National Contact the house ways and committees NOW

[ronin223]

Call 1-202-225-3625

Say

Hello i would ask that the house ways and means committee pass HR 404 and HR2395. Thank you.


That is all you have to do. Simple

HR 404 would remove suppressors from NFA

HR 2395 would remove sbr abs sbs from NFA

Read More

 

[User 1234]

These bills would fork over suppressor and SBR owners in Washington and Oregon.

There is no sign that they'll pass Congress, which is good for us here inside the Left Coast.

 

[1775usmc]

These bills would fork over suppressor and SBR owners in Washington and Oregon.

There is no sign that they'll pass Congress, which is good for us here inside the Left Coast.

Truth. The way things are going the NFA (As much as I hate it) may be a saving grace for some of us on the West Coast.

 

[ronin223]

Please explain

 

[red442joe]

Please explain

Yeah, what he said.

Joe

 

[CamoDeafie]

These bills would fork over suppressor and SBR owners in Washington and Oregon.

There is no sign that they'll pass Congress, which is good for us here inside the Left Coast.

Please explain

Yeah, what he said.

Joe

Both WA, and Oregon have language in their laws that basically says that SBRs, SBS, silencers/suppressors and machine guns are not legal in these States unless registered with the Federals.. for WA, SBS only if possessed before 1994.

Texas SBR/SBS/et. al. legislation

https://www.click2houston.com/news/investigates/2025/04/11/lawmakers-considering-removing-short-barrel-firearms-from-prohibited-weapons-list/ existing law: "In Texas it is a felony to possess one of these weapons unless properly registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and...

www.northwestfirearms.com

Another thread but relating to Texas' laws relating to SBRs/SBS. I posted the relevant WA RCW in that thread. Not sure if I also did the same for OR?

Edit. Basically, if NFA were to be repealed, there is absolutely nothing stopping Oregon and WA State Legislatures from saying "oh, you don't have Federal registration? Bam, these weapons are 100% outlawed without grandfather clause here in this State" or passing State level registrations with even more restrictions than Federal level, and likely add all semiautos and all guns to State level registration schemes

 

[CamoDeafie]

Also... Make it through the House, sure. Senate versions still gotta deal with the Senate Finance Committee, of which our dear NYer Ron Wyden is ranking member and whose membership have several anti2A Republicans

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Both WA, and Oregon have language in their laws that basically says that SBRs, SBS, silencers/suppressors and machine guns are not legal in these States unless registered with the Federals.. for WA, SBS only if possessed before 1994.

Not to be pedantic (who am I kidding, I love being pedantic!) the OR law does not say 'unless registered' it says "registered as required under federal law" so yeah, 100% OR could change the law, but as it is written at this time, as long as your silincer is registered as required under federal law, even if that means no registration is required under federal law, you are in compliance with OR law

Obligatory IANAL and I didn't even sleep at a Howard Johnson's last night

ORS 166.272
Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers

• Text
• Annotations
  1​

(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]

 

[CamoDeafie]

Not to be pedantic (who am I kidding, I love being pedantic!) the OR law does not say 'unless registered' it says "registered as required under federal law" so yeah, 100% OR could change the law, but as it is written at this time, as long as your silincer is registered as required under federal law, even if that means no registration is required under federal law, you are in compliance with OR law

Obligatory IANAL and I didn't even sleep at a Howard Johnson's last night

ORS 166.272
Unlawful possession of machine guns, certain short-barreled firearms and firearms silencers

• Text
• Annotations
  
  1​

(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]

If no registration, unlawful possession, unless (3) and (4) in play with documented Federal registration.

My take
Is that it means if there's no Federal registration to satisfy (3) and (4), then (1) and (2) basically prohibits possession of formerly NFA items.

Edit. (3) And (4) would become "moot/repealed upon passage of repeal of Federal laws", and removed but (1) and (2) would stay, thereby criminalizing possession of formerly NFA items

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

If no registration, unlawful possession, unless (3) and (4) in play with documented Federal registration.

Your way of interpreting it or my way, one thing for sure is that a bunch of lawyers would be buying nicer cars next year

Edit. (3) And (4) would become "moot/repealed upon passage of repeal of Federal laws", and removed but (1) and (2) would stay, thereby criminalizing possession of formerly NFA items

Agreed we would see at least attempts to change OR law

 

[User 1234]

Washington's 9.41.250 requires that the silencer be registered with the federal government to fall within the exception:

"Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law,
is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW."

 

[tac556]

The fix for states which rely on federal registration for NFA items to be considered legal under state law is one or more of the following, (keeping in mind that most of these states are unlikely to fix their state laws to remove such language as now currently exists):

1- Federal law says that XYZ are legal nationwide- period, over riding any state and local restrictions. (Least likely scenario).

2- Federal law says that the NFA registry will remain, but the registration is free (or say $10), and the process must be handled like a normal NICS check, with results done within 5 days or something like that. No CLEO notification is allowed or required. No nonsense of fingerprinting, photographs, or any ridiculous BS like that- same ID requirements as a standard 4473, which is a good, current, valid ID. Would be nice if they also said that states which drag their feet on backgrounds (like WA) only get 5 days to finish up their check, and valid CHL = instant OK. (Should be instant via NICS only, no state checks, but I am trying to be realistic here).

Of course the most likely scenario, (since it would cause the most confusion), is that they just do away with the NFA, without spelling out that states cannot restrict them, and create a complete cluster as a result…. This would create havoc, make lawyers rich, and create stress for NFA owners. So yeah, it is probably the most likely scenario (if they do anything- I am not holding my breath they pass any NFA changes).

 

[red442joe]

Both WA, and Oregon have language in their laws that basically says that SBRs, SBS, silencers/suppressors and machine guns are not legal in these States unless registered with the Federals.. for WA, SBS only if possessed before 1994.

Texas SBR/SBS/et. al. legislation

https://www.click2houston.com/news/investigates/2025/04/11/lawmakers-considering-removing-short-barrel-firearms-from-prohibited-weapons-list/ existing law: "In Texas it is a felony to possess one of these weapons unless properly registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and...

www.northwestfirearms.com

Another thread but relating to Texas' laws relating to SBRs/SBS. I posted the relevant WA RCW in that thread. Not sure if I also did the same for OR?

Edit. Basically, if NFA were to be repealed, there is absolutely nothing stopping Oregon and WA State Legislatures from saying "oh, you don't have Federal registration? Bam, these weapons are 100% outlawed without grandfather clause here in this State" or passing State level registrations with even more restrictions than Federal level, and likely add all semiautos and all guns to State level registration schemes

Ahhh, much like MI saying "you must have a permit" when no permit exists. (Then someone figured out a tax stamp is in fact a "permit", and the MI law didn't say MICHIGAN permit, just permit. Then AG agreed. We have sbr(s), full-auto, and suppressor.) MI could, commie-like, decide a "permit" no longer exists.
Good point.

Joe

 

[CamoDeafie]

(if they do anything- I am not holding my breath they pass any NFA changes).

If it passes House, okay but we still have the Senate Finance Committee to deal with on the Senate side. Second year into Trump's first term; House did pass a 2nd AWB but Senate didn't, thereby nullifying it basically, and so AWB 2.0 never came into law.

Edit. Again Senate Committee on Finance or whatever they're calling it, the membership have significant number of anti2A Senators, including several from the GOP.

The United States Senate Committee on Finance

Membership

www.finance.senate.gov