Suppressors, silencers, shrouds, brakes, whatever they may be called.
- Thread starter ChaoSS
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,099
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.
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
Member
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).
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
I would suggest everyone read the attached. Its pretty clear.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1527670.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1527670.html
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.
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.
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'
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.
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
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.
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?
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
Well yeah! Who wants to go to court? I sure don't and I don't personally know anyone else who does either.
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.
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
Member
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.
I figured that was nearly every sane person's goal.
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.
That makes perfect sense. Those who wish to avoid arrest are wise to avoid actions that appear illegal.
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.
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
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.
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.
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.
- Status
