I'm not defending ATF bub, just pointing out the usual inaccuracies in your posts.
Hmm, SIG brace, SIG brake, M855, bound-book copying, sting operations...I'm sure I can think of some other times you've ridden to their defense in predictable blinding splendor. It's just...odd; stands out like a suit at a rave odd. Especially considering you are particularly well-positioned as an FFL to experience the full brunt of their snap judgments, and contradictory instructions (though maybe you have one of the many excellent field agents reviewing your practice as opposed to a goober). Defending this kind of move goes beyond mentioning "they have a hard/impossible job, it's the laws that suck, they're generally good people, it's mostly a management problem" to outright water-carrying.
It's not a "precedent"..... it was an opinion letter by ATF Technical Branch. If you take the time to actually READ the Bardwell letter you'll see the wiggle room TB left itself.
There is no justifiable/articulable reason the Bureau needed to make this change after enforcing the exact opposite practice
for decades. Unlike with the open-bolt guns, there is no Cobray-brand budget silencer called "The Murdelator" proliferating among crack-fueled gang warriors; this is simply some agent (probably not even the Bureau, proper) asserting their au-thor-i-tay in contravention of long-standing rules. Either because they seek to stand out for promotion purposes, or because they were ignorant of this long-standing exemption in the first place (wouldn't be the first time agents gave contradictory opinions in 'official' opinion papers; there's a lot of right hand/left hand miscommunication up there, which is the reason that central database for op-letters was included on that white-paper of suggestions floated a while back)
prec·e·dent
NOUN
- an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances:
"there are substantial precedents for using interactive media in training" ·
I said "precedent," not "legal precedent." There is a difference --legally, a significant one-- though in practice not really since courts generally defer to the ATF's judgement. The ATF aren't judges (thank God) so they don't make legal precedent with their scribblings; they do however, make regulatory precedent, sure as sugar. There is no comprehensive, up to date, maintained Big Book of ATF Regs out there for a whole lot of areas of gun law, and certainly not exhuastive; that's why we weren't sure if they were cool with certain kinds of "80% " receiver precursor products, or serialized monocores, or lots of other stuff, until we see someone get an approval letter, or an indictment. So when we see them approve or consent to a certain practice (or outright endorse it in official letterhead for Pete's sake) for
decades, it is only reasonable to proceed accordingly ourselves. When a snap change like this is made with zero warning or input, despite largescale effects on many people & products (some owned, again, for
decades), it is rightly called arbitrary or capricious;
ar·bi·trar·y
[ˈärbəˌtrerē]
ADJECTIVE
- based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system:
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
synonyms;
capricious ·
whimsical ·
random ·
chance ·
unpredictable ·
casual
Caprice suggests ill-intent, which admittedly may or may not be the case here. The upredictability of authority is the main issue, though. When the Bureau reverses long-standing stances on basic, clear practices like replaceable wipes, it throws all their other, equally precedented opinions into doubt. Is an AR forging now a receiver when the magwell is broached out? Who knows! The uncertainty makes it impossible for people or manufacturers to safely operate in accordance with what they believe the ATF's enforcement practices to be (this frequently goes well beyond what the incredibly vague & unhelpful original statutes say). This gets in the way of business, and liberty.
There is no tax or a "6-9 month wait" on wipes unless the transferee wants to keep spares. If a silencer needs it's wipes replaced there are numerous gunsmiths who can do it while you wait or you could even ship it back to the manufacturer for replacement.
You don't...make anything, do you. Like, you just pass finished product guns through your shop, right? Maybe some light gunsmith work? For those of us who actually
make NFA/GCA-regulated parts, from items that
aren't NFA/GCA-regulated parts, what you state is very onerous if not prohibitory. I'd have to pay some gunsmith to
custom make the wipes for a can I built for personal purposes on a Form 1, probably having to transfer the can to him/etc to ensure proper manufacture & function, he'd of course have to pay ITAR to do anything of this level of complexity even if I understand he need not be an SOT FFL (for now; it's solely at ATF discretion this exemption exists, same as for unregulated wipes previously). I already have to do this if I wish to replace the Chore Boy scrubber pads inside my silencer, courtesy the last time the ATF decided simple/common items were silencer parts. As you may guess, many if not most users of this type of can simply hmmm-hmmm-hmmm because there is no reasonable way to abide the official rule. That's why I don't personally use this sort of can; now I will be choosing to not make wipe-cans either; one more technology not worth the effort to develop solely due to ATF regulation & the threat of further restriction at the drop of a hat.
For example; the only, I mean the
only reasons anyone would make, sell, or buy a wipe-based silencer is because they are 1) quieter than pure baffle designs can be safely made for the first handful of shots, 2) cheaper than high-precision tight-baffle designs, 3)
easily/cheaply serviced and repaired for peak performance. The last one is especially important because the wipes last maybe a dozen shots, not even a full mag before suppression quality is degraded noticeably. You are saying, that for every demonstration with, say, a CZ Scorpion, it is reasonable for a person to remove the can, package it up, send it in, pay & wait for factory parts to then be sent to the FFL or the FFL to make the parts on top of their six-month backlog of scope installations, pay for labor/overhead to install a five-cent gasket, get the gun back, send it back again until actually assembled correctly with the right parts, deal with shipping companies when it's lost/stolen in transit, etc...
It's like saying there's nothing ridiculous about having to have your (dragster) car tires replaced at a busy state licensed vehicle inspector shop, instead of the track, or risk ruinous prosecution for a serious felony
. Let me guess, this is fine with you since dragsters aren't street-legal?
TCB
