BATFE rules wipes are suppressor parts, and thusly regulated.

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by Acera, Mar 20, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Acera

    Acera Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,169
    Location:
    Free State of Texas
    https://www.instagram.com/p/BR4IPLzFfMb/

    While this is specifically addressed to one manufacturers suppressor, I think it can be interpreted to apply to all cans that use wipes. From now on they do not want end users replacing these little discs with holes in the middle, send it off to a licensed dealer for the replacement.

    Hope this gets fixed soon, as I was thinking about using a wipe in my next build.
     
  2. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    The only bright spot in all this is that modern silencer tech is no longer so dependent on wipes.

    This is a ridiculous reversal, and practically a dare on the part of the ATF, the very epitome of arbitrary & capricious behavior by a regulator. Reminds me an awful lot of their response to the Thompson Center case, where for years they pretended that the supreme court ruling applied solely to the particular pistol model in question (yup, I'm sure SCOTUS wasted entire weeks for a single-shot pistol kit manufactured by a single small maker) and dared people to challenge them on it; eventually they were forced to admit it applied to all pistols & therefore we can put stocks & long barrels on handguns now & reverse the process legally.

    I suppose our only recourse is to pray they do not alter the deal further (mandatory sealed cans) while the HPA does or does not come to pass. Because if the ATF says something is a silencer, judges are bound by precedent to take them at their word.

    TCB
     
    JeffG likes this.
  3. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,594
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    You would think it won't be long before they say the individual baffles in .22 suppressors that come apart are separate suppressors.

    Recently they shut down that company for selling the solvent trap kits claiming those were suppressors even though there is no physical way for a bullet to pass through when assembled. Rogue agency doing rogue things, they ignore Congress but Congress couldn't care less about the lawless harassment they give us.
     
  4. MachIVshooter
    • Contributing Member

    MachIVshooter Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    17,181
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    That's already the case; all suppressor parts are suppressors themselves. That's why these DIY suppressor kits don't have holes poked through baffles or end caps.
     
  5. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,594
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    You're right, I meant to say they would reclassify those baffles as separate suppressors and tell people they can't service their own.
     
  6. Gordon
    • Contributing Member

    Gordon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    12,139
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    why hasn't Trump fired the rulers of the BATFE ? Even ex BATFE agents I know agree ! It has become politicized and anti 2nd Amendment these last 40 years :(
     
    JeffG and DoubleMag like this.
  7. giggitygiggity

    giggitygiggity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,992
    Where does it stop? Are they going to start requiring tax stamps from chunks of stainless steel or aluminum because they could be CNC'd into NFA items? Does possessing a rollpin from the trigger guard of a full auto M16 constitute an NFA item because it is a part of a full auto firearm? They've established a precedence for idiocy.
     
  8. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    That's my worry, that cans become 'sealed' by decree and far less desirable. Suddenly there is no profit in dealing with NFA silencers, whatsover (at least with $200 and a year's wait you can justify a much nicer can than you really need; if the item is then forced to be semi-disposable because it cannot be serviced, now it no longer matters as much what you get after your time & tax money)

    I think it's inevitable absent the HPA passing (LOL), since this 'modular silencer' can of worms has ATF retro-active overreach written all over it. I can easily see them not wanting to play that game, especially since they have recently decreed the silencer tube to be the serialized component; it stands to reason (well, ATF reason) that modular designs with 'external' baffles could be considered individually serialized items themselves (now your adjustable/serviceable can is $200 per baffle, or even $200 per separate part). Just as the ATF has more and more narrowly defined what an 80% AR receiver can be, I think this year they are devoting their energy to hashing out the nuance of silencer manufacture to their benefit (i.e. DIY Form 1 kits, solvent traps, freeze plugs, Maglite tubes, blast diverters, quick connect muzzle brakes, and 'storage cups' are likely to be on notice in the near future)

    "why hasn't Trump fired the rulers of the BATFE ?"
    LOL.

    TCB
     
  9. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,705
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    It's not really a reversal, as Federal law has long held that silencer parts by themselves ARE considered silencers by themselves. The ONLY document that says "wipes" MAY be replaced by the owner is a nonbinding Determination Letter from ATF Technical Branch decades ago. Determination Letters are not legally binding on ATF and are often superseded in subsequent letters.



    They would be if you managed to have spares around.



    There's a bit more to that story than that. That company was openly describing parts as "silencer parts".......exceedingly dumb.



    If you buy a silencer that comes with five "segments"......all are part of the same silencer. It is no different than an end cap that screws off. If you have a baffle strike, current ATF regs allow you to exchange the damaged part to a manufacturer for repair or replacement. But you cannot just purchase a replacement baffle without exchanging the damaged one.


    Nonsensical argument. "Chunks" of metal aren't silencers until they meet the definition of silencer in Federal law.


    No, because Federal law does not say anything of the sort. (trigger guard roll pins are not designed solely and exclusively for machine guns)
    Federal law DOES however define silencer parts differently.

    Silencer
    18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24)
    The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

    Machinegun

    26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)
    For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means:
    Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
    The frame or receiver of any such weapon
    Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or
    Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
     
  10. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Is there no length you wont go to defend the ATF? This is a widely known, widely recognized precedent going back decades, understood & respected because of the obvious truth that NFA transfer of a component which wears out in a dozen shots, that cannot be kept as spares, with a 200$ tax on a five-cent item with a 6-9 month wait, is completely ridiculous on its face. It is indefensible. Not to mention the retroactive effect is likely a larger scale than even the great Unilateral Open Bolt Semi-auto Roundup of years past.

    The precedent regarding wipes is undeniable. If you want to talk facts, and not merely defend the ATF to the point of embarrassing yourself, you would say that as of this point, there *is* no such ATF determination. These are third hand rumors from an industry player, not published Bureau letterhead.

    But it isn't like this is the first time law-abiding gun owners have had to act upon unspoken ATF rumor out of a fear of prosecution by an agency with far too much discretion, which is why the discussion is still relevant.

    TCB
     
    Ryanxia likes this.
  11. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,705
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    I'm not defending ATF bub, just pointing out the usual inaccuracies in your posts.


    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.
    Further, you should read the actual ATF regulation and the Federal law that defines "silencer" (I posted it above). After you read the actual flipping law get back to me on how wipes are "precedent"



    What's "indefensible" is your ignorance of ATF regulations, Federal law and the National Firearms Act. You confuse an understanding and knowledge of the ATF regs and the NFA with "defending ATF".

    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.




    Possibly.



    I think you don't really know as much about legal precedents as you think you do.
    ATF Determination letters and Technical Branch opinion letters aren't legal precedent, they aren't the law, they aren't regulations...... but OPINION. And they are always subject to change. And there is a history of changes that make earlier determination letters and opinion letters invalid. Heck, ATF doesn't even have them catalogued to know what was issued previously. Again, read the definition of "silencer" in Federal law and ATF regs and tell me how a "wipe" isn't a silencer part.

    Want to see a list of ATF opinion letters and the subsequent letters that invalidated the original letter? http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/law.html




    Again, you confuse knowledge of the NFA with defending ATF. Anyone with the reading comprehension of a middleschooler who takes the time to read Federal law would realize why that decades old opinion letter is junk. What is embarrassing is someone engaging in a discussion that they know little about.




    No, the Bardwell opinion letter has been published for years......but is in direct conflict with the definition of silencer. I suspect a competitor of Dead Air sent a little letter to ATF asking why the definition and Bardwell letter conflicted.




    Wait........you think Dead Air made this up? Why on earth would they do that?:scrutiny: Tin foil abounds.:uhoh:
    Since you want something on ATF letterhead here's a link to the ATF Technical Branch letter to Mr Bardwell:http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter66.txt




    What?:scrutiny:
    Tell us more about "unspoken ATF rumor".
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  12. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    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.

    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)

    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;

    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.

    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 :scrutiny:. Let me guess, this is fine with you since dragsters aren't street-legal?

    TCB
     
  13. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    If it's so "obvious" as you put it, why has the ATF not been nailing industry for producing wipes at any point in the last twenty years, and instead been putting out circulars stating they are unregulated wear items that may be user-serviced without special handling? To entrap people into producing their own wipes, or trick industry into making products than will be made worthless when the new letter comes out? Again, these can owners can/will/are replacing their own wipes, and will continue to do so, and it will be impossible for the ATF to enforce or prosecute them absent a tiny number of specific cases.

    LOL, no; might want to sharpen your own reading comprehension before criticizing mine. I said that *factually* the assertion from Dead Air is all we have so far. No, I see no reason they would exaggerate or fib about this, which is why I am treating it as a real(ly abrupt) opinion change for the Bureau, and expect to see a letter outlining this further in the near future (or a statement refuting the agent who contacted Dead Air; as has happened before)

    How would you go about producing a semi-auto KPV cannon? Bore size is 14.5mm, so DD-classification is a given, but beyond that, how do you proceed such that the result complies with ATF interpretations of NFA/GCA/etc statute & their own regulations? This is a real question, btw; I have a parts kit I intend to make into a ridiculous anti-tank rifle for my own amusement on a Form 1. There are no guidebooks, examples, or instruction manuals from others I can follow that apply to this particular platform. The current wait-time for a formal classification letter from the ATF Tech Branch is in excess of one year at this time, and often involves destruction of the submitted prototype or first article (and this is my only kit since they are rare). The current turnaround time for generic Tech Branch questions is at least a year (see MachIVShooter's 1/2 scale AR build; he still hasn't heard back whether his pint-sized 'stock' truly constitutes a stock that would make the 1/2 scale 7" barrel rimfire an SBR). Patent/firearms lawyers who specialize in this area for industry can be assumed to be at least $500/hr (that's probably the buddy rate)

    How do you proceed?

    A less-hypothetical example; would you buy a PPSH-41 parts kit with intact barrel shroud & trunnion? Or a single-saw-cut Thompson kit? They're both perfectly legal, though the ATF not only revised demill standards to be far more destructive (three 1/4" wide torch cuts with one through trunnion), arrested a bunch of bikers in possession of the old-style kits which they'd sort of finagled into working with duct tape & stuff, and also traced as many of the kits from the importer as they could and confiscated or demilled a great many before wandering off for the next grand adventure. This all happened several years after the old-style kits were first imported/demilled/sold, by the way, so of course a lot of the kits were never recovered, and the kits from previous import waves were not covered by the reclamation effort (and therefore remain perfectly legal to possess/sell/build to this day).

    What about markings on 80% receivers? We (now) know that both center-marking and tracing of holes are considered the same as actually drilling them (even if in the wrong location), for purposes of demonstrating intent to possession. What about tracing or partially-cutting outlines for ejection or magazine ports on tube-based receivers, or flat sideplates as seen on 1919/Vickers/Maxim designs? The ATF has said that templates on STEN tubes are fine, that partially-cut holes in ZK383 & M38A tubes are fine, and that template-stickers may not be applied to AR15 precursors as-shipped to customers. You want to talk original statute meanings, how the hell is a templated AR lower or completed-but-unattached STEN tube 'readily' convertible to anything but a paperweight (as compared to an unfinished block or tube)? Possession involves stuff that *is* an NFA item or nearly indistinguishable from it --not ingredients with no other apparent use-- yet that is not how the law has come to be interpreted, now is it?

    As you say, not even the ATF is aware of what all its previous opinions, enforcement practices, or precedents are (legal and otherwise). So how are new, unresolved questions to be resolved? How are questions resolved at ATF discretion to be treated going forward?

    The safe path is to simply avoid these areas altogether, and essentially only build/buy/sell what they allow us to, which gives them *all* the power they want, far more than was ever granted by the statute.

    Oh, another good example is semi-auto UZIs in the wake of Thompson Center v United States; the ATF, having been spanked for it's "once a rifle always a rifle" whole-cloth invention by none other than SCOTUS, went on to claim for ten straight years that the slogan still applied for all guns besides the Contender model. Gun makers had to design special 'denial features' that wouldn't allow a factory short barrel to be installed in their "long barrel" guns without modification, despite the fact that, you know...hacksaws. Yup, sure enough, after a decade, numerous lower-level court defeats finally made them admit they'd been wrongfully prosecuting people the entire time (like a half-dozen or so that I'm aware of)

    TCB
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  14. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,705
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    Again, and I don't really understand how this is so difficult for you to understand.......you view my understanding of Federal law and ATF regulations as agreement with them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    NEVER have I defended the idea of ATF copying of bound books......so you are wholly and completely full o' crap. If you are saying that I have you damn well better provide a quote. Regarding ATF Determinations on M855, Sig Arm Brace, etc...........I know for a fact I only wrote an explanation of how ATF regulations view those items.






    It's only odd because you haven't taken the time to read and research the topic at hand. It's far easier to merely do your usual whine and moan of "ATF done did us wrong" rather than try and understand the WHY.

    I'll ask again.........have you read the definition of "silencer" in Federal law and ATF regulations? If so, explain why "wipes" are somehow exempt.
    I don't really expect an answer, as you most likely won't read anything.



    Horsehockey.
    Your ignorance has been pointed out once again, so you resort to such comments. NOT ONCE in this thread have I offered a defense of ATF's change of opinion. In fact I wish they would stop issuing Determination Letters and opinion letters because they are not actual regulations. Instead I would prefer to see regulations that are written a bit more detailed........but then you wouldn't understand them either.



    Well, maybe someone actually read the actual law regarding silencers. Have you?




    I agree. A central database of ATF opinion letters would be helpful.......if they actually carried the force of law. (But they don't)
    ATF reversing their opinion of wipes is nothing new. They have reversed opinion letters and Determination Letters numerous times in the past.



    In a thread about the LEGALITIES of Federal law, using the term "precedent" carries the idea that you did intend to mean legal precedent.


    You have to be kidding me. ATF regulations are easy to find.......just go to atf.gov
    This confirms that you don't post from an educated position, but from an emotional one.


    Nonsense. There are thousands of 07's that know what meets the definition of "firearm" in ATF regulations. YOUR problem is YOU don't bother trying to read and understand the law or regulations.



     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  15. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,705
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    What "circulars" has ATF put out? I'm not aware of a single one, only the sole Technical Branch Opinion letter to Mr. Bardwell.




    Yep, it sucks when some office drone at ATF changes their mind. But again, what part of the definition of silencer makes a wipe exempt?


    True.


    It's not just your lack of reading comprehension, it's your refusal to do a minimum of research.


    If I were in the business of manufacturing Destructive Devices I would have a Type 10FFL for a start.



    Are you saying you don't know how to fill out a Form 1 for a Destructive Device?




    What are you asking? How to fill out the Form 1 or asking how to bolt that thing together?

    I'm not your lawyer, nor are you paying me for my knowledge of navigating the NFA. I suggest you start reading Federal law and ATF regs.

    And what is your question in this rant?


    Really? You are asking this?
    What makes you think ATF has a copy of that 1999 Bardwell letter?
    You think a 2017 ATF staff attorney has an identical opinion of wipes than did the ATF in 1999?

    Sad, but true.

    Uh.....Semi auto Uzi's? If they were originally a carbine with either fixed or folding stock they cannot be converted to a pistol (even under TCvsUS) without an SBR tax stamp.
     
  16. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,705
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    doubletap
     
  17. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Your responses to the technical questions are about what I figured. "Read the law" is not sufficient guidance & you know it, which is where the ATF comes in, which means "divining their will"

    Uh, personal use, which is why a Form 1 was mentioned ;). Believe it or not, the original statute is actually a bit vague concerning whether a Form 1 is even needed, since there are a number of vague exemptions listed (IIRC, 'cultural' is an exemption). I'm too chicken to try w/o a tax stamp since the Bureau treats double-D's even more harshly than machineguns, but that's what the law says. Fortunately I'm knowledgeable enough to realize their attitude in this area & won't push the envelope.

    If you knew the first thing about NFA, you would know that the form, how you "bolt it together" (wish it were so easy), and the end configuration are equally important if you want to obey the law. Because guns are diverse and the law is vague, it leaves a lot of questions.

    TCB
     
  18. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    True, which was the justification cited by ATF in giving this guidance. Even though a court case had just settled whether special considerations were necessary to prevent a pistol from being readily convertible to SBR or a rifle of identical geometry and back again. ATF claimed only the TC rifle model was affected, ergo all others still required special denial features. Also that all other models of pistol were to forever remain rifles if ever converted, requiring stamps to change back. Again, even though long barrels are intrinsically readily sawn down into short ones. After a decade of court defeats where the ATF was trying to nail people for possessing pistols/rifles with interchangeable parts, they finally admitted defeat & settled for the system we have now (gun must *actually be* an NFA configuration or parts must only be configurable into the same to constitute intent; ie reasonable doubt was respected at last)

    Their final admission of defeat is the reason AR pistols are so popular.
     
  19. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,705
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    I'll ask one more time.........have you read the definition of "silencer" in Federal law and ATF regulations?
    If so, explain why "wipes" are somehow exempt.
     
  20. Nuclear

    Nuclear Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    709
    Location:
    Arizona
    From the ATF's own website:

    18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24)

    "The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication."

    Now logically, a wipe would fall under this definition. Except the ATF has stated in the past that it doesn't, and let that ruling stand for decades. And now says that it does.

    Also, the law as written is kind of vague and overly broad. I could make the argument that a longer barrel would fit the law's definition. A suitably long flash hider with sufficiently small holes would fit it. A collection of hardware store parts and tools would fit the definition. It doesn't even state that it needs to be attached to the firearm, or portable, so all sorts of absurdities would fit the definition.
     
  21. Acera

    Acera Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,169
    Location:
    Free State of Texas
    I agree, still don't know how they have allowed the Metro Barrel Extension to live this long.



    .
     
  22. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Logically, yes, but legally, 'not necessarily.' There's also the fact that a baffle-less can is considered a fully functional, fully assembled silencer by the ATF, and the wipe is merely a consumable modifying element (like Chore Boy scrubber until the ATF arbitrarily called it a 'component,' or ablative grease/water fillings), and was never a permanent component of the device. Maybe that's Dogtown's actual point; that the poorly written '34 NFA gives the feds carte blanch to effectively prohibit wipe-based silencer technology altogether (even moreso than the essentially prohibitive licensing scheme of more durable silencers). I would agree with that assessment, but would expound to say the interpretation is the most maximalist or broad that can possibly be made, and in conjunction with the rather ridiculous burden it places on those intending to abide the law ($200 & six months to make a single wipe that will last a handful of rounds before becoming useless) is precisely the type of policy that arbitration in court typically knocks down as unreasonable. Either a defect of the original law, or an abuse of authority. I don't believe the ATF's Chore Boy scrubber stance has actually been tested, let alone this latest insult; they've really only ever gone after anyone for making baffles.

    But if we aren't willing to be test cases (at least I'm not), then yeah, the ATF's word *is* law, and this new law is ridiculous & passed without any input or warning, which makes it flat out infuriating. Or should, anyway. If we *don't* raise a ruckus for something like this, then we can only expect more arbitrary restrictions in the future, and --as I've said before to repeated denials that it could ever happen-- a gradual choking off of many areas of firearms previously available to us. Again, there is not one word in the statute that would prevent the ATF from declaring all user-serviceable silencers as "intent" to illegally replace or modify internals; suddenly it is practically impossible for amateur builders to create their own on Form 1's. Nothing but a presidential exemption prevents *any* 20ga or larger shotgun from being declared a Destructive Device at the drop of a hat (as SPAS, USAS, and Striker owners know all too well). Doesn't make it "right" if they randomly spring such a restriction on us even if the law might say they can, doesn't even make it justifiable in a fair court, considering we've got some 100 years of precedent behind these exemptions (I can't find any cases where wipe-production was prosecuted before or after the Bardwell letter); so we not only have the right, but the duty to complain & agitate when a Bureau makes such a change, even if some kangaroo court holds it up as legal (e.g. the Miller decision underpinning all federal gun laws).

    Some folks are cool with unelected officials taking a full mile when given an inch, though, chalking it up to a lesson in democracy.

    Oh yeah, one last thing; if we interpret the current situation literally, as we're supposedly to interpret the statute (as though that answers our questions), then this development only applies to Dead Air's silencer product. Just as an ATF approval for a gun I make only applies to me for that gun and no one else (though others will reasonably see it as indicative of a pattern or 'precedent' and endeavor to follow similar paths for their own projects), so does a letter like this. Until the Bureau puts out a formal rule like 41F or 2015-1*, we can all continue to make & replace wipes as much as we dare...or does that "non-binding precedent" thing only cut one way, Dogtown?

    TCB

    *You wanted to know what I meant by an ATF 'circular,' this is an example;
    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2015-1-manufacturing-and-gunsmithing
    Yup, ATF took it upon itself to regulate the use of machine tools of licensed FFLs...funny, I don't recall that anywhere in the relevant statutes :confused:
     
  23. pintler

    pintler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    519
    "I agree, still don't know how they have allowed the Metro Barrel Extension to live this long."

    Gun laws tend to be a little Alice in Wonderland. I have Mossberg model 44 (22LR) with I think a 26 inch barrel. It's noticeably quieter than an 18 inch 22LR rifle. So what's the rule on barrel length? Any rifle barrel longer than 16 inches is a silencer? Factories can build rifles with any length barrel, but if I rebarrel longer than it came from the factory it's now a silencer? Or I can rebarrel to any length, but the barrel has to be one piece, i.e. a 26 inch barrel is OK if it's one piece, but a 16 inch barrel with a screwed on 10 inch extension isn't?

    And then ... what if I put in a little less powder because it's quieter ... did I just make a silencer? And if I take a Ruger Blackhawk and hold it up to my shoulder when shooting ... did I just manufacture an SBR?

    For a 1911, the bottom part is the gun; for a Ruger MKII the top part is the gun. I'm waiting for some AR manufacturer to put the serial number on the upper. If you took their not-a-gun lower and connected it to one of the usual not-a-gun uppers, is the combo still not-a-gun? Is the serialized upper+serialized lower two guns?

    I guess this is all a long way of saying that I don't think there is a whole lot of reason in many of these issues. You can try and parse them all you want, but there isn't any general theory underlying gun laws.
     
  24. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Ha, what if I opt for a longer barrel for the specific purpose of a quieter platform, as in intention, not incedental effect?

    Or how oil filter thread adapters are regulated, but there is nothing stopping us from threading the barrel for an oil filter size (or NAPA from making a filter with common silencer thread size)? Or how threaded silencer rear endcaps are not regulated like those adapters, nor quick connect brake adapters, nor pre-threaded "Maglite" tubes despite being fully complete and the 'serialized' component, no less. Not sure where those exemptions are in the statute, or where it is said rubber discs of a certain size can only be seen as silencer parts.

    BTW, the only reason Dead Air is not contesting this is because they think it will bait the ATF into a more formal ruling with broad unfair impacts on their competitors and customers...sounds like an agency acting within the law to me ;)

    TCB
     
  25. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,705
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    Are you freaking kidding me?o_O "Read the law" is the absolute BEST guidance anyone could give. Those who don't bother reading the actual law get into trouble.
    Unfreakingbelievable.

    "Personal use" has nothing to do with anything. A Form 1 or 4 application can be filed by a licensee, nonlicensee, SOT, nonSOT, corporation, LLC, trust, partnership or individual.



    Please cite the "original statute" that says making a Destructive Device "is a bit vague".



    First, I admit I am far from expert on the National Firearms Act, but I know I'm light years ahead of you. ;)
    Second, your post was so poorly written it is near impossible to discern what you are asking....even if there is a real question. Rather than clarify, you insult my knowledge of the NFA and then basically confirm that I asked the RIGHT questions. Good grief.


    Huh?
    A semi auto Uzi carbine has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Thompson Center case or ATF Ruling 2011-4 unless it was originally a pistol to begin with. There is no need for "justification" by ATF because firearms that were originally manufactured as rifles CANNOT EVER be made into a pistol without an ATF SBR tax stamp.




    Well thank you Captain Obvious.
    We are all well aware of ATF Ruling 2011-4.................and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread. Nor does it have anything to do with Uzi Carbines.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice