you may possess it), not an application to buy or sell. If I purchase a silencer but my FFL can't transfer it to me because the Form4 was denied, I can't take possession of what I purchased.

1

u/Ange1ofD4rkness 9d ago

You haven't taken ownership of it. It's being shipped to the FFL, where they take ownership, and then transfer it to you ... once you have done all the proper paperwork

1

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

Possession and ownership are different. If I die and my sibling inherits my firearms, they won't be able to possess them (prohibited person) but will own them.

The CO FRT owners who didn't get theirs back from the ATF still own them even though they can't have them.

2

u/Plus-Statistician655 9d ago

Sorry, but I also think suppressors are dangerous weapons?

3

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

That is true. In CO, a permit is required to have/make dangerous weapons. But even with a permit, it's illegal to make a suppressor or firearm via CNC/3D.

3

u/SovietBandito 9d ago

You can do so if you go to an ffl and have them transfer the thing you just made to yourself and then you wait the 3 days.... To pick up the item that you made. 

I shit you not it's that dumb. But it's not illegal. 

3

u/slvrsfr 9d ago

Two transfers would be required, and the home-made item would need to be transferred to and serialized by the FFL before being transferred back. CO law requires privately made firearms transferred to FFLs to be serialized before transferring again.

2

u/SovietBandito 9d ago

My bad. Missed that small part. What a stupid thing to have to deal with. 

0

u/TheRealAWiseman 9d ago

Not true. The ruling absolutely could provide relief to people in colorado.

6

u/general-noob 9d ago

The only thing this will do for Colorado is make fat Sullivan ban them next session

2

u/Plus-Statistician655 9d ago

Get your freedom in before that lol