Suppressors, silencers, shrouds, brakes, whatever they may be called.


PDA






ChaoSS
January 9, 2014, 09:37 AM
I'm trying to figure out the legal aspects of these things. I've read a few articles on the subject that suggest that suppressors (by whatever name) permanently attached should be good to go, while ones that can removed could be considered NFA items.

So in the course of looking at various PCP options for a future purchase, I was considering a Discovery with a "muzzle brake" from TKO. Basically, it's a suppressor. I figured that if it was illegal, the ATF would have come down on them a long time ago, so I set out to do some research, and came across US vs Crooker.

Does Crooker mean that suppressors are good to go for airguns, so long as they aren't designed, or adapted, for use with firearms? I keep seeing people talk about how trying to build your own suppressor for an air gun would be a bad idea, but Crooker seems to give it the green light.


Anyone have some insight that I'm missing here?

If you enjoyed reading about "Suppressors, silencers, shrouds, brakes, whatever they may be called." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hawk 3/21
January 9, 2014, 10:09 AM
The TKO attaches with allen screws, unlike most factory installed ones that aren't removeable. However the factories are probably being over cautious. Attaching this to a real gun would be a joke. If it worked, then people wouldn't be paying $700 for cans. Making a pellet gun a little quieter is a far cry from making a powder gun silent.

That's why we only hear of one case. Which was overturned.

If you're worried, then affix the tko with epoxy.

Ok, this is a far cry from building your own. What if it's too good? Also there's the qustion of intent. Tko's intent is well established. Let's say for some reason the police are at your house & see your homemade one on the bench. Either complete or unfinished.....well they are free to interpret your intentions. At what, $45 shipped, why risk a misunderstanding.
Also you can send the pellet gun in to the seller & have it professionally installed. Then the risk is the manufacturers. You purchased in good faith. Same as a gamo whisper etc.
Now I went w/the TKO name for expedience, the same appleis for other brands.....oh yeah, rough sandpaper on the barell & inside of MD to ensure adhesion.

Hawk 3/21
January 9, 2014, 10:21 AM
Strange how this keeps showing up on different forums.....with the same set-up........makes me wonder

ChaoSS
January 9, 2014, 10:55 AM
People pay 700 dollars for a can because that's what people charge for them, and they can't legally be made without special licensing.

In countries with less restrictions, cans are much, much, cheaper.


If I were to make my own, it would be an issue of wanting it to be even quieter. I've heard mixed reviews of the disco/tko combo, everything from "no noise but the hammer and the pellet hitting the target" to "quieter, but still pretty loud".

Probably not looking to make my own, though, just interested in where everyone's opinions on this subject are coming from.

Chevota
January 9, 2014, 04:21 PM
I'd go with a Marauder, much better gun and already quiet. Technically all these suppressors on airguns are a felony if you read the law, and the punishment is like 20 years in prison. Buying a gun with a factory mounted suppressor will weigh heavily in your favor, but making your own or adding one is imo not worth the risk. Chances of getting caught are slim, chances of getting prosecuted are probably slim too. If you do have to defend yourself in court the atty fees alone will make it an unrealistic punishment. I'd guess it would be 5-10k just to start. A firearm suppressor can be anything that reduces the sound by 1dB for a single shot. Even if the device needs to cut or torched from it's original place, such as a car muffler. So mufflers, oil filters, soda bottles, bath towels, and many other things can be used and therefore illegal. It's up to the arresting officer, then the prosecutor, then the judge to decide if you will arrested, charged, and put in prison. Imo the BATF has WAAAY too much power and the law covers way too many things because everyone is already a felon, at least those with firearms are, the question is will they use that power. It's like that bs new law about detaining anyone indefinitely w/o charges or a crime being committed. Clearly a violation of the constitution, but the gov is all powerful and doesn't care about the ancient document. Odds of being detained for no reason is low, but if you stick out it could be high. Having a firearm and a car with a muffler and oil filter isn't sticking out, but having an actual suppressor kinda is... I have firearms so I feel uncomfortable with airgun suppressors so I only have "shrouds". It's just a name I know, but it's a different name, it doesn't look like a regular suppressor, and it came factory with the airgun. That's my opinion fyi...

Sam1911
January 9, 2014, 04:24 PM
Technically all these suppressors on airguns are a felony if you read the lawJust curious why you feel that is so?

Chevota
January 9, 2014, 06:03 PM
Because I read what the BATF considers a suppressor which I mentioned in my post covers all kinds of things, but an actual suppressor is just asking for it. Just because they haven't chosen to jail people so far, doesn't mean tomorrow they won't. Do you trust your government? I don't. I'm just pointing out that it's a gamble with an extremely severe punishment. I'd chose death over the punishment so I'd consider that pretty severe. It's not like you're rolling the dice for a million dollar pay out, it's just a little noise reduction from a toy gun.

Sam1911
January 9, 2014, 06:14 PM
(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

There's the law.

An air rifle is not a firearm. A sound muffling device designed to reduce the report of something that is NOT a firearm is NOT a silencer under 18 - 921(a)(24).

You may find reason to be worried if you cut off your airgun silencer and attempt to install it on something that IS a firearm -- hence making something that is NOT a firearms silencer into something that IS a firearms silencer -- but otherwise this is much ado about a matter which is already very clearly settled.

I'll guess you don't work in the legal department at Gamo.

brianr23
January 9, 2014, 07:35 PM
I just bought a Umarex Fusion with a built in suppressor. While not a high power airgun it does shoot a light .177 pellet over 700 fps. The pellet hitting the back of the steel trap at 20 yards is louder than the rifle. A .22 cb cap is a lot more powerful in a 10/22 but an air rifle is more acceptable for backyard plinking. My wife doesn't hear it at all when I shoot. Its accurate too with 5/16" 5 shot groups at 20 yards using match pellets.

Chevota
January 9, 2014, 08:23 PM
It also said, or at least last time I checked years ago, any device that can be transferred to a firearm even if it needed to be cut or torched off. Sounds like that part was virtually written for airguns since I could cut off a Gamo suppressor, or for Crosman simply unscrew it, and attach it to a firearm. So having either a suppressed Gamo or Crosman in my house or car with a 22 rimfire would imo be a risk. And remember, it only needs to be 1dB, and only last one shot. For a 22 rimfire that covers a lot of things, even a cantaloupe, T-shirt, or roll of duct tape. You could probably get a 1dB drop with a steel Crosman muzzle brake which would be a simple bolt-on for some guns. The fact that suppressors are sold on the open market does not excuse the
violation, and imo the Gamo legal team is pushing a boundry. As we already know they aren't afraid to lie to make a sale, so until they're stopped they will continue to make them. So picture driving 56 in a 55, sure nobody will give you a ticket for it, but it is illegal. Now if the ticket for 1 mph over was death would you consider it worth the risk? Now considering some cops can be real nice folks and go out of their way to bust you for something, or for leverage against you for something else, it's there for them to abuse you with. I also believe that the increased use of suppressors on airguns will bring enforcement, or bring it sooner. Or even if it doesn't it will draw more attention to airguns just like the increased power is doing. Sooner to later the gov to draw a line like other countries and everyone's fun will be ruined. If the rule is say anything above 12ftlbs is a firearm then not only will most airguns become illegal or require registration, but those with suppressors of any type are now a felony without question. So however it goes down suppressors are not a good thing, at best they will not be a factor, at worst they'll start kicking doors of buyers for a 20yr visit to hell.
I love suppressed airguns, the quieter the better, I'm just saying they're a risk to own. I won't take mine off my property, no way I'm getting caught in the field by some federal agent with a smile.

Sam1911
January 9, 2014, 09:41 PM
For a 22 rimfire that covers a lot of things, even a cantaloupe, T-shirt, or roll of duct tape. Uh, right, but that kind of proves my point. Unless you're USING it to suppress a .22, you aren't going to get arrested for the cantaloupe. Even though it is a WHOLE LOT easier (fewer steps, less effort, etc.) to use the cantaloupe for that purpose than to disconnect that integral airgun suppressor and bolt it to your firearm.

You could probably get a 1dB drop with a steel Crosman muzzle brake which would be a simple bolt-on for some guns. Sure. Or a "bloop tube" for target .22 match guns. I PROMISE you you get more than 1 db drop from them, as I've used them extensively and witnessed it many thousands of times. But they aren't suppressors and no one gets arrested for them. And various other muzzle devices works somewhat the same. Do you get a 1 db sound reduction from using a Noveske "Fire Pig?" Well? Of course you do! That's not a suppressor and is expressly legal to own and use.

I understand the idea that there are grey areas and fine lines, but part of understanding that those exist is also recognizing when you're standing pretty far inside the line.

The fact that suppressors are sold on the open market does not excuse the
violation, No, the fact that it ISN'T a violation of the law is what excuses ... well, the not-a-violation.

Not designed for anything meeting the legal definitions of a firearm. Not USED on anything meeting the legal definition of a firearm. Don't worry about it.

Chevota
January 9, 2014, 11:30 PM
Like I said, just because people are selling those devices doesn't mean they are legal. I learned that first hand as a kid, and so did a friend with something else. Also, whatever device in question does not have to be on a firearm to make it illegal as you suggested. If you had an actual suppressor designed for use on a firearm, or a home-made one of pipe and duct tape, but never put them on a firearm, would that make it legal? Actually a suppressor is considered a firearm by the BATF, so you'd not only be busted for the suppressor, but possession of an unregistered firearm. If you made it then you're also busted for manufacturing and no serial#, also both felonies.
It looks like our main argument is you think an airgun suppressor is legal, which I assume is because they are sold and nobody is getting arrested.
My point is an airgun suppressor IS a suppressor as defined by the BATF, and suppressors are a felony. They don't specifically say airgun suppressors are a felony because they don't have to, it's already covered in their description. And even though they've been asked a million times if airgun suppressors are legal, they have never said they are. That alone should tell you something. Since an airgun suppressor doesn't have a serial # then you're also busted for possessing a firearm w/o a serial. Some claim "permanently attached" to the airgun is the difference but the BATF specifically mentions that it doesn't matter even if has to be torched off. That doesn't matter anyway because many are just screwed on.
If you believe that a thread-on suppressor (an actual noise suppression device made specifically to suppress the discharge of a gun) that can fit a firearm with minimal modification is legal (also keeping in mind the BATF refuses to say they are legal), then we're at a stale mate.

Chevota
January 10, 2014, 12:00 AM
It's long but just a small part of what I have saved thanks a previous argument a couple years ago.
Michael A. Crooker was found guilty on Wednesday, July 15, 2006 of illegally manufacturing a silencer. He faces a mandatory sentence of 15 years. (Latest flash, July 2007, review of the case, instead of throwing it out, may increase penalties up to 22 years!!).
Crooker made a silencer for a Korean Big Bore 909, a .45 caliber air rifle. In 2004 he sold the rifle and silencer to another party and he shipped it through the U.S. Postal Service, where it was intercepted.
When ATF tested the silencer on a firearm, it silenced the report. That is the legal definition of a silencer. Slam dunk.
Making a silencer is a violation of several counts of the same law. Because a silencer is considered to be a firearm by federal law, the maker has just made a firearm without a license to manufacture - count one. Firearms that are sold are required to have serial numbers, and this one didn't - count two. And possession of an unregistered silencer is also a crime - count three.
The jury did ask for additional clarification on what constitutes a silencer, but the judge was unable to give them anything beyond the law. I have written an article about silencers for Pyramyd Air. It should be up on their web site soon. I included the definition of a silencer in that article, so you can read it for yourself. When it goes up, this is where it will be:
For 12 years I have maintained that silencers and airguns do not mix. People who play with the law open themselves to prosecution. Even if you win your case, the experience will not be pleasant. Now that BATF has a win under their belts, I expect them to prosecute other silencer violations more vigorously. This was a jury trial.
by Tom Gaylord

Or this one by Robert Beeman:
Why haven't we had a definite ruling on the matter of airgun silencers?? Surely, those firms making silenced airguns would benefit from finally having a ruling that cleared airgun silencers - and they surely have the funds and know-how to mount a proper test case or request for ruling. However, it may well be that the reason that such makers, or user groups, have not pushed for a ruling may be the same reason that both pro-gun and anti-gun groups may not have pushed to have the Second Amendment clarified - the ruling just might be opposite of what that group wants! The BATF has ducked the airgun silencer issue by continuing to say that they have no jurisdiction over airguns - BUT they leave the matter open by pointing out that an airgun silencer that could be used on a firearm, even if it was necessary to destroy an integrated airgun to get it, is, by federal definition, A FIREARM - never mind the dictionary and the obvious matter that silencers do not discharge projectiles by "fire" - the official definition simply and really makes it so. This brings to us to a possible clarification - the government could just declare airguns, or airguns meeting certain power levels, calibers, etc. to be FIREARMS - just as firearm silencers are, by such federal definition, FIREARMS
The idea that some airguns, especially some adult versions, might be classified as firearms, as they already are in most countries, is not my idea. In actual fact, some governmental groups have already began to propose what levels of airguns should be classified as "firearms". (Again, remember, that a law can define any object as a firearm!) I strongly oppose such a classification and feel that it would be a disaster and counterproductive to the objectives of both pro-gun and anti-gun groups.
If some, or all, airguns were indeed classified as "firearms" then BATF would have jurisdiction over such airguns and the matter of silencers on them finally would be perfectly clear- the government and anti-gun folks would love such a resolution. This may well be the final solution if some short-sighted airgunners continue to push the envelope and draw attention to the airgun/firearm silencer enigma. Those talking heads who call for "let's make this airgun silencer matter clear for once and all" - may end up remembering that sometimes it is possible to be very sorry to get what you asked for!!

ChaoSS
January 10, 2014, 06:12 AM
Sam, I'm on my phone so I'll come back later to respond more, but look up the case I listed above. The argument you are making is the one eventually accepted by the appellate court. However, the original court, and the Atf agent who testified, disagree with you.

Sam1911
January 10, 2014, 07:40 AM
The argument you are making is the one eventually accepted by the appellate court. However, the original court, and the Atf agent who testified, disagree with you.And that, folks, is why we have appellate courts. :)

Sam1911
January 10, 2014, 08:04 AM
Also, whatever device in question does not have to be on a firearm to make it illegal as you suggested. A suppressor is a device designed to reduce the report of a FIREARM. A device designed to reduce the report of something other than a firearm -- or to be a cantaloupe as you've suggested -- isn't one. UNLESS you make it one by installing it ON a firearm.

Now, if you build yourself a suppressor bored to work with a .45, well, that may be different, maybe.

If you've got an airgun muffler bolted/soldered/affixed to an airgun -- a NON firearm -- it's even harder to redesign/re-purpose as a firearms silencer than that cantaloupe. Heck, it is harder to make it into a firearms silencer at that point than would be the piece of pipe and wad of steel wool in your tool box. That's not a silencer, either, unless you're making it into one.

Much unreasonable fear in this argument.

If you had an actual suppressor designed for use on a firearm, or a home-made one of pipe and duct tape, but never put them on a firearm, would that make it legal?Obviously no, because those are DESIGNED to be firearms suppressors. Something semi-permanently attached to the muzzle of an air gun is not. However, like that piece of pipe you've got there, it possibly could be re-purposed into one, which would be illegal. So don't do that.

Actually a suppressor is considered a firearm by the BATF, so you'd not only be busted for the suppressor, but possession of an unregistered firearm.I think you're a bit confused about how the NFA works. The crime you'd get busted for IS possession of an unregistered firearm. (Not "also.") That is, IF it was a suppressor, which it is NOT.

If you made it then you're also busted for manufacturing and no serial#, also both felonies. Again, you seem unclear on the law here. a) IF it was a silencer, which it isn't, you could certainly manufacture it yourself, on a Form 1. (Instead of the Form 4, to transfer one someone else made.)
b) IF it was a Title 2 item, then yes it would require a serial number, but it isn't. (As an aside, if it was a normal "GCA" firearm, which it of course also isn't, and you made it for yourself, it would not require a serial number.)

It looks like our main argument is you think an airgun suppressor is legal, which I assume is because they are sold and nobody is getting arrestedThe fact that the ATF isn't trying to enforce your view of this, and has allowed millions of them to be sold all over the country with out comment, is indeed quite telling. At some point you can't put genie back in the bottle. Further, no company would have ever even started going down this road -- wouldn't have made the first one! -- without an agreement that the BATFE wasn't going to try and call their device an unregistered Title 2 silencer and arrest them and all their customers.

My point is an airgun suppressor IS a suppressor as defined by the BATFExcept it ISN'T as I showed in the definitions above. That kills your argument.

They don't specifically say airgun suppressors are a felony because they don't have to, it's already covered in their description.You're getting this backward. They don't say airgun suppressor because they'd have to say "and ALSO airgun suppressors..." because the fact that it is made for an airgun makes it NOT a suppressor under 921(a)(24).

And even though they've been asked a million times if airgun suppressors are legal, they have never said they are.The ATF does not like to give blanket statements like that, with good reason. If they declare these devices universally legal, than that would clear folks who put them on their firearms -- technically "making" an unregistered silencer out of one.

then we're at a stale mate.Well, no. You may be agreeing to disagree, but you haven't proven your point, or refuted any of mine. More like "check."

ChaoSS
January 10, 2014, 09:40 AM
Chevota, a Marauder is a consideration. An Airorce Talon SS is also a consideration. Both of those are significantly more expensive than a Discovery, but if i buy the Discovery and find out that even with modification it's too loud for what I want, I'm out even more money having to buy yet another gun. So yes, the Marauder is a definite consideration.

I'm interested, though, in your information on the Crooker Case. As I understand it his conviction was overturned in 2010, I believe, which makes the 2007 update old news. I may be misunderstanding what happened, or reading from bad sources, so any other information you have would be helpful.


Sam1911, your comment about a silencer for a .45 is interesting, as that was the case in point here. The silencer was adapted, by the ATF agent, to fit a handgun. The position of the appellate court was that doing that was what made it "for a firearm". The position of the original court was that "for a firearm" simply meant that it could be used on a firearm. They took the position that since Crooker clearly knew how to adapt it to such, it was "for a firearm". The appellate court took the view that such an interpretation would lead to a potato or a soda bottle being a silencer any time they were possessed by someone with the know how to adapt them to use on a firearm.


It's an interesting read.


Another issue is that I really need to look into the laws here in California. I haven't found the penal code section banning silencers in California, so I'm not sure if they follow the same as the federal law, or if they word thins differently.

Chevota
January 10, 2014, 06:24 PM
Well, I told you why they are illegal and how the airgun suppressor is clearly illegal including Gaylord and Beeman saying the same thing, but you refuse to accept it. It's like I'm saying the sky is blue, just look at it, but you keep saying no it's red. I can't argue with that so you win, I'm done.
Btw, tell Michael A. Crooker what you told me.

Chaoss: I hope it was overturned, but it still ruined Crookers life and that is part of my point. Even if you are acquitted you're screwed, so be careful.
The suppressors are a federal crime so they're banned everywhere, plus CA is unrealistically strict regarding guns so expect it to be worse here, not better. I'm in CA and I can't legally shoot any gun, air included anywhere near me with the exception of a couple gun ranges which is ridiculous and expensive. Not even a Daisy Red Ryder in my own basement is legal. So I use suppressors myself to avoid the police being called in the first place. It's much riskier, but greatly reduces the odds of getting caught. Either way having or shooting a gun is a risk in this "free" nation.

Sam1911
January 10, 2014, 06:32 PM
Wait...you're admitting to breaking the law by discharging an airgun where that's not legal?

Talk about worrying about the wrong problem! :uhoh:

Chevota
January 10, 2014, 10:38 PM
I never said I obey the law. I'm just pointing it out so people can avoid getting caught. I'd guess that 99.999% of all shots I've fired, air and fire, were illegal. If I'd been convicted for everything I've done I'd be in prison for multiple life sentences, along with most people. Or you could look at it how it was explained to me once as a kid: It isn't against the law to do these things, it's against the law to get caught doing these things. True in a twisted way, and it's the only way a person can be a law abiding citizen :)

JohnKSa
January 11, 2014, 12:48 AM
A sound muffling device designed to reduce the report of something that is NOT a firearm is NOT a silencer under 18 - 921(a)(24).If the device can be attached to a firearm and would be expected to reduce the sound of the discharge, even a small amount, even for only one shot, then the BATF has, in the past, taken the stance that it qualifies as a firearm silencer and proceeded to prosecute.A device designed to reduce the report of something other than a firearm -- or to be a cantaloupe as you've suggested -- isn't one.Sure. Technically. But there's nothing special about an airgun suppressor that you would be able to use to prove that it wasn't designed to be a firearm silencer. Even if it would make a crappy firearm silencer, that's not going to save you. There is no special credit or exemption for being a poor silencer designer....the fact that it is made for an airgun makes it NOT a suppressor under 921(a)(24).The problem with this is that it's purely a theoretical argument. You won't win the argument with the cop, you will get your chance to prove in court why what you say it was made for makes more sense than what the BATF says it was made for.

In practice, if it looks like a silencer, quacks like a silencer, walks like a silencer then you're going to be treated as if it it is a silencer. Doesn't matter if you claim it's only for airguns.

Maybe you can win in court. Good luck with that. Frankly, it's a moot point from my purely practical perspective--I can't afford that kind of a "win" and I don't know anyone who can.

If it can't be removed from the airgun without destroying it then what we've seen in practice is that the BATF hasn't made an issue of it. Manufacturers who have taken pains to make integral, non-removable suppressors on their airguns have been allowed to sell their products and there have been, to my knowledge, no prosecutions in the U.S. for persons owning airguns with integral, non-removable suppressors.

That's not a hard and fast guarantee that we'll always see that level of tolerance. It's only what we're seeing now.

Walkalong
January 11, 2014, 08:26 AM
I never said I obey the law. I'm just pointing it out so people can avoid getting caught. I'd guess that 99.999% of all shots I've fired, air and fire, were illegal. If I'd been convicted for everything I've done I'd be in prison for multiple life sentences, along with most people. Or you could look at it how it was explained to me once as a kid: It isn't against the law to do these things, it's against the law to get caught doing these things. True in a twisted way, and it's the only way a person can be a law abiding citizen :)
Here at THR we do not condone breaking the law, or even suggesting breaking the law. And to think it is only against the law if you get caught, is junvenile.

Walkalong
January 13, 2014, 03:21 PM
Re-opened by request.

torqem
January 13, 2014, 04:27 PM
ATF regional offices have a .22 Ruger pistol that has adapters for every known thread. Since any tube more than about 4" in length and 1" in OD, attached to a 22 hg will have an "audible effect", then every pc of pipe in everyone's home is a silencer. That includes PVC, folks, by past rulings by ATF. Their definition of a silencer is anything that "makes an audibile difference in the firing sound". Heck, just using different ammo does that much. You can't legally possess even one baffle for a "can", and ATF has claimed that a mere washer can be a baffle. If I were to have a "can" for an airgun, it would be WELDED to that airgun, and welded shut, so no baffles can be removed, and I would not have any firearms in the same building/area as that airgun. If I had made it myself, I would never tell that to a soul, I would remove all traces of that manufacturing, especially any that had carbon fouling on them or materials that are widely known to be used as baffling material (like screen wire). I would certainly not have in my possesion any "how-to" videos or books about can-making, nor be on record as having bought any such media, nor ordered any from the library, nor viewed any while at the library (if I had to show ID to do so). Does that sound excessive? You'd better believe that ATF is excessive, folks.

ChaoSS
January 13, 2014, 09:14 PM
Thank you for the re-open, Walkalong.


Does anyone else know of any other case law that might be applicable to this situation?

Midwest
January 14, 2014, 05:49 AM
What about states where they define an air gun as a firearm. New Jersey comes to mind.

Sam1911
January 14, 2014, 07:28 AM
That wouldn't change anything about the federal definitions of "firearm" or "silencer," though.

Now a state can write its own laws defining and outlawing or heavily regulating those things, of course, but the fact that your state calls an air rifle a "firearm" doesn't make an airgun suppressor an unregistered NFA silencer by itself.

ChaoSS
January 14, 2014, 09:06 AM
What about states where they define an air gun as a firearm. New Jersey comes to mind.
I don't know anything about their state laws, if they ban firearm suppressors I'm sure the air guns must comply. But it doesn't change anything as far as federal law is concerned.

JohnKSa
January 15, 2014, 12:00 AM
...doesn't make an airgun suppressor an unregistered NFA silencer...Ok, so here's the crux of the matter.

What are the physical characteristics that make an airgun silencer clearly not a firearm silencer?

I understand what the legal definition says, but this needs to be practica. The courts aren't going to let you skate because you say your silencer is only an airgun silencer and you would never put it on a firearm, any more than they would set you free simply because you tell them that you're only going to use the white powder in the little baggie to grout your bathroom tile and that you would never snort it.

If you want to stay out of prison, you need to be able to prove that the silencer isn't a firearm silencer in exactly the same manner that you need to be able to prove that the substance in the baggie isn't cocaine. Your heart may be pure, but the court is going to nail you just the same if you can't prove that you didn't possess something illegal.

So what physical features do you point to in order to categorically demonstrate that this device is NOT a firearm silencer?

ChaoSS
January 15, 2014, 03:44 AM
Ok, so here's the crux of the matter.

What are the physical characteristics that make an airgun silencer clearly not a firearm silencer?

I understand what the legal definition says, but this needs to be practica. The courts aren't going to let you skate because you say your silencer is only an airgun silencer and you would never put it on a firearm, any more than they would set you free simply because you tell them that you're only going to use the white powder in the little baggie to grout your bathroom tile and that you would never snort it.

If you want to stay out of prison, you need to be able to prove that the silencer isn't a firearm silencer in exactly the same manner that you need to be able to prove that the substance in the baggie isn't cocaine. Your heart may be pure, but the court is going to nail you just the same if you can't prove that you didn't possess something illegal.

So what physical features do you point to in order to categorically demonstrate that this device is NOT a firearm silencer?
I would start with the method of attachment to the air gun. Firearm silencers are typically threaded with a specific thread. A slip on air gun suppressor should properly fit an air gun and hopefully would require an adaptor to fit to a firearm. Also, while the atf says that it's still a firearm silencerif it won't last more than one shot, being made of plastic would certainly help your case.

Think of it this way. What is the difference between a soda bottle and a soda bottle with an adaptor that will fit a threaded barrel? Think about why one is possessed by almost every American and one will land you in prison.

jmorris
January 15, 2014, 09:41 AM
A friend of mine owns a business that manufacturers suppressors, a few weeks ago he wanted to try out another monocore program he had made and stopped by my house because it's closer to him than any range.

It was machined from UHMW plastic (just for the prototype) and was undamaged from 20 rounds or so he fired through it.

I wouldn't want one for an airgun unless it was permanently attached. Otherwise I would just use one of my already stamped suppressors on an airgun.

Carl N. Brown
January 15, 2014, 10:10 AM
I am fairly sure that a legal airgun silencer ( http://tko22.com/ ) adapted to a firearm would be regarded by ATF as a firearm silencer ("redesigned" I think is the word they would use).

JohnKSa
January 15, 2014, 09:18 PM
I would start with the method of attachment to the air gun. Firearm silencers are typically threaded with a specific thread. A slip on air gun suppressor should properly fit an air gun and hopefully would require an adaptor to fit to a firearm.If you could demonstrate that the silencer could not be attached to a firearm, that would be an effective defense.

However, demonstrating that is going to require more than just having an unusual thread or a novel method of attachment. Using the standards that the BATF has used in other similar legislation, if the silencer can be attached to a firearm with common tools or readily available products or adapters then that won't be sufficient to be able to say it can't be attached to a firearm. In other words, if you can duct-tape it in place and it reduces the report then you've probably lost.Also, while the atf says that it's still a firearm silencerif it won't last more than one shot, being made of plastic would certainly help your case.It could help, but as you say, there's nothing in the law that says a silencer has to be durable to be a silencer.What is the difference between a soda bottle and a soda bottle with an adaptor that will fit a threaded barrel?That's a different debate. In this case we're talking about something that is obviously designed to be a silencer. There won't be any debate about what the item is as there could be in the case of a makeshift device. The question will be how a person possessing this silencer is going to prove that it is absolutely not a firearm silencer to the satisfaction of the courts.

1SOW
January 16, 2014, 02:03 AM
The term “firearm” is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon….” Based on Section 921(a)(3), air guns, because they use compressed air and not an explosive to expel a projectile, do not constitute firearms under Federal law — unless they are manufactured with the frames or receivers of an actual firearm. Accordingly, the domestic sale and possession of air guns is normally unregulated under the Federal firearms laws enforced by ATF.

We caution that ATF is not charged with enforcement or oversight of the firearms laws of States or localities. To determine possible restrictions on air guns where you reside, we recommend that you contact the office of your state Attorney General, the State Police, or other State/local law enforcement authorities for further guidance.

ADDED: I have it on good authority that a baby bottle "nipple" with an X cut on the end " WILL effectively silence a 22 rimfire rifle.

ChaoSS
January 16, 2014, 05:50 AM
The term “firearm” is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C.

ADDED: I have it on good authority that a baby bottle "nipple" with an X cut on the end " WILL effectively silence a 22 rimfire rifle.
I'm not looking for information on how to illegally silence a .22. I'm looking for further case law clarifying the issue of whether or not an air gun silencer is considered a firearm silencer.

Johnny, I don't see that it matters that one is designed as some form of silencer or not. What matters is whether or not it meets the legal definition or not. The way i see it, (as well as the appellate court in the case i mentioned) if one meets the definition, then the other does as well. What seems obvious to us really doesn't matter in the eyes of the law, if it did a silencer for a firearm would not be considered a firearm of it's own right, but it is.

brianr23
January 16, 2014, 07:05 AM
I would suggest everyone read the attached. Its pretty clear.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1527670.html

ChaoSS
January 16, 2014, 08:48 AM
That's the case I've been citing, I guess there are no others of interest? Sometimes different courts can have some different opinions...

brianr23
January 16, 2014, 04:41 PM
Consider the implications. If this is the only case law you have to ask why. I would think because the decision is clear. Why no further action by the Government? The case wasn't sent back to a lower court, his conviction was reversed. Now similar devices are manufactured on airguns and sold in your local Wal-mart. The genie is out of the bottle.

JohnKSa
January 16, 2014, 09:05 PM
Johnny, I don't see that it matters that one is designed as some form of silencer or not.I understand what you see and don't see.

What I'm telling you is that a soda bottle isn't a silencer until it is repurposed to be a silencer and without some evidence that said repurposing has been done or is obviously intended, (presence of an adaptor, picture of said soda bottle taped to muzzle, powder fouling inside and a bullet hole exit out the bottom, etc.) that it remains just a soda bottle.

However, an airgun silencer is OBVIOUSLY a silencer. It was made to be a silencer, it looks like a silencer, it works like a silencer. There is no need for any debate about whether it's a silencer or not.

The ONLY question is whether it's a FIREARM silencer or not. What I'm telling you is that it is VERY easy for the BATF to prove that your airgun silencer works just fine as a firearm silencer and put you in the position of having to prove that it's not.

So that's why I'm asking the question. What is your foolproof strategy (after all, there's a tremendous amount at stake) for proving to a court that already has evidence that your airgun silencer WORKS as a firearm silencer, that your airgun silencer isn't a firearm silencer?

Crooker's foolproof strategy didn't prevent him from being arrested. It didn't prevent him from being prosecuted. It didn't prevent him from being convicted. He did manage to prevail at his appeal.Sometimes different courts can have some different opinions...That's clearly true since the case in question provides the results of two different courts, the original trial court and the court to which he appealed. Their opinions differed.

That's why I keep harping on the need for a truly foolproof strategy. I can't afford to mess around with guessing about what opinion the court I'll end up in will have. I really can't even afford to be arrested, let alone go through the rest of the mess Crooker put himself through.

Best,

'Johnny' ;)Now similar devices are manufactured on airguns...An integral device that can't be removed intact via any reasonable means is hardly similar to a readily detachable device that could be easily attached to a firearm muzzle.

JRH6856
January 17, 2014, 12:35 AM
Crooker's foolproof strategy didn't prevent him from being arrested. It didn't prevent him from being prosecuted. It didn't prevent him from being convicted. He did manage to prevail at his appeal.

And now that he has prevailed, it is an issue or case law, not just statute law and while the decision is only binding in the fst Circuit, it can be cited in defense is all federal circuits. PRosecutors take this into account as well, and the lack of other cases strongly suggests that until the government acts to amend the law as the court said they must do, the question regarding the legal status of airgun silencers is answered.

JohnKSa
January 17, 2014, 12:51 AM
...it can be cited in defense is all federal circuits.Ah yes. The joy of case law. It can prevent you from being convicted after being arrested and brought to trial....the question regarding the legal status of airgun silencers is answered.The problem is that the question of how you PROVE it's an airgun silencer is still much less sure, and that's really the crux of the matter, isn't it.

Ok, let's try this from a slightly different angle.

1. How much does it cost to make sure that no court or law-enforcement officer can reasonably question the legality of a silencer you own?

2. Even assuming you manage the task, how much will it cost you to prove that your airgun silencer isn't a firearm silencer in court?

JRH6856
January 17, 2014, 01:08 AM
1. How much does it cost to make sure that no court or law-enforcement officer can reasonably question the legality of a silencer you own?

I thought you were looking for a defense to use in court against a charge. Now it appears thay what you want is to be shielded from any charge being filed. I think that is an unreasonable expectation, but the answer is easy:

Don't get caught with anything in your possession that even remotely resembles anything that could be attached to a firearm for the purpose of suppressing it.

IOW, what Chevota said.

ChaoSS
January 17, 2014, 09:50 AM
Ah yes. The joy of case law. It can prevent you from being convicted after being arrested and brought to trial.The problem is that the question of how you PROVE it's an airgun silencer is still much less sure, and that's really the crux of the matter, isn't it.

Ok, let's try this from a slightly different angle.

1. How much does it cost to make sure that no court or law-enforcement officer can reasonably question the legality of a silencer you own?

2. Even assuming you manage the task, how much will it cost you to prove that your airgun silencer isn't a firearm silencer in court?
A law enforcement officer might decide that a perfectly legal muzzle brake or flash hider on a rifle is a silencer. There is no guarantee, ever, that a law enforcement officer will not think that you are doing something illegal when you are not.

As for a court, I think it would be easy to prove that an airgun suppressor was in the same category as the one possessed by Mr. Crooker. So long as it is clearly designed to fit a particular barrel, one that doesn't match any firearms barrels that I own, it fits the case.

The issue is, does the court accept the case law or not.

JRH6856
January 17, 2014, 10:07 AM
The issue is, does the court accept the case law or not.

If it is in the 1st circuit, the court is bound by the appellate decision. If in another circuit, it may be advised by the decidion but reach a different one. Then you would have different opinoins for different circuits and it is up to SCOTUS to resolve the difference.

But you won't know unitl you get to court in the first place and it is the getting to court in the first place that I thionk JohnKSa is trying to find a way to avoid because of the hassle and expense of an arrest and trial.

brianr23
January 17, 2014, 11:51 AM
From the case cited:

The government's expert testified that the seized device could be used to muffle the sound of an ordinary firearm in various ways, including the holding of the device against the barrel of the firearm with one's hand so that the bullet would pass through the device;  but the witness admitted that this would be quite dangerous, and his own test was conducted only by threading an “adapter” onto both the barrel of an ordinary gun and the silencer to connect the two implements, because the silencer did not fit directly to the testing pistol.
The adapter was described as one of a collection taken from the witness' office in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the Department of the Treasury.   With the adapter, the sound of the weapon was significantly reduced.   The witness suggested a makeshift adapter could be assembled from hardware store materials, but did not say he had ever tried it or seen it done.   The government does not press on appeal any suggestion that the device could realistically be used to silence a firearm unless an adapter were used.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1527670.html#sthash.WQqT3nuB.dpuf

Pretty straight forward. If you have one don't adapt it to fit your firearm. ATF demonstrated that it could be adapted to silence a firearm but that was not enough. Like I said, read the link above. You can be arrested for anything. Whether you are breaking the law is different. My last comment on this.

JohnKSa
January 17, 2014, 09:25 PM
Now it appears thay what you want is to be shielded from any charge being filed.Well yeah! Who wants to go to court? I sure don't and I don't personally know anyone else who does either.You can be arrested for anything.This is glossing over the issue. Sure, a police officer can arrest you for anything. But if it's not something that has some reasonable basis in law, when you get out, you're going to have some definite legal recourse against the department that arrested you without legal cause.

Being arrested for having a silencer that you claim is an airgun silencer is a very different story. The average cop isn't going to be expected to be expert enough on silencers to tell the difference between an airgun silencer and a firearm silencer. So you're certainly going to take the ride and then likely end up in court. And even if you do prove your innocence, you're not going to have any recourse against the department because the charges were reasonable given the situation.A law enforcement officer might decide that a perfectly legal muzzle brake or flash hider on a rifle is a silencer. There is no guarantee, ever, that a law enforcement officer will not think that you are doing something illegal when you are not.There's a difference between doing something that's pretty obviously legal and having a police officer make a mistake and doing something that should be expected to look illegal to most police officers.

Sure, someone who's clueless might mistake a muzzle brake for a silencer, but that's very different from mistaking a silencer for a silencer.

Why am I even having to explain this? Is it even really necessary to have to spell out why a silencer might be mistaken for a silencer and how that's different from being arrested for "anything" or for having a muzzle brake on your gun?

The court decision makes it absolutely clear that airgun silencers are legal. It gives no clue as to how a person can make it clear that their silencer is an airgun silencer.

I think (HOPE???) that we can all understand why the police and the courts aren't going to instantly accept a defendant's word on a subject without some reasonable evidence/reasoning to back it up. If it were as simple as some of y'all are trying to make it, no one would ever be convicted for possession of anything illegal. All they would have to do is tell the courts/cops that it's something else (i.e. no, it's not a firearm silencer, I made it only for use on airguns) and then be instantly set free.

Which gets back to my question.

What strategy are you going to use to effectively and reliably prove that your airgun silencer is not a firearm silencer--thereby preventing yourself from being arrested and prosecuted?

JRH6856
January 18, 2014, 12:34 AM
I think (HOPE???) that we can all understand why the police and the courts aren't going to instantly accept a defendant's word on a subject without some reasonable evidence/reasoning to back it up. If it were as simple as some of y'all are trying to make it, no one would ever be convicted for possession of anything illegal. All they would have to do is tell the courts/cops that it's something else (i.e. no, it's not a firearm silencer, I made it only for use on airguns) and then be instantly set free.

Which gets back to my question.

What strategy are you going to use to effectively and reliably prove that your airgun silencer is not a firearm silencer--thereby preventing yourself from being arrested and prosecuted?

If your primary goal is to avoid arrest, and you believe that having anything that might be construded as a silencer could get you arrested, then don't ever get caught with anything resembling a silencer in your possession. But for anyone who believes their actions are legal and isn't afraid of having to defend their actions in court, your question is pointless.

JohnKSa
January 18, 2014, 12:50 AM
If your primary goal is to avoid arrest...I figured that was nearly every sane person's goal....you believe that having anything that might be construded as a silencer could get you arrested...What else could anyone possibly believe? If the police encounter a person who possesses what appears to be a silencer and that person can not produce the proper paperwork, there's really no need to speculate about what will happen next....then don't ever get caught with anything resembling a silencer in your possession.That makes perfect sense. Those who wish to avoid arrest are wise to avoid actions that appear illegal.But for anyone who believes their actions are legal and isn't afraid of having to defend their actions in court, your question is pointless.No, it's not pointless. It is still very important.

Ok, so you believe your actions are legal and you aren't afraid of defending them in court. That's not the end of the matter. You STILL have to come up with a defense strategy and that's exactly why the question is critically important.

The lack of a strategy that fits the description in the question I keep asking is equivalent to a lack of ability to effectively and reliably defend your actions. That should definitely scare you.

Look, I'm not saying that the current state of affairs is a good one. I'm not saying this is how I think it should be. I'm not saying that airgun silencers are illegal or that they should be.

What I AM saying is that I don't know of an effective and reliable strategy for proving that an airgun silencer is not a firearm silencer. If anyone else here knows, they're not telling.

What that effectively means is that I think it is unwise to possess an airgun silencer that isn't integral to an airgun. Because I don't want to be arrested, because I don't want to go to court, and because once I get to court, I don't have a strategy (nor has anyone else proposed a strategy) that provides a reasonable level of confidence in avoiding conviction.

JRH6856
January 18, 2014, 01:17 AM
Ok, so you believe your actions are legal and you aren't afraid of defending them in court. That's not the end of the matter. You STILL have to come up with a defense strategy and that's exactly why the question is critically important.

Now you are changing the question. Yes, it is necessary to have a defense strategy to use in court, that is what I have been saying all along. But you wanted a defense strategy that would keep you out of court, indeed, keep you from being arrested and charged in the first place which are necessary before you can even get to court.

The answer is the same: To avoid arrest, don't do anything that might possibly be construed as illegal. But there are many, many things that, even though legal, someone might construe to be illegal. These may or may not get you arrested. If they do, you get to defend yourself in court.

JohnKSa
January 18, 2014, 02:05 AM
Now you are changing the question.I was answering your contention that my question was pointless for someone who wasn't afraid of defending their actions in court. I explained why it was far from pointless for someone in that situation.

Yes, I think it's prudent to avoid arrest and prosecution. Yes, my strategy is to avoid arrest in the first place. I really figure I've already lost by the time I get into court in practical terms--even if I avoid conviction.

But that doesn't mean that the question I've asked is pointless for someone who's not afraid of being in court. Even someone like that still needs to have an effective and reliable strategy for avoiding conviction.But there are many, many things that, even though legal, someone might construe to be illegal. These may or may not get you arrested. If they do, you get to defend yourself in court.A true statement that is totally irrelevant. The fact that there are many things that you can do to make it look like you're breaking the law doesn't mean that it's smart to do any of them--including the particular one under discussion here.

JRH6856
January 18, 2014, 03:49 AM
The fact that there are many things that you can do to make it look like you're breaking the law doesn't mean that it's smart to do any of them--including the particular one under discussion here.

I believe I said that as well, if your sole or primary purpose is to avoid arrest, by all means refrain from all appearance of evil. Do nothing that might attract undue attention to yourself. But you keep asking (as I understand it) "How do you do something that might get you arrested without any risk of arrest?" The answer is, you don't, you have to accept the risk of arrest and be prepared to defend your actions in court. (You don't have to prove your innocence, either, just create a resonable doubt of your guilt in the mind of the jury. At least, that's the theory.)

JohnKSa
January 18, 2014, 04:12 PM
But you keep asking (as I understand it) "How do you do something that might get you arrested without any risk of arrest?"No, that's not what I'm asking at all.

The discussion is about the legality of airgun silencers. The court case makes it clear that they are legal under federal law. The federal definition of a silencer makes it clear that airgun silencers are legal under federal law. Some people who have responded on this thread seem to think that's all that matters.

It is CRITICALLY important for everyone to understand that even though they are legal, it doesn't mean that possessing and using one can be done with legal impunity given the unfortunate and considerable difficulty in reliably proving that a detachable silencer is an airgun silencer and not a firearm silencer.

The question I keep asking is intended to get people thinking, to help them understand that even though an airgun silencer is legal, they may still be arrested and tried for possessing one.You don't have to prove your innocence, either, just create a resonable doubt of your guilt in the mind of the jury. At least, that's the theory.In this case, the defendant will not start out innocent. The defendant will be guilty from the start and will have to prove innocence. That is because the defendant was caught in possession of a device that the prosecution will be able to prove functions as a firearm silencer. It's going to be up to the defendant to convince them that although it is clearly a silencer and clearly functions as a firearm silencer that it's really not a firearm silencer.

And THAT is why the question is important and anyone interested in this issue needs to consider it carefully. Given that easily anticipated state of affairs, anyone who wants to own a detachable airgun silencer needs to have some sort of strategy for dealing with such a predicament. Or, alternatively, they need to take steps to prevent themselves from ever becoming embroiled in the first place.

Outside of a classroom, the point of discussing these laws is to insure we don't end up in jail, or in a legal predicament. That makes it important to not just KNOW the legal definitions or to be able to cite a case, but to also UNDERSTAND the practical ramifications--the actual real-world considerations we need to take into account if we want to avoid looking down the wrong end of the justice system.

JRH6856
January 18, 2014, 07:20 PM
No, that's not what I'm asking at all.

OK, sorry I misunderstood you question. I agree with the rest except:

In this case, the defendant will not start out innocent. The defendant will be guilty from the start and will have to prove innocence.

The defendent always starts with a presumption of innocence. The burden in on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, it probably will be relatively easy to prove that an airgun silencer is a silencer and can be used to silence a firearm, but it is further necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used or intended to use it as a firearms silencer. This will not be easy because due to Crooker, an airgun suppressor is the equivalent of a potato and mere possession does not equate to intent.

Jaymo
January 18, 2014, 08:00 PM
The Fed Gov has ruled that LDCs, Moderators, Muzzle Brakes, whatever you want to call them, for air guns are NOT suppressors/silencers.
The law is very clear.
The ATFs opinion was shot down by the courts. End of story.

You could attach a lawn mower muffler to a firearm, if you had the intent and materials to adapt it to said use.
However, a lawn mower muffler is NOT a suppressor UNLESS you actually adapt it to and install it on a firearm.
The legal definition of silencers clearly states that they are designed and intended to reduce the report of a FIREARM.
Not being a FIREARM, the ATF has NO AUTHORITY over ANYTHING airgun related.

Is that clear enough for you?

BB Pelletier's OPINION of the legality of LDCs is just that, an OPINION.
It is also an opinion he formed BEFORE the courts put this subject to rest.

BY LAW, and LDC is NOT a silencer unless and until someone adapts it to and installs it on a firearm.
That's one reason the thread-onLDCs don't use 1/2"-28 threads. It's so you can't take it off your Sam Yang .45 and install it on a .45 cal firearm.
The intended use of the object is one of the reasons it got shot down.
LDCs are intended to be used on air guns only.
Silencers are intended to be used on firearms only.

There is a company making oil filter adapters that let you use an oil filter for a suppressor.
That's an NFA item.

There is also a company making oil filter adapters that let you use an oil filter as a solvent trap for cleaning your firearm.
It has ATF approval, because it is not INTENDED to be used as a suppressor, therefore, it
does not meet the legal definition of a hush can.

Could you use it as one?
Dunno. I supppose.
If you did, you'd be in violation of NFA.
If you use it as a solvent trap (it's intended use) you are not in violation.

2 and 3 liter Coke bottles and duct tape can be used for suppression.
Neither item is illegal to possess, even together.
It's when you assemble them on the gun AND use them as a suppressor (you could be using them as a solvent trap. INTENT, remember?) that you run afoul of the law.

If LDCs were illegal, the ATF would have been all over the makers by now.
Who knows, they might want to, but they can't because they don't have
a case.

JohnKsa, it's not hard to prove that an LDC is NOT a silencer.
You CAN'T remove one from an air gun and install it on a firearm without making adapters.
Plus, you'd have to have it on a firearm to be in violation.

JohnKSa
January 18, 2014, 08:21 PM
The defendent always starts with a presumption of innocence.In this case, the prosecution will have ample evidence to show possession of a silencer and it will be the defendant's burden to prove that it's not a firearm silencer. We could claim that there's a presumption of innocence, but since we know that the prosecution already has sufficient evidence to convict in the absence of an effective and reliable defense, that presumption is already nullified in this situation.Plus, you'd have to have it on a firearm to be in violation.We know that's not true. You don't even have to own a firearm to be charged with illegally owning a silencer. A silencer itself is the regulated item. It doesn't need to be attached to anything for a violation to occur.You CAN'T remove one from an air gun and install it on a firearm without making adapters.I agree, that's a step in the right direction, but I think that's a thin strand from which to suspend your continued freedom.

By this logic, a silencer that hasn't been threaded for attachment isn't a silencer. That would mean that anyone could make a fully functional silencer and simply leave out the step of cutting the attachment threads and that would make the device not a silencer....it's not hard to prove that an LDC is NOT a silencer.So far I haven't heard any strategies that would prove effectively and reliably that a detachable airgun silencer is not a firearm silencer.You could attach a lawn mower muffler to a firearm...That's already been covered adequately. A thing that is not a silencer is not a silencer until there's some additional evidence that it has been repurposed to be a silencer.

That's not the topic under discussion. In this case, the item in question IS a silencer and we know that it can be proven that it will function as a firearm silencer. That's a very different situation than having a common everyday item that COULD be repurposed into a silencer.If LDCs were illegal, the ATF would have been all over the makers by now.Here's a project, requiring only minimal effort. Contact all these makers and ask them if they have proper federal paperwork for making firearm silencers. When they answer in the affirmative, ask them why they would go to the trouble since they're only making airgun silencers....the courts put this subject to rest.That's a simplistic view of a topic which is quite complex in practice.

I'm not telling anyone what they can/can't, or should/shouldn't do, but I do think it's important for everyone to understand that there are pitfalls here that we need to be aware of.

Jaymo
January 18, 2014, 08:33 PM
Ok, you don't listen.
You know everything.
Have fun with that.
The law has been very clear.

Why would LDC Mfrs have a license to build silencers?
It wouldn't protect them, if LDCs were considered silencers.
They would still be in violation of NFA because of selling to people without a tax stamp.
Did you consider that?

The law has been made very clear.
LDCs are NOT silencers.
Therefore, ATF has NO AUTHORITY over them.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Watch out for the black helicopters.
I'm done with this.

JohnKSa
January 18, 2014, 08:57 PM
Ok, you don't listen.I read what you posted, and I think that an objective read of my last post makes that clear. I just disagree with your oversimplification.LDCs are NOT silencers.
Therefore, ATF has NO AUTHORITY over them.LDCs clearly are silencers. They just aren't firearm silencers. They are airgun silencers.

You are correct that BATF has no jurisdiction over airgun silencers, but your claim oversimplifies the actual situation.

Before that fact does a defendant any good, they have to have some reliable and effective means of proving that their airgun silencer isn't a firearm silencer. Until that has been established then the BATF is definitely in the driver's seat.I'm done with this.:D

JRH6856
January 18, 2014, 10:07 PM
Before that fact does a defendant any good, they have to have some reliable and effective means of proving that their airgun silencer isn't a firearm silencer. Until that has been established then the BATF is definitely in the driver's seat.

Yes, given the overwhelming number of people being prosecuted for this, it certainly appears that BATF is definitely in the driver's seat. :rolleyes:

OK, maybe they are in the driver's seat as you say, but the court took the keys away so it's a non-starter.

JohnKSa
January 18, 2014, 10:57 PM
...given the overwhelming number of people being prosecuted for this...Everything we do in our lives is an exercise in risk assessment. The number of prosecutions (assuming someone can provide an accurate figure--and no one has so far) should probably figure into the risk assessment, but the chances of being caught is only one factor in the assessment. The potential damages resulting from being one of the few who runs afoul of this issue is another important consideration....the court took the keys away so it's a non-starter.You think so?

So how do you envision an encounter with LE progressing when an airgun silencer is involved? It sounds like your general idea is that it will go something like this:

Officer: "What is that thing there on your airgun. Can you remove it for me?"
Citizen: "Why sure--here it is."
Officer: "This looks like a silencer. Do you have the proper paperwork for it?"
Citizen: "No, you don't need paperwork for it because it's an airgun silencer."
Officer: "Oh, sorry to have bothered you. I'm just going to take your word for it and let you go your merry way because citizens never claim they're innocent when I catch them doing something that appears to be illegal."

Do I need to explain why that is an incredibly unlikely exchange?

I really don't understand why this very basic concept seems to be a sticking point. I find it surprising that I'm having to work this hard to convince people why a simple claim of innocence isn't really an effective strategy for avoiding arrest and prosecution.

JRH6856
January 18, 2014, 11:53 PM
Do I need to explain why that is an incredibly unlikely exchange?

Yes, you do, because it is an incredibly unlikely exchange.

I find it surprising that I'm having to work this hard to convince people why a simple claim of innocence isn't really an effective strategy for avoiding arrest and prosecution.

And I don't know why I'm having to work this hard to convince you that a claim of innocence is something you present in court. If a LEO decides to arrest you, a claim of innocence will not stop the arrest. But just how likely is it that a LEO is going to arrest you for an act that the courts have already ruled to be legal? And if arrested, how likely is the DA to prosecute a case that the courts have already ruled to be legal?

Hint: It won't be a state or county DA making the decision. They don't prosecute federal violations (nor do local police usually enforce federal laws), it will be a AUSA who makes the decision and they generally are versed in federal court rulings.

Yes, one must assess the risk involved in any action, but if I were worried about this degree of risk, I wouldn't leave the house for fear of a lightning strike.

JohnKSa
January 19, 2014, 12:24 AM
Yes, you do, because it is an incredibly unlikely exchange.:confused: You want me to explain it even though you agree with me?And I don't know why I'm having to work this hard to convince you that a claim of innocence is something you present in court.What gives you the idea that I don't understand that? And what gives you the idea that it's even relevant?

No matter where you present it, if your only strategy for defending yourself is claiming that "No, it's not illegal, it's something else other than what you think it is." things aren't going to go very well for you. It's going to take more than that to achieve a favorable outcome.But just how likely is it that a LEO is going to arrest you for an act that the courts have already ruled to be legal?Don't you see how circular this is? You're assuming that he is going to automatically agree that it's legal because he's going to simply accept your claim of what it is at face value . He's not--he's seen criminals attempt that kind of thing before. If LEOs were that gullible they'd never arrest anyone for anything at all. They aren't going to let you walk away because you come up with the creative strategy of simply claiming that item X (which is illegal) is really item Y (which is legal)....it will be a AUSA who makes the decision and they generally are versed in federal court rulings.It doesn't matter who it is. All of them are well-versed in criminals trying to claim innocence without being able to provide concrete evidence to support their claim.

What you're suggesting is like saying if you write "Airgun Silencer" on the side of the device you're home free. Because once they see it says "Airgun Silencer" they're going to realize it's legal because airgun silencers are legal and so they'll let you alone.

Stop for just a second and look at this from the LEO's/court's perspective. They aren't going to accept that it's an airgun silencer just because you write it on the side or just because you tell them it is. If it were that simple, no one would ever be prosecuted for anything. You're going to have to actually come up with a coherent argument and reasonable evidence to prove your case or they're going to go on believing that it's NOT an airgun silencer.

Your entire premise is based on the idea that it's self-evident to everyone involved that the item in question is an airgun silencer. In reality, convincing everyone of that fact is going to be your job.

JRH6856
January 19, 2014, 01:10 AM
What gives you the idea that I don't understand that? And what gives you the idea that it's even relevant?

I don't know. Maybe it's becasue you keep asking about avoiding arrest. like:

I find it surprising that I'm having to work this hard to convince people why a simple claim of innocence isn't really an effective strategy for avoiding arrest and prosecution.

Since there are a lot of people with airguns that have these devices, and there is not any indication that they are being arrested in droves, it really appears that arrest is a highly unlikely (though remotely possible) event.If there is no arrest and/or charge, it make the possibility of prosecution even more remote.

JohnKSa
January 19, 2014, 05:30 PM
Maybe it's becasue you keep asking about avoiding arrest.There is nothing about wanting to avoid arrest that would preclude understanding the general principles of how trials work. So yes. I want to avoid arrest. And yes. I understand how a trial works.Since there are a lot of people with airguns that have these devices...I'd actually be interested to see some data relating to how many people in the U.S. have detachable airgun silencers.there is not any indication that they are being arrested in droves, it really appears that arrest is a highly unlikely (though remotely possible) event.I think we've already touched on this at least once in this thread. The probability of being caught is a factor in risk assessment, but it's not the only thing to consider. If the odds were all that mattered, no one would buy lottery tickets. Clearly what's at stake is also very important.

JRH6856
January 19, 2014, 07:47 PM
If the odds were all that mattered, no one would buy lottery tickets. Clearly what's at stake is also very important.

No, adds are clearly not all that matters. What also matters is the value of the possible loss vs the valie of the possible gain. If my odds of winning are over 10million to 1, and all I stand to win is $1 for a $1 ticket, that is a certain loss of $1 vs a 10million:1 chance of breaking even. With no chance of gain, no reason to take the risk.

OTOH, if a $1 chance gets me a certain $100 reward with a 10million:1 chance of having to pay an additional $10,000, many people might take that risk every day.

(above numbers are for illustration only. I make no claim that they represent any real world scenario).

The point is, it is highly unlikely that local LEOs and DAs will be enforcing this law and no evidence has been presented that BATFE or the FBI has attempted since Crooker, to do so in the manner you describe. But yes, one should be aware that there is a remote possibiltiy that some LEO somehwhere, sometime, might try.

Kernel
January 25, 2014, 07:10 PM
The TKO muzzle device (silencer) is plastic (except for the set screws that hold it on the barrel). Maybe that's part of the reason why the ATF isn't to concerned. They know it would melt, or blow apart, if used on a real firearm. The inside is a labyrinth of baffles & air chambers. Just like a real silencer. But they're all plastic.

JRH6856
January 25, 2014, 10:30 PM
The inside is a labyrinth of baffles & air chambers. Just like a real silencer. But they're all plastic.

Oh. A model.

If you enjoyed reading about "Suppressors, silencers, shrouds, brakes, whatever they may be called." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!