BATFE rules wipes are suppressor parts, and thusly regulated.

[dogtown tom]

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.

It wasn't a "ruling", but an opinion letter. There IS a difference. Rulings are held to be the same as a regulation, opinion letters and determination letters apply only to the individual they are addressed to.

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.

No, a collection of hardware store parts does not fit the definition, nor does a long flash hider. "....any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication..." means what it says.

 

[dogtown tom]

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.

Logically, yes, but legally, 'not necessarily.'

Again, where in the definition of "silencer" does it exempt "wipes"?
If you claim "not necessarily" then you need to explain your reasoning.

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.

Explain what is "arbitrary" about a silencer part not being regulated?
Why you think a component must be permanent to be regulated?

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).

Good grief.
It's not the 1934 NFA that made wipes regulated by ATF.
Educate yourself man.

I would agree with that assessment,

Wait........WHAT? You agree with the guy you accused of defending the ATF? the guy you accused of "water carrying"?

but would expound to say the interpretation is the most maximalist or broad that can possibly be made,

AGAIN..........Where in the definition of "silencer" in FEDERAL LAW, is a "wipe" exempt?
The ONLY document that ATF has ever issued was in 1999 that says "....GENERALLY not considered to be a silencer...."
And that opinion is in disagreement with the actual law.

You love to rail against ATF for all its abuses......yet here they issue an opinion letter that directly disagrees with Federal law.
Where is your anger now? Because they reversed their opinion eighteen years later?

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.....

Again..........for the inth time.......where in the definition of "silencer" in FEDERAL LAW.....not ATF regulations btw.......are "wipes" exempt?
You love to sit in the back with your hands over your ears screaming "ATF IS da debil! ATF is da debil!, ATF is da debil!" .............YEAH, WE KNOW THAT.
Now take your hands down and answer the stinking question.

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.

"Either"? How can you question what you HAVE NEVER READ?
Where in the definition of "silencer" in FEDERAL LAW are "wipes" exempt?

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.

It isn't a new law......it's the same law it was in 1999.
Good grief.

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

Why do you believe the latest ATF opinion is arbitrary?

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

Wrong.

suddenly it is practically impossible for amateur builders to create their own on Form 1's.

Wrong again.

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).

You might want to do a bit more research on that.
Good grief.

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).

Again, educate yourself.
The current definition of "silencer" in Federal law is not the same as in 1934.
ATF didn't change anything......the same definition in Federal law exists now as in 1999.

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

And that's why we donate to the Second Amendment Foundation and NRA. That's why we lobby Congress. That's why we vote for pro 2A politicians. That's why we want strict constructionist judges.

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.

That would be a pretty dumb assumption.

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.

ATF doesn't approve guns. They issue a Determination Letter or Opinion Letter..........and there is a history of those determinations and opinions changing over time. If you rely on an ATF determination or opinion as to the legality......you better be prepared when their opinion changes.
Examples? ( I gave this link earlier, here it is again: http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/law.html
It is not anywhere close to current, but show multiple changes of opinion over time.
Notable examples of ATF Determinations that changed: (some changed because the requestor changed his actual item or the intent)
Akins Accelerator
Sig Arm Brace
Reproduction shoulder stocks for pistols
M16 parts
AR 15 pistol with a second forward grip
and more................

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?

Again, again, again, again....................where in the definition of "silencer" in federal law are "wipes" exempt?
What makes you think ATF can change the definition that IS PART OF THE FEDERAL LAW?

It has nothing to do with your silly notion of "non-binding precedent thing" whatever that may mean.
Believing you can continue to make and replace wipes as much as we dare?...............yeah, that sounds like a good idea.
Since you refuse to answer my question, I'll toss out an easier one:
What makes a replaceable "wipe" different than the replaceable oil can on an oil can silencer?
If you can come up with a good argument, the oil can silencer industry would absolutely love to hear how the oil cans are user replaceable.

*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

That's a "ruling", not a "circular". Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of "circular".

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

Then, as usual, you haven't done much reading.
Here's a hint.........READ that ruling. You'll be surprised to find that not only is it chock full of relevant statutes, but the ruling is a clarification of previous rulings.
Again, good grief.

 

[Nuclear]

It wasn't a "ruling", but an opinion letter. There IS a difference. Rulings are held to be the same as a regulation, opinion letters and determination letters apply only to the individual they are addressed to.


No, a collection of hardware store parts does not fit the definition, nor does a long flash hider. "....any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication..." means what it says.

Sorry about misusing the term ruling instead of opinion letter, an oversight on my part.

I'm going to paste the actual section of the code here, as the ATF missed the word (why am I not surprised?) in bold below.

"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."

"...any device.." not just purpose made, but any device, "...including any combination of parts..." with the intent for use, otherwise how could the ATF bust those guys selling solvent traps and flashlight kits? "...and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication", obviously refers to such things as K-baffles, mono cores or other parts that have no other use, but is not inclusive, or it would invalidate the entire sentence after the word "including".

It is still overly broad and vague, as it does not specify that the device needs to be capable of being attached to the firearm, or clarify that parts that have other uses are not silencers until assembled with intent to use as such. Which is why the ATF can bust people for selling parts that can be assembled into a silencer after machining even though there is no way a bullet could pass through some of them without drilling holes through multiple metal parts and providing for some method of attaching said "silencer" to a firearm.

 

[barnbwt]

refers to such things as K-baffles, mono cores or other parts that have no other use,

Don't forget, any other legitimate uses must meet ATF approval, apparently (SIGs brake, which was definitely a non-silencing brake despite being a "naked" monocore), and they can impose arbitrary specific restrictions like length despite no language to this effect in the law (the whole "brakes can't be more than 6" but fake silencers or extensions are fine & dandy" bit from the SIG case)


Not *particularly* relevant to this discussion, but rather informative of the Bureau's arrogance and misperception about their mission. ("I was a good soldier. I was following orders!") Crazy part is this guy is ostensibly the author of that rather reasonable white paper a few months back (which I'm now doubting highly having seen this exchange). Yup, guys like Turk here or the ATF-TB would never abuse their authority or misrepresent facts in testimony

TCB

 

[dogtown tom]

.....SIGs brake, which was definitely a non-silencing brake despite being a "naked" monocore), and they can impose arbitrary specific restrictions like length despite no language to this effect in the law (the whole "brakes can't be more than 6" but fake silencers or extensions are fine & dandy" bit from the SIG case.......

The SIG brake debacle is 100% the fault of SIG........they shot themselves in the foot by displaying a silenced rifle using that same monocore. Then they think all they had to do was remove the outer tube and "it's just a brake".

First the arm brace, then the brake......whoever is giving Sig NFA advice needs to be replaced.

 

[barnbwt]

Even though the brake is permanently affixed to the barrel primarily to get it to 16", does nothing to reduce sound, and does reduce recoil, it is a part solely component to a silencer. Uh-huh. I've heard similar arguments by 'expert witnesses' elsewhere;

“I'm persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets. They are hollow point. They are not musket balls.” --DC vs Witashek

Like I said before, consistent defense of every ATF expansion of authority. I don't get it, but you must really enjoy running to their aid. How dare SIG question broad interpretations of vague/incomplete statutes; far better we let the ATF tell us what we can buy/make with nary a peep, right? Lemme guess, it was entirely proper for the ATF to stand up congress because they'd decided internally they didn't want to get chewed out?

TCB

 

[dogtown tom]

Even though the brake is permanently affixed to the barrel primarily to get it to 16", does nothing to reduce sound, and does reduce recoil, it is a part solely component to a silencer. Uh-huh. I've heard similar arguments by 'expert witnesses' elsewhere;

Again, proof that you haven't read a bit of Federal law.
And you don't need to be an expert witness, just able to read and comprehend.

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.

Note that the above is not the ATF regulation, but Federal law.....as passed by Congress. Once again, I'll ask you to explain why you think "wipes" (or the Sig monocore muzzle brake) are exempt from this Federal law.
Are you afraid to answer? I've asked you multiple times in this thread and so far.........silence.

Like I said before, consistent defense of every ATF expansion of authority. I don't get it, but you must really enjoy running to their aid.

Like I said before, consistent inability to understand that an explanation is not necessarily agreement. I don't get it, but you must really enjoy wallowing in near total ignorance of anything to do with Federal law.

Multiple dealers, manufacturers and writers questioned the SIG brake the minute it was displayed at SHOT. They weren't defending ATF, just questioning how Sig could be so ignorant of Federal law. The SIG lawsuit was laughable.

How dare SIG question broad interpretations of vague/incomplete statutes;

Please cite those vague/incomplete statutes. Being that you likely haven't actually read them, I doubt you could point out why they would be incomplete or vague.

.....far better we let the ATF tell us what we can buy/make with nary a peep, right?

Who said that?
Certainly not me or anyone else in this thread.
Every time ATF proposes a new regulation or changes the interpretation they are unundated with opposition. Did you sleep through the M855 proposed ruling?
Nary a peep?.......your typical emotional response rather than a factual one.

Lemme guess, it was entirely proper for the ATF to stand up congress because they'd decided internally they didn't want to get chewed out?

If ATF stands up to Congress then Congress needs to give them a smack down. And so far this current Congress hasn't really felt the need.
Which is disappointing.

 

[barnbwt]

If ATF stands up to Congress then Congress needs to give them a smack down. And so far this current Congress hasn't really felt the need.
Which is disappointing.

Why should they be slapped, if as you say, they are acting within the scope of their statutory authority? They made the internal determination that the law did not require them to show up (or give notice of absence, even). Same as their alleged determination that wipes are to be regulated as silencer parts going forward.

".....far better we let the ATF tell us what we can buy/make with nary a peep, right?"
Who said that?
Certainly not me or anyone else in this thread.
Every time ATF proposes a new regulation or changes the interpretation they are unundated with opposition. Did you sleep through the M855 proposed ruling?
Nary a peep?.......your typical emotional response rather than a factual one.

Yes they certainly do get opposition, when they bother to propose a new official regulation on the Federal Register as required by law for changes that impact a great number of people or impose a significant regulatory burden (newfound regulation of disposable wipes incontrovertibly fails both these criteria, though the small scale of the stifled silencer biz likely doesn't rise to the 10 million dollar (IIRC) threshold that officially triggers the Regulatory Act requirements). And of course I don't even need to mention the enormous opposition when they lobby for actual legislative changes. What's funny, though, is when the same kind of opposition is leveled against these snap-judgments in the form of ambiguously-relevant opinion letters, there are figures who routinely denounce it as unfounded since "they have that authority." I'm not sure how criticizing opposition to such arbitrary judgments is anything less than advocating "we let the ATF tell us what we can buy/make with nary a peep" --I am open to an explanation of my misunderstanding in this area, however.

Again, proof that you haven't read a bit of Federal law.
And you don't need to be an expert witness, just able to read and comprehend.

My reference was to the DC v Witashek case, where a judge was convinced by anti-gun 'experts' (LEOs not ATF, since this was a local 'district' statute at issue, not federal) that a muzzle loading sabot was contraband ammunition. Ammunition defined in the law as assembled, functional, fixed ammo (i.e. a cartridge). But the judge was so ignorant, that that after six hours of court time with expert witnesses, he 'gave up' and issued the quote I copied afterward. A man was convicted because his muzzle loading bullets were not "musket ball" shaped, and the state argued they were live ammunition under oath. Hand of God.

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.

Do you still believe I've not read the statute yet? Also, do please do list your impressive bonafides that give you the confidence to call me an ignorant rube; any/all firearms law cases you've successfully argued? I rather suspect we're both laymen attempting to make sense of unclear and inadequate statutory language long since outrun by technological development & regulatory interpretation, and I don't understand why such a notion is so ridiculous to you, since it is certainly the case for every other federal law of similar maturity (heck, see all the tribulations over the Clean Air Act). We both just want to obey the law so we can be left alone, but that is not the same thing as accepting whatever the authorities say it means without any opposition.

So let's break it down, for the the SIG brake case & rubber washers, I'll give my layman's interpretation; the interpretation I'd have to make were I to attempt to follow the law for myself (as opposed to blindly taking the ATF's word for it);
"Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm" --Thank God they put "portable" in there, or indoor ranges would be banned! See how treacherous this stuff can be? Okay, so in what way does a baffle stack --claimed to be a brake or otherwise-- accomplish this silencing, muffling, or diminishing of report? It doesn't since the boom is not contained. Fail. If rubber washers are covered by this --which they are by a *very* broad reading & the fact that all matter in existence can reduce sound transmission-- then so are potatoes or anything else that could be crammed inside a silencer as an ablative material (i.e. everything).
"Including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabrication a firearm silencer or firearm muffler" --well, SIG was pretty clear that their intention was primarily to permanently attach the brake so the gun could be sold as a >16" barrel rifle as opposed a pistol without having to rework the gas system & impact reliable function. Secondarily, the intention was for the unshrouded chambers* to disrupt expanding gas so as to reduce gas-driven recoil from the shooter's perspective. The "and" emphasis is mine, but since there are two other legitimate uses for the brake device that are not silencer-related...Fail. I think rubber washers are not covered here, being physically identical from common hardware items. I guess if you *call* them silencer parts they could conceivably be covered, but that gets back into the ridiculous "everything's a silencer" point I made above. Also, the "assembling or fabrication" language would seem to suggest lathes and die presses, no? Let's continue;
"and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" --I fail to see how an unshrouded brake that (IIRC) would require followup machining to affix a shroud for silencer use qualifies. Unlike the language for machine guns, there's no "readily convertible" wiggle room here; it's a can, or it ain't (ugh, grammar). That's why empty Maglite tubes aren't regulated (for now). Likewise, rubber washers are too common/ubiquitous a component to be argued as "only" for use in silencers, at least until they are in the actual silencer, as a sort of wrist-brace-*on*-shoulder-is-SBR kind of argument. This is the reasonable approach taken for Maglite tubes which must be engraved & registered if they are to be assembled into a silencer. Once again, "intended only" for use in fabrication is interesting since I did grind a threading tool specifically to machine my endcaps & tube; I suppose I should have Form 1'ed those as silencer fabrication parts in retrospect. Please don't rat me out to the government.

Like I said before, consistent inability to understand that an explanation is not necessarily agreement. I don't get it, but you must really enjoy wallowing in near total ignorance of anything to do with Federal law.

Multiple dealers, manufacturers and writers questioned the SIG brake the minute it was displayed at SHOT. They weren't defending ATF, just questioning how Sig could be so ignorant of Federal law. The SIG lawsuit was laughable.

What do you call it when a state lawyer lays out an explanation in court for why the state interpretation of a law is justified or correct? Defense. Explaining why the ATF is legally justified to make these decisions the way they do is by definition defending them. Defense lawyers don't have to personally agree with their clients' motives, either; it doesn't change the fact they carry the feds' water for a living before a judge. In this country, we are allowed to voice opposition to this defense, both before and after a court preceding to determine the official interpretation for public policy going forward. If we don't raise an issue when they are wrong, there is no court challenge. If we don't point out where they are reaching, there is nothing to stop the scope of their proclamations.

I'm not debating whether the ATF said 'wipes are verbotten' (although they still haven't officially said so ), I'm saying they 1) abdicated the authority to reasonably reverse their policy this way by exempting them for the better part of a century without issue, and 2) don't have the authority to do so since the wipes themselves don't meet the plain-read criteria spelled out in the law until already inside the silencer, and 3) if enforced as they claim they will would lead to a legally ridiculous situation that is untenable for those attempting to follow the law or enforce it (granted that last one isn't a barrier to the unpayable marijuana "tax" catch-22 or 30,000$ transferrable M16's in our cowardly courts)

I'll say again, the change is still unofficial rumor, this company's ending the product line completely voluntary & without formal direction that we know of. The ATF could easily say "that agent was an idiot, wipes are still disposable" but Dead Air didn't want to take the chance of them trying to cover for someone's screw up so they aren't pressing for a definitive answer at this time. We'll just have to see if the gun-friendly Trump administration raids or pursues charges over a company selling wipes through the mail (not a good start on that front so far)

TCB

*the most honest opposition to this device would be that it is intrinsically hazardous to the operator in its un-shrouded non-suppressor form, venting high velocity particles out to the side right where the hand goes. One 'baffle' strike or bit of debris under the handguard and you could have shrapnel in your fingers! Therefore, the only *reasonable* (i.e. safe) use of the device was as a shrouded baffle stack in the form of an NFA silencer. Same argument could be made to resolve the whole "wrist brace that won't let you look down the sights if used as intended" gambit

 

[dogtown tom]

Why should they be slapped, if as you say, they are acting within the scope of their statutory authority?

Stop with the strawman argument. I didn't write that.
If Congress subpoenas ATF to answer questions, ATF has to appear and answer questions. Doesn't matter if it's in their "scope of statuatory authority" or not.

....They made the internal determination that the law did not require them to show up (or give notice of absence, even). Same as their alleged determination that wipes are to be regulated as silencer parts going forward.

If ATF ignores a Congressional subpoena, they can be sanctioned by Congress.

Yes they certainly do get opposition,

But, but, but.....what about the "nary a peep" comment above?
Sometimes I think you don't remember what you've written earlier.

......when they bother to propose a new official regulation on the Federal Register as required by law for changes that impact a great number of people or impose a significant regulatory burden (newfound regulation of disposable wipes incontrovertibly fails both these criteria, though the small scale of the stifled silencer biz likely doesn't rise to the 10 million dollar (IIRC) threshold that officially triggers the Regulatory Act requirements). And of course I don't even need to mention the enormous opposition when they lobby for actual legislative changes. What's funny, though, is when the same kind of opposition is leveled against these snap-judgments in the form of ambiguously-relevant opinion letters, there are figures who routinely denounce it as unfounded since "they have that authority." I'm not sure how criticizing opposition to such arbitrary judgments is anything less than advocating "we let the ATF tell us what we can buy/make with nary a peep" --I am open to an explanation of my misunderstanding in this area, however.

When someone writes "nary a peep" it means there is little opposition. You've just admitted that isn't the case.
An example of an ATF action with "nary a peep" of opposition is the recent change of the Form 4473.

My reference was to the DC v Witashek case, where a judge was convinced by anti-gun 'experts' (LEOs not ATF, since this was a local 'district' statute at issue, not federal) that a muzzle loading sabot was contraband ammunition. Ammunition defined in the law as assembled, functional, fixed ammo (i.e. a cartridge). But the judge was so ignorant, that that after six hours of court time with expert witnesses, he 'gave up' and issued the quote I copied afterward. A man was convicted because his muzzle loading bullets were not "musket ball" shaped, and the state argued they were live ammunition under oath. Hand of God.

Who.The.Heck.Cares.........this is a thread about FEDERAL LAW, FEDERAL REGULATIONS, and a FEDERAL AGENCY. Please stop posting stuff that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Do you still believe I've not read the statute yet?

I sure as heck wouldn't place a bet on it.

Also, do please do list your impressive bonafides that give you the confidence to call me an ignorant rube; any/all firearms law cases you've successfully argued?

I've never claimed to be a lawyer, so why the heck would I need to list cases I've argued?
My lack of respect for your knowledge of Federal firearm laws and regulations is based solely on your posts. They are rife with factual errors and full of emotion with little substantive value.

I rather suspect we're both laymen attempting to make sense of unclear and inadequate statutory language long since outrun by technological development & regulatory interpretation,

Sorry, you are rowing that boat by yourself.
You keep harping about unclear, inadequate, vague and incomplete statutes......but have as yet to provide such an example.

and I don't understand why such a notion is so ridiculous to you, since it is certainly the case for every other federal law of similar maturity (heck, see all the tribulations over the Clean Air Act). We both just want to obey the law so we can be left alone, but that is not the same thing as accepting whatever the authorities say it means without any opposition.

What is ridiculous to me is how you go about a discussion of Federal firearms law with little to no knowledge of it.

So let's break it down, for the the SIG brake case & rubber washers, I'll give my layman's interpretation; the interpretation I'd have to make were I to attempt to follow the law for myself (as opposed to blindly taking the ATF's word for it);
"Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm" --Thank God they put "portable" in there, or indoor ranges would be banned! See how treacherous this stuff can be?

The only thing treacherous is your complete lack of reading comprehension.
Once you can figure out how an indoor range" is a "firearm".......get back to us. Your explanation should be entertaining to say the least.

Okay, so in what way does a baffle stack --claimed to be a brake or otherwise-- accomplish this silencing, muffling, or diminishing of report? It doesn't since the boom is not contained. Fail.

True.......if that baffle stack is not a part of a silencer. And the lengthy brake that SIG intended to produce was identical to the internal baffle of their own silencer.

I have an Ruger 10/22 with an integral silencer/barrel. If I remove the outer tube......it doesn't change the legal status of the remaining parts.

If rubber washers are covered by this --which they are by a *very* broad reading

WOW!!!!!!
So again....you AGREE?

& the fact that all matter in existence can reduce sound transmission-- then so are potatoes or anything else that could be crammed inside a silencer as an ablative material (i.e. everything).

Being that no one with a lick of sense would cram a potato inside their silencer this argument is odd in the very least.

"Including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabrication a firearm silencer or firearm muffler" --well, SIG was pretty clear that their intention was primarily to permanently attach the brake so the gun could be sold as a >16" barrel rifle as opposed a pistol without having to rework the gas system & impact reliable function.

Maybe you should do a bit more reading.
SIG made a firearm with an integrally suppressed barrel....clearly NFA.
They then took the EXACT same firearm, removed the outer tube and tried to pass it off as a Title I firearm.

It might have worked if they didn't have them displayed side by side. And that was what invited the inevitable scrutiny from their competitors.

Secondarily, the intention was for the unshrouded chambers* to disrupt expanding gas so as to reduce gas-driven recoil from the shooter's perspective. The "and" emphasis is mine, but since there are two other legitimate uses for the brake device that are not silencer-related...Fail.

Again, irrelevant. SIG's intention was to try and sidestep the NFA and sell the firearm as Title I.........allowing the consumer to add the outer tube in the future.

I think rubber washers are not covered here, being physically identical from common hardware items. I guess if you *call* them silencer parts they could conceivably be covered, but that gets back into the ridiculous "everything's a silencer" point I made above.

First, everything isn't a silencer.
Second, this is another example of your reading comprehension. Go back and reread the definition of "silencer".

Also, the "assembling or fabrication" language would seem to suggest lathes and die presses, no?

No, it doesn't. There are several silencer designs that do not need a lathe or die press.

Let's continue;
"and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication" --I fail to see how an unshrouded brake that (IIRC) would require followup machining to affix a shroud for silencer use qualifies.

You fail to see it, but ATF, dozens of other silencer manufacturers, and hundreds of NFA dealers did.

Unlike the language for machine guns, there's no "readily convertible" wiggle room here; it's a can, or it ain't (ugh, grammar). That's why empty Maglite tubes aren't regulated (for now).

Maybe you should follow the homemade silencer news more closely. More than one business has been spanked by ATF for stocking replacement parts for solvent trap silencers.

Likewise, rubber washers are too common/ubiquitous a component to be argued as "only" for use in silencers, at least until they are in the actual silencer, as a sort of wrist-brace-*on*-shoulder-is-SBR kind of argument. This is the reasonable approach taken for Maglite tubes which must be engraved & registered if they are to be assembled into a silencer.

Well no kidding.
Federal law has never claimed rubber washers are regulated......only silencer parts.

Once again, "intended only" for use in fabrication is interesting since I did grind a threading tool specifically to machine my endcaps & tube; I suppose I should have Form 1'ed those as silencer fabrication parts in retrospect. Please don't rat me out to the government.

Once again, your poor reading comprehension lets you down.
Nothing in Federal law regulates the machinery or tools used to machine or fabricate a firearm.
Do you see the problem yet?

What do you call it when a state lawyer lays out an explanation in court for why the state interpretation of a law is justified or correct? Defense.

Wrong.
Your understanding of the American legal system is so fundamentally wrong I don't know where to begin.

Explaining why the ATF is legally justified to make these decisions the way they do is by definition defending them. Defense lawyers don't have to personally agree with their clients' motives, either; it doesn't change the fact they carry the feds' water for a living before a judge.

Again with the strawman!
I keep stating Federal law....not ATF regulation. Federal law defines "silencer". ATF cannot undefined it. I'm not explaining how ATF is "legally justified" whatever you think that means. I'm explaining FEDERAL FREAKING LAW. You know, the stuff Congress passed?

So, when you are driving down the highway at 84 mph, and your seven year old kid points out that the speed limit is 70 is your kid defending the law? Or merely making an educated observation?

So, when your shooting buddy brings a Japanese Nambu to the range do you warn him of the possible dangers of it firing due to a faulty safety design? Is that "defending" the designers of the Nambu?

I could list thousands of other examples that would make a further mockery of your argument.

You on the other hand......ARE defending ATF.
When ATF issued the Bardwell 1999 opinion letter (that you agree with) you just became an ATF bootlicker! You LOVE ATF for that letter....right? If you believe they had the regulatory authority to issue that opinion in 1999, why would you now believe they no longer have that authority?

In this country, we are allowed to voice opposition to this defense, both before and after a court preceding to determine the official interpretation for public policy going forward. If we don't raise an issue when they are wrong, there is no court challenge. If we don't point out where they are reaching, there is nothing to stop the scope of their proclamations.

Horsehockey.
Have you never heard of Congress?
Regulatory authority is not unregulated in the least.
Get a grip on reality.

I'm not debating whether the ATF said 'wipes are verbotten' (although they still haven't officially said so ), I'm saying they 1) abdicated the authority to reasonably reverse their policy this way by exempting them for the better part of a century without issue,

What is your legal basis for this belief?
Please provide a cite to any Federal law that allows ATF to ignore Federal law. this should be entertaining.......watching you try and defend ATF's position.

and 2) don't have the authority to do so since the wipes themselves don't meet the plain-read criteria spelled out in the law until already inside the silencer, and

Yeah, this will be real entertaining.

3) if enforced as they claim they will would lead to a legally ridiculous situation that is untenable for those attempting to follow the law or enforce it (granted that last one isn't a barrier to the unpayable marijuana "tax" catch-22 or 30,000$ transferrable M16's in our cowardly courts)

Again........WHAT?
Marijuana tax?
Where have you been since 1969?

I'll say again, the change is still unofficial rumor, this company's ending the product line completely voluntary & without formal direction that we know of.

Again, what change? Federal law didn't change. ATF regulations didn't change.
You fail at a basic understanding of what an ATF opinion letter really means.
I've tried numerous times to help you with that but it just isn't working. I'm sorry.

The ATF could easily say "that agent was an idiot, wipes are still disposable"

Well, wipes ARE STILL DISPOSABLE. That's never been at question.
Again, there is a fundamental failure to understand what you have read.
The point of contention is whether "wipes" are considered silencer parts or not. (and therefore user replaceable).

but Dead Air didn't want to take the chance of them trying to cover for someone's screw up so they aren't pressing for a definitive answer at this time.

No, that's not what Dead Air wrote.
Dead Air actually wrote: "We have consciously decided NOT to pursue the issue with FTB, as the resulting opinion letter, based on the informal notification to us, may have a potential negative impact on ALL owners of suppressors that utilize wipes in the design."

Do you know WHY?
BECAUSE OPINION LETTERS APPLY ONLY TO THE PERSON THEY ARE DIRECTED TO!!!!!!!!
Stop and cogitate on that for a minute........the 1999 Bardwell letter only applied to Bardwell (yet you and others seem to think it applies to everyone).
At least Dead Air gets it.

We'll just have to see if the gun-friendly Trump administration raids or pursues charges over a company selling wipes through the mail (not a good start on that front so far)

Who do you think would be willing to test that?
Especially when ANY FFL can replace those wipes.
Heck, I'm planning to order some in the next week for my customers who have DA silencers right now.

 

[barnbwt]

Federal law has never claimed rubber washers are regulated......only silencer parts.

Silencer parts are regulated. Because they are silencer parts.

Whatever. I can see you're reading about the first four words of each section you quote before deciding what you think the rest is, so I'm done explaining. I'm glad the ATF makes things crystal clear for you, but that is not the case for most folks doing more than reselling others' work. Just because we take the safest part of the middle road to avoid confusion does not mean the boundaries are clear; the narrow ruts do get deeper though.

 

[barnbwt]

Especially when ANY FFL can replace those wipes. Heck, I'm planning to order some in the next week for my customers who have DA silencers right now.

For money. Hey, I bet *you* can do it for me for my money! How convenient and helpful of you. Lemme guess, you don't see the artificial high price of MGs as an unjustified federal prohibition beyond their allotted authority, but will gladly broker a sale for a fee? Hope your ITAR is paid up, since you should probably have it for doing gunsmithing work (again, not very clear direction here, unless you take the safe approach & pay that 'insurance' for even minor work)

 

[dogtown tom]

Silencer parts are regulated. Because they are silencer parts.

Whatever. I can see you're reading about the first four words of each section you quote before deciding what you think the rest is, so I'm done explaining. I'm glad the ATF makes things crystal clear for you, but that is not the case for most folks doing more than reselling others' work.

"crystal clear" is your words, not mine. And with your admitted lack of understanding of ATF regs and Federal law you should do a couple of things:
1. Stop making NFA firearms since you are not crystal clear on the law..
2. Stop posting about laws and regulations you admittedly do not understand.
3. Find a good NFA savvy attorney to explain things to you.

Just because we take the safest part of the middle road to avoid confusion does not mean the boundaries are clear; the narrow ruts do get deeper though.

But that's not what you are doing, instead you pontificate about the illegalities of ATF regulations, rulings, opinion and determination letters THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Further, you are perfectly fine with some ATF regulations, rulings, opinion and determination letters......as long as they suit your emotional needs.

You claim the regulations, rulings, opinion and determination letters are unclear, inadequate, vague and incomplete.........yet cannot provide examples.

Good grief.

 

[dogtown tom]

For money. Hey, I bet *you* can do it for me for my money! How convenient and helpful of you.

I plan to do it at cost.
If the customer wants to order the wipes and have them delivered to me......even better.

Lemme guess, you don't see the artificial high price of MGs as an unjustified federal prohibition beyond their allotted authority, but will gladly broker a sale for a fee?

First, I don't "broker" any firearms.
Second, the high price of machine guns is due to the Hughes Amendment. Don't like it, write your Congressman.
Third, STICK TO THE TOPIC.

Hope your ITAR is paid up, since you should probably have it for doing gunsmithing work (again, not very clear direction here, unless you take the safe approach & pay that 'insurance' for even minor work)

See, this is why I believe you haven't the foggiest idea of firearms law.
ANY GUNSMITH whether licensed as an 01FFL or 07FFL, SOT or not an SOT can repair NFA firearms.

 

[dogtown tom]

nevermind

 

[barnbwt]

ANY GUNSMITH whether licensed as an 01FFL or 07FFL, SOT or not an SOT can repair NFA firearms.

I never said you couldn't; I said your ITAR registration fees had better be paid up if you want to do it going forward. State Dept & the ATF have made it abundantly clear anyone involved in gunsmithing, or servicing, or alterations, or repairs, are to be ITAR registered (to the tune of at least $2500 a year or whatever it's up to now). If your local field agent hasn't suggested you should probably register, I'm afraid you are likely stepping up to one of those legally ambiguous/hazardous lines you claim don't exist, since there are fewer exceptions to what is subject to ITAR than you may think. IIRC, this ball was started rolling by none other than Hillary in the 90's, when the registration scheme was implemented. Again, a "reinterpretation" of an old vaguely-written statute that had previously been enforced only against importers/exporters and those involved in true technological development for the military (as opposed to installing scope mounts on century-old Mauser rifles or screwing on free-float tubes). There was a formal letter to this effect circulated I wanna say middle of last year; I'll try to find it, but it's not like there's a central .gov portal I can look this stuff easily at so that I or others could comply.

ETA: Found it via a Google Advanced Search, without which you'd basically have no way of knowing the change besides word of mouth from blowhard complainers like me;
http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/...ement to Firearms Manufacturers (Publish).pdf
This was a follow-on to the earlier EO-derived re-interpretation of ITAR "defense articles" to include essentially all small-arms technology (and technically even online knowledge, if a similarly broad interpretation of that regulation is taken; interpretation of an interpretation, and wider each time). And before you lecture me about 'not reading it,' be sure to read past the introduction paragraph that falsely states traditional gunsmiths will not be impacted; every gunsmithing activity down to hand-drilled gun barrels is considered applicable by requirements further down.

This is all more of a State Dept issue, though, at least technically (I doubt State does not confer with ATF over ITAR stuff in this arena to avoid stepping on toes). So I'll try to steer this back to the topic at hand; just didn't want you operating you FFL business under mistaken understanding of an important law; same concern you appear to have for me & my living trust's Form 1 activities.

1. Stop making NFA firearms since you are not crystal clear on the law..

The law is not crystal clear, though. Sorry, but it's not; that's why these questions, "evasions," or "workarounds" as you may call them exist. That's why a multimillion dollar company with the same firearms lawyers you have so much faith in were convinced they could make a judge see reason (a .500 batting average isn't terrible for SIG, either; the rather silly arm-brace outcome is more due to the rather silly implications of a poorly written law that should have been more explicit about forbidding pistol/rifle conversions)

So, if the law is not crystal clear, because it is not sufficiently specific to my particular point of interest, and the ATF's subsequent "clarifications" are nonsensical or even contradictory, I should give up, and forego my project. In what way is this not allowing the ATF carte-blanche to direct what we may or may not build outside the law? All they have to say is bolt-operated disconnectors are functionally similar to autosears (they are) and therefore all semi-autos are readily convertible to machineguns (practically all are to some extent), and a huge class of guns once legal are now off limits. Impossible? That's almost word for word what happened with the ban on open bolt semi-autos.

I plan to do it at cost.

Ah, so more of a marketing gambit to bring customers into your store than a direct profit-center like the also-government-mandated transfer fees; how charitable of you. Will you also be performing the installation at cost or for free? Because the servicing and replacing of silencer parts (which is what wipe replacement is now that the Bureau sees them as 'fully fledged') also requires a licensee (and a small amount of consumer liability if the replacement service results in baffle strikes or other damage). If they actually try to enforce this, you and all other FFLs will be doing it a lot since return-mailing to Dead Air is even more ridiculous.

But that's not what you are doing, instead you pontificate about the illegalities of ATF regulations, rulings, opinion and determination letters THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Further, you are perfectly fine with some ATF regulations, rulings, opinion and determination letters......as long as they suit your emotional needs.

You keep insisting I do not understand them simply because I disagree with your understanding; that is why we're going nowhere and I'm now getting bored (and it would seem causing you some degree of irritation for which I apologize). I do agree with most ATF regs, disagree with many others, and am in comic disbelief of a select few (the monumental screwup in naming the AR10 lower receiver as the "firearm" comes to mind). The open-bolt ban makes total sense, since all open bolts are readily convertible to full auto by merely removing the disconnector; this is undeniable. Now, I think it was stretching their power to the utmost if not beyond to blanket-ban all open bolt designs sight-unseen going forward like they did, and ludicrous if not irresponsible to claim they could 'grandfather' those machineguns-in-waiting already in existence through their completely ad-hoc its-a-machinegun-if-unregistered-but-can't-be-made-automatic-if-registered amnesty scheme. But their hearts were in the right place as far as the spirit/intent of the original law, though they could have lobbied for a congressional remedy in writing or at least concocted a better cleanup effort on their end.

You claim the regulations, rulings, opinion and determination letters are unclear, inadequate, vague and incomplete.........yet cannot provide examples.

I provided examples of the exact vagueness and lack of clarity described, and you reply they are not relevant to the topic at hand. There's one two sentences up if you're still looking.

2. Stop posting about laws and regulations you admittedly do not understand.

Pointing out holes or contradictions is valuable to those who might fall afoul of them unknowingly. Moreover, I can "patch" them if a decent explanation is made detailing my misunderstanding. Unfortunately, I understand the topic just well enough to be dangerous, so when someone tells me a crustacean is identical to an insect because they both have a jointed outer shell...I am skeptical.

3. Find a good NFA savvy attorney to explain things to you.

1) There aren't many
2) They don't work for free
3) Their judgement is worth about as much in court as my own if they are mistaken or a judge disagrees, unfortunately
4) It's a rather difficult field to practice in because so much practical 'precedent' is not actually legally binding as you've noted, and is subject to change.

Whole lot of NFA lawyers sounded off on 41F, 2015-1, the ITAR letter I linked above, and the 'disapproval' of Hollis' Form 1 machinegun as an overreach of authority; many have even built arguments attacking the ATF's claims in these areas and pursued legal action. Sometimes these claims win in the end, but often times not due to factors that go beyond being "right or wrong" (a sadly small part of the justice system any more)

TCB

 

[Acera]

So am I legally able to clean out and reapply this product???? It seems to do about the same thing as wipes, reduces sound level, designed to be replaced by end user, goes inside the can and is a non-durable item.

https://www.inland-mfg.com/Inland-Suppressors/dBFoam.html

I would hate to have to pay my gunsmith every time I wanted to clean and re-foam my suppressor.

 

[Sour Kraut]

What is a "wipe"?

 

[Acera]

What is a "wipe"?

The little non-metallic disks that wear away over time and are designed to be replaced.

 

[Sour Kraut]

Interesting, thanks for the info and pics!!

 

[dogtown tom]

ANY GUNSMITH whether licensed as an 01FFL or 07FFL, SOT or not an SOT can repair NFA firearms.

I never said you couldn't; I said your ITAR registration fees had better be paid up if you want to do it going forward.

Another example of your horrific reading comprehension. If you had bothered to READ any part of ITAR as it relates to "gunsmithing" you would discover why many gunsmithing activities DO NOT require ITAR registration.

State Dept & the ATF have made it abundantly clear anyone involved in gunsmithing, or servicing, or alterations, or repairs, are to be ITAR registered (to the tune of at least $2500 a year or whatever it's up to now).

Another example of you inventing facts.
ATF only requires gunsmiths to hold either an 01FFL or an 07FFL. If their gunsmithing activity is one that is controlled by ITAR then ATF requests they register with the State Dept.........but not all gunsmithing activity is controlled by ITAR regulations.
You should know that.
You should also know that not all firearms are regulated by ITAR, only those on the US Munition List.

If your local field agent hasn't suggested you should probably register, I'm afraid you are likely stepping up to one of those legally ambiguous/hazardous lines you claim don't exist, since there are fewer exceptions to what is subject to ITAR than you may think.

There is nothing "legally ambiguous/hazardous" other than your complete and total understanding of ITAR, gunsmithing and Federal law.

.....IIRC, this ball was started rolling by none other than Hillary in the 90's, when the registration scheme was implemented. Again, a "reinterpretation" of an old vaguely-written statute that had previously been enforced only against importers/exporters and those involved in true technological development for the military (as opposed to installing scope mounts on century-old Mauser rifles or screwing on free-float tubes). There was a formal letter to this effect circulated I wanna say middle of last year; I'll try to find it, but it's not like there's a central .gov portal I can look this stuff easily at so that I or others could comply.

ETA: Found it via a Google Advanced Search, without which you'd basically have no way of knowing the change besides word of mouth from blowhard complainers like me;
http://pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/Applicability of the ITAR Registration Requirement to Firearms Manufacturers (Publish).pdf
This was a follow-on to the earlier EO-derived re-interpretation of ITAR "defense articles" to include essentially all small-arms technology (and technically even online knowledge, if a similarly broad interpretation of that regulation is taken; interpretation of an interpretation, and wider each time). And before you lecture me about 'not reading it,' be sure to read past the introduction paragraph that falsely states traditional gunsmiths will not be impacted; every gunsmithing activity down to hand-drilled gun barrels is considered applicable by requirements further down.

Did you read the ITAR document at that link? No, you didn't. Just like all the other Federal laws and ATF regulations you post links to or cut and paste......YOU EITHER DON"T READ OR FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ.

From page 2 of that document:

Policy Guidance:
The guidance below is limited to domestic (U.S.) activities involving firearms (as defined in Category I(j)(1) of the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 CFR § 121.1)) and related ammunition that are .50 caliber (12.7 mm) or smaller - i.e., firearms in Category I, paragraphs (a) and (b), related items in paragraphs (e)-(h), and ammunition in Category III(a) for those firearms. Activities involving items elsewhere on the USML, including Category I, paragraphs (c) and (d), are not included in the scope of this guidance.

1. Registration not Required – Not Manufacturing: In response to questions from persons engaged in the business of gunsmithing, DDTC has found in specific cases that ITAR registration is not required because the following activities do not meet the ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of "manufacturing" that DDTC employs in implementing the ITAR and, therefore, do not constitute "manufacturing" for ITAR purposes:
a) Occasional assembly of firearm parts and kits that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining;
b) Firearm repairs involving one-for-one drop-in replacement parts that do not require any cutting, drilling, or machining for installation;
c) Repairs involving replacement parts that do not improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation;
d) Hydrographic paint or Cerakote application or bluing treatments for a firearm;
e) Attachment of accessories to a completed firearm without drilling, cutting, or machining—such as attaching a scope, sling, or light to existing mounts or hooks, or attaching a flash suppressor, sound suppressor, muzzle brake, or similar item to a pre-threaded muzzle;
f) Cosmetic additions and alterations (including engraving) that do not improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation beyond its original capabilities;
g) Machining new dovetails or drilling and tapping new holes for the installation of sights which do not improve the accuracy or operation of the firearm beyond its original capabilities; and
h) Manual loading or reloading of ammunition of .50 caliber or smaller.


Activities limited to the domestic sale or resale of firearms, the occasional assembly of firearms without drilling, cutting, or machining, and/or specific gunsmithing activities that do not improve the accuracy, caliber, or operations of the firearm beyond its original capabilities (as described above) are not manufacturing within the context of the ITAR. If you are not manufacturing, exporting, temporarily importing or brokering defense articles or services, you are not required to register with DDTC.....

You claim that ITAR registration is required for an FFL to replace wipes? No, it is CLEARLY NOT REQUIRED. Please READ the text in RED above.

Again, do you see a common thread in many of your posts?

This is all more of a State Dept issue, though, at least technically (I doubt State does not confer with ATF over ITAR stuff in this arena to avoid stepping on toes). So I'll try to steer this back to the topic at hand; just didn't want you operating you FFL business under mistaken understanding of an important law; same concern you appear to have for me & my living trust's Form 1 activities.

I'm not operating my business under any mistaken understanding of the law.

1. Stop making NFA firearms since you are not crystal clear on the law..

The law is not crystal clear, though. Sorry, but it's not; that's why these questions, "evasions," or "workarounds" as you may call them exist. That's why a multimillion dollar company with the same firearms lawyers you have so much faith in were convinced they could make a judge see reason (a .500 batting average isn't terrible for SIG, either; the rather silly arm-brace outcome is more due to the rather silly implications of a poorly written law that should have been more explicit about forbidding pistol/rifle conversions)

Huh? I've ridiculed the SIG firearms lawyers repeatedly, only someone with little reading comprehension would assume I had "so much faith in" their ability. Your observations and recollections are getting more and more bizarre.

So, if the law is not crystal clear, because it is not sufficiently specific to my particular point of interest, and the ATF's subsequent "clarifications" are nonsensical or even contradictory, I should give up, and forego my project. In what way is this not allowing the ATF carte-blanche to direct what we may or may not build outside the law? All they have to say is bolt-operated disconnectors are functionally similar to autosears (they are) and therefore all semi-autos are readily convertible to machineguns (practically all are to some extent), and a huge class of guns once legal are now off limits. Impossible? That's almost word for word what happened with the ban on open bolt semi-autos.

Good grief.

I plan to do it at cost.

Ah, so more of a marketing gambit to bring customers into your store than a direct profit-center like the also-government-mandated transfer fees; how charitable of you.

"Marketing gambit"? More like a headache.
I feel Dead Air ignored Federal law. They marketed these wipe reliant silencers without properly vetting the legality.
My customers shouldn't have to suffer for Dead Air's recklessness.

Will you also be performing the installation at cost or for free?

Customer will pay for the replacement wipes. I profited from the sale or transfer, no reason to squeeze the customer for Dead Air's stupidity.

Because the servicing and replacing of silencer parts (which is what wipe replacement is now that the Bureau sees them as 'fully fledged') also requires a licensee (and a small amount of consumer liability if the replacement service results in baffle strikes or other damage). If they actually try to enforce this, you and all other FFLs will be doing it a lot since return-mailing to Dead Air is even more ridiculous.

I have liability insurance.

But that's not what you are doing, instead you pontificate about the illegalities of ATF regulations, rulings, opinion and determination letters THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Further, you are perfectly fine with some ATF regulations, rulings, opinion and determination letters......as long as they suit your emotional needs.

You keep insisting I do not understand them simply because I disagree with your understanding; that is why we're going nowhere and I'm now getting bored (and it would seem causing you some degree of irritation for which I apologize). I do agree with most ATF regs, disagree with many others, and am in comic disbelief of a select few (the monumental screwup in naming the AR10 lower receiver as the "firearm" comes to mind).

Again.......you call me a defender of ATF, even "carrying their water"......yet you also do the same!
WHAT.A.PHONY.

BTW, Did you ever stop to think that maybe the AR manufacturers ASKED for the lower to be the required place for Manufacturer/Model/Serial#?
No you didn't.

The open-bolt ban makes total sense, since all open bolts are readily convertible to full auto by merely removing the disconnector; this is undeniable. Now, I think it was stretching their power to the utmost if not beyond to blanket-ban all open bolt designs sight-unseen going forward like they did, and ludicrous if not irresponsible to claim they could 'grandfather' those machineguns-in-waiting already in existence through their completely ad-hoc its-a-machinegun-if-unregistered-but-can't-be-made-automatic-if-registered amnesty scheme. But their hearts were in the right place as far as the spirit/intent of the original law, though they could have lobbied for a congressional remedy in writing or at least concocted a better cleanup effort on their end.

I provided examples of the exact vagueness and lack of clarity described, and you reply they are not relevant to the topic at hand. There's one two sentences up if you're still looking.

No sir.....I asked you to please post THE REGULATION ( a citation from the Code of Federal Regulations), not your anecdotal memory of what you think it says..

2. Stop posting about laws and regulations you admittedly do not understand.

Pointing out holes or contradictions is valuable to those who might fall afoul of them unknowingly. Moreover, I can "patch" them if a decent explanation is made detailing my misunderstanding. Unfortunately, I understand the topic just well enough to be dangerous, so when someone tells me a crustacean is identical to an insect because they both have a jointed outer shell...I am skeptical.

Good grief. Your understanding is so poor you do a disservice to the gun community with every one of your error filled posts about the NFA.

3. Find a good NFA savvy attorney to explain things to you.

1) There aren't many
2) They don't work for free
3) Their judgement is worth about as much in court as my own if they are mistaken or a judge disagrees, unfortunately
4) It's a rather difficult field to practice in because so much practical 'precedent' is not actually legally binding as you've noted, and is subject to change.

1. How "many" is irrelevant.
2. Which is cheaper: paying for a few minutes of advice and counsel or hiring a defense attorney?
3. You aren't paying an attorney for his "judgment", but for his knowledge of the law. Something you particularly have no knowledge of. An NFA attorney's advice could keep you from violating the NFA in the first place.
4. What a load of absolute nonsense.

Whole lot of NFA lawyers sounded off on 41F, 2015-1, the ITAR letter I linked above, and the 'disapproval' of Hollis' Form 1 machinegun as an overreach of authority; many have even built arguments attacking the ATF's claims in these areas and pursued legal action. Sometimes these claims win in the end, but often times not due to factors that go beyond being "right or wrong" (a sadly small part of the justice system any more)

"Sounding off" has absolutely nothing to do with my recommendation that you seek legal counsel.
Good grief.

 

[barnbwt]

From the Q&A letter wherein the ATF finally declared silencer tubes to be the serialized component (no, it's not in the Federal Register, because it doesn't have to be per the law);

Q2: May a Federal firearms licensee repair a silencer by replacing worn or damaged components?

A: A person who is licensed under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to manufacture firearms and who has paid the special (occupational) tax to manufacture National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms may replace a component part or parts of a silencer. Repairs may not be done if they result in removal, obliteration, or alteration of the serial number, as this would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). If a silencer part bearing the serial number, other than the outer tube, must be replaced, the new part must be marked with the same serial number as the replacement part.

It would appear you need an SOT to merely replace these wipes, now, and not just any old FFL. The can would also need to be transferred formally to do the deed, unless there's some exemption for while-you-wait repair of NFA items like there is for non-NFA stuff. Also of rather interesting note in the Q&A, it would appear that repairs which change the caliber of the silencer (i.e. replacing worn wipes or baffles with tighter ones) requires issuance of a new tax stamp. That provision sure made more sense back when it only applied to sturdier metallic baffles & endcaps...

You claim that ITAR registration is required for an FFL to replace wipes? No, it is CLEARLY NOT REQUIRED. Please READ the text in RED above.

Again, do you see a common thread in many of your posts?

We'll see if "firearm components" are treated the same as "silencer components" by the State Dept in due time, I suppose. Unlike 'traditional gunsmithing,' it cannot be argued silencer service is a typical/common task of most gunsmiths (even less wipe-replacement, seeing as the users replaced them in most cases). Also, silencers are closely-regulated ITAR items, whose technology and production is seen as particularly important for military purposes (I disagree, but State writes the laws rules). At any rate, the very next item on that list would seem to include replacement of silencer wipes as ITAR-applicable activity, since they do definitely improve that "firearm's" function.

Contrary to "not reading" these documents, I am actually looking beyond what is plainly stated for possible pitfalls or unintended consequences. Because lord knows the Bureau lawyers do. I already told you that the ITAR publication clearly stated that common gunsmithing activities would not be subject, but then immediately spelled out a sweeping set of criteria that cover practically everything involving tools. The addition of scope bases is exempted, but I'm pretty sure the mounting of the scope afterward constitutes increasing the practical accuracy of the weapon; a non-exempted activity. I'd actually encourage a test case be pursued in this area by some brave soul, since ITAR has lost in court every time it's been challenged on civil rights grounds (we'd probably see a return to the decades-long small arms exemption which Obama had removed as part of his infamous post-Newtown-bill-failure executive actions)

BTW, Did you ever stop to think that maybe the AR manufacturers ASKED for the lower to be the required place for Manufacturer/Model/Serial#?
No you didn't.

Of course they did. That's where their prototypes were marked. The ATF screwed up in agreeing with them, since every last other weapon design with an upper reciever with BCG and lower receiver with trigger group has a serialized upper. Even the AR70, which also has the magwell & stock attachment as part of the lower like the AR15 (also the even more similar SAR80 kits being imported right now). If I design a new gun, I can't just "ask" they define the trigger guard as the "firearm" and expect to get my wish . Another fun example, Kel Tec apparently trolled the ATF into making the cheek-rest of their new RDB the "firearm," even though it has literally nothing to do with the trigger or magazine, and only loosely guides the BCG on some removable internal rails. The polymer lower with barrel trunnion attachment, magwell, trigger group, and stock attachment is wholly unregulated, lol! I'm all for less regulation, but again, the whole point of the ATF's rule making is that it's supposed to be based in some kind of logic derived from the statute, and not just made up on the fly. The inconsistency caused by the AR mistake may ultimately be single-handedly responsible for the demise of the NFA barrel length requirements, since it directly made 'workarounds' like the SIG Brace possible on a massive scale.

4) It's a rather difficult field to practice in because so much practical 'precedent' is not actually legally binding as you've noted, and is subject to change.

4. What a load of absolute nonsense.

Okay, now you're just giving misleading if not hazardous opinion. If you had asked the most skilled ATF litigator a day before Dead Air's announcement, they would have told you wipes are user-replaceable wear parts not regulated by the NFA. They've clearly stated this numerous times over the years; it's very hard to get it more from the horse's mouth than that. And yet today, this may no longer be the case by the actions of a single field agent (we don't actually know yet, since the ATF has neither released an official statement nor begun prosecuting people for selling untaxed wipes). A company like Dead Air just lost a lot of money & customers despite the best efforts of their legal counsel (although you seem to be of the opinion that since they were making these things, they couldn't have possibly been doing anything but recklessly testing the NFA/ATF; were there any other companies selling wipes that did require them to be transferred as silencer components, or was Dead Air following the same accepted course everyone else had for decades?). Have you formally consulted with lawyers about the legality of wipes to make sure your business plan is acceptable with regards to your license and special tax status, or are you operating under informal scuttlebutt from figures you trust on the topic & your personal interpretation? The SIG Brace fiasco should be evidence enough for anyone of the rapidly-shifting landscape of NFA law outside the formal legal system, at the discretion of ATF determinations.

Again.......you call me a defender of ATF, even "carrying their water"......yet you also do the same!
WHAT.A.PHONY.

Once more you stopped reading halfway through my sentence and assumed the remainder before insulting me; I said you've been oddly in alignment with questionable ATF decisions that made the news in recent times. At this point, I would add you seem to be oddly defensive from a personal standpoint on these matters despite ostensibly having no connection to the Bureau, or a stake in its opinions beyond being able to merely conduct business within them. Why is it so important to you that I accept the ATF's decision to reverse such a long, well-understood, and reasonable practice of absolving wipes from NFA scrutiny? It's not like refusing to accept a law is tantamount to disobeying it (I don't think anyone is advocating we disobey a direct order from our betters, unless we feel like being a test case)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

So am I legally able to clean out and reapply this product???? It seems to do about the same thing as wipes, reduces sound level, designed to be replaced by end user, goes inside the can and is a non-durable item.

https://www.inland-mfg.com/Inland-Suppressors/dBFoam.html

I would hate to have to pay my gunsmith every time I wanted to clean and re-foam my suppressor.

What's funny, is since it's got "For Firearm Suppressors" and "reducing the noise" right there on the freaking can, I don't see how you could argue it isn't a silencer component under these new guidelines. Remember, there is no requirement a device or part actually reduce report, nor that it resemble any particular item, but the law is very clear about intent to reduce muzzle report.

So yeah, that 20$ can of shaving cream ('water soluble foam' plus that nozzle on top screams Hoppe's Scented Shave Cream to me) is a silencer component according to the most strict yet expansive view of the NFA the ATF seems to now be taking. The only 'precedent' for this not being the case is that the ATF considers Chore Boy pads to be components, but not the grease they can be soaked in, from what I understand (i.e. the grease can still be re-packed by the end user, but not the pads LOL). Neither the pads nor the grease have "for silencers" on the label, though

I can only imagine the gawdawful mess the first round must make when a can is filled with that stuff; hopefully they at least made it tactical-colored and not bright white

TCB

 

[dogtown tom]

From the Q&A letter wherein the ATF finally declared silencer tubes to be the serialized component (no, it's not in the Federal Register, because it doesn't have to be per the law); It would appear you need an SOT to merely replace these wipes, now, and not just any old FFL.

Wow.
Using an article from Small Arms Review that purportedly quotes a 2008 opinion letter from ATF.....that's some awesome research.
Try finding an actual citation in ATF regulations that agrees with your faulty assumption. (it doesn't exist)

Here's a FAQ response from the ATF website:https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-licensed-gunsmith-receive-nfa-firearm-purposes-repair

May a licensed gunsmith receive an NFA firearm for purposes of repair?
Yes, a licensed gunsmith may receive a National Firearms Act firearm for the sole purpose of repair and subsequent return to its owner. It is suggested that the owner obtain permission from ATF for the transfer by submitting an ATF Form 5, Application for Tax Exempt Transfer and Registration of Firearm, to the NFA Branch and receive approval prior to the delivery. The gunsmith should do the same prior to returning the firearm.

The can would also need to be transferred formally to do the deed, unless there's some exemption for while-you-wait repair of NFA items like there is for non-NFA stuff.

Well, again you are wrong. No formal transfer is required, but ATF suggests you do so. Being that Form 5's are taking several months the likelihood of anyone "formally" transferring possession is pretty darn small. In fact, of my customers who have sent back silencers for repair to AAC, Silencerco, etc........NONE did so formally. They put in a box and shipped it. All perfectly legal to do.
And there is no exemption for while you wait........because there is no requirement in the first place.

Also of rather interesting note in the Q&A, it would appear that repairs which change the caliber of the silencer (i.e. replacing worn wipes or baffles with tighter ones) requires issuance of a new tax stamp. That provision sure made more sense back when it only applied to sturdier metallic baffles & endcaps...

Absolute nonsense.
The baffles or wipes don't dictate caliber....the end cap would. This is what has the modular silencer manufactures terrified.

You claim that ITAR registration is required for an FFL to replace wipes? No, it is CLEARLY NOT REQUIRED. Please READ the text in RED above.

Again, do you see a common thread in many of your posts?

We'll see if "firearm components" are treated the same as "silencer components" by the State Dept in due time, I suppose.

Well, they already are if the firearm is on the US Munition List.

Unlike 'traditional gunsmithing,' it cannot be argued silencer service is a typical/common task of most gunsmiths (even less wipe-replacement, seeing as the users replaced them in most cases).

That's your opinion, not supported by any fact.
Fact is, silencers are regularly returned to manufacturers for repair and service. You would know this by reading any silencer forum. Baffle and end cap strikes are common.

Also, silencers are closely-regulated ITAR items, whose technology and production is seen as particularly important for military purposes (I disagree, but State writes the laws rules). At any rate, the very next item on that list would seem to include replacement of silencer wipes as ITAR-applicable activity, since they do definitely improve that "firearm's" function.

Again, your reading comprehension fails you. ITAR clearly allows the REPLACEMENT of parts. Wipes are replacement parts.

Contrary to "not reading" these documents, I am actually looking beyond what is plainly stated for possible pitfalls or unintended consequences. Because lord knows the Bureau lawyers do.

Yeah, sure.
You've made so many faulty assumptions it would appear that you are in fact trolling.
When I suggest consulting an NFA experienced attorney you make excuses.
Anyone who would rely on your expertise "looking beyond" is a fool.

I already told you that the ITAR publication clearly stated that common gunsmithing activities would not be subject, but then immediately spelled out a sweeping set of criteria that cover practically everything involving tools. The addition of scope bases is exempted, but I'm pretty sure the mounting of the scope afterward constitutes increasing the practical accuracy of the weapon; a non-exempted activity. I'd actually encourage a test case be pursued in this area by some brave soul, since ITAR has lost in court every time it's been challenged on civil rights grounds (we'd probably see a return to the decades-long small arms exemption which Obama had removed as part of his infamous post-Newtown-bill-failure executive actions)

No, you posted that ITAR document to prove that ITAR registration would be required to replace wipes. That wasn't true at all.
Stay on topic.

BTW, Did you ever stop to think that maybe the AR manufacturers ASKED for the lower to be the required place for Manufacturer/Model/Serial#?
No you didn't.

Of course they did. That's where their prototypes were marked. The ATF screwed up in agreeing with them, since every last other weapon design with an upper reciever with BCG and lower receiver with trigger group has a serialized upper.

Oh wait.........first it was ATF's fault, now the manufacturers, but still ATF screwed up? Bizarre.
I for one am delighted that its the lower receiver.

Even the AR70, which also has the magwell & stock attachment as part of the lower like the AR15 (also the even more similar SAR80 kits being imported right now). If I design a new gun, I can't just "ask" they define the trigger guard as the "firearm" and expect to get my wish . Another fun example, Kel Tec apparently trolled the ATF into making the cheek-rest of their new RDB the "firearm," even though it has literally nothing to do with the trigger or magazine, and only loosely guides the BCG on some removable internal rails. The polymer lower with barrel trunnion attachment, magwell, trigger group, and stock attachment is wholly unregulated, lol! I'm all for less regulation, but again, the whole point of the ATF's rule making is that it's supposed to be based in some kind of logic derived from the statute, and not just made up on the fly.

And non of that rant is remotely connected to this thread is it?

The inconsistency caused by the AR mistake may ultimately be single-handedly responsible for the demise of the NFA barrel length requirements, since it directly made 'workarounds' like the SIG Brace possible on a massive scale.

The Sig Brace was approved by ATF as an aid in holding an AR pistol, not as a "workaround" as a crappy shoulder stock. It will have zero effect on the NFA.

Okay, now you're just giving misleading if not hazardous opinion. If you had asked the most skilled ATF litigator a day before Dead Air's announcement, they would have told you wipes are user-replaceable wear parts not regulated by the NFA. They've clearly stated this numerous times over the years; it's very hard to get it more from the horse's mouth than that.

Really?
The ONLY document that says so is the Bardwell letter from 1999......and that conflicts directly with Federal law.
If I had asked an "ATF litigator" (whatever the heck that is) he likely would have said "write a letter to the Technical Branch"......because that's their answer to nearly everything.

And yet today, this may no longer be the case by the actions of a single field agent (we don't actually know yet, since the ATF has neither released an official statement nor begun prosecuting people for selling untaxed wipes).

"Field agents" don't write ATF Rulings or make determinations. That's done by the ATF Technical Branch.

A company like Dead Air just lost a lot of money & customers despite the best efforts of their legal counsel (although you seem to be of the opinion that since they were making these things, they couldn't have possibly been doing anything but recklessly testing the NFA/ATF; were there any other companies selling wipes that did require them to be transferred as silencer components, or was Dead Air following the same accepted course everyone else had for decades?).

You'll need to ask Dead Air why they built a silencer using wipes.

Have you formally consulted with lawyers about the legality of wipes to make sure your business plan is acceptable with regards to your license and special tax status, or are you operating under informal scuttlebutt from figures you trust on the topic & your personal interpretation?

I don't need to consult with an attorney because my reading comprehension is average.
It doesn't matter if it's baffles, wipes, Chore boy or a potato........as an FFL I can repair silencers. This is common knowledge in the silencer industry. (and an SOT is not required)

The SIG Brace fiasco should be evidence enough for anyone of the rapidly-shifting landscape of NFA law outside the formal legal system, at the discretion of ATF determinations.

True. And I'm surprised ATF didn't see it for a crappy stock as did many in the gun community.

Once more you stopped reading halfway through my sentence and assumed the remainder before insulting me;

Nope. I've read your ninety word sentences all they way through before writing my posts.

I said you've been oddly in alignment with questionable ATF decisions that made the news in recent times.

"In alignment"? What the heck does that mean?
I'm certainly not in agreement with many ATF decisions, but I am smart enough to put aside the childish emotional pablum and look to see if there is a Federal law that allows such a regulation.

You, on the other hand just wring your hands and provide little to back up your assertions.

At this point, I would add you seem to be oddly defensive from a personal standpoint on these matters despite ostensibly having no connection to the Bureau, or a stake in its opinions beyond being able to merely conduct business within them.

Really? Do you really think anyone would welcome being called a "water carrier" for ATF?
I prefer facts over emotion, if someone posts nonsense I'll point out the nonsense. You post nonsense quite often in regards to ATF and the NFA.

Why is it so important to you that I accept the ATF's decision to reverse such a long, well-understood, and reasonable practice of absolving wipes from NFA scrutiny?

I frankly don't care whether you accept it or not.
What I do care about is factual and accurate information. Your posts contain little of that.

 

[barnbwt]

I don't need to consult with an attorney because my reading comprehension is average.
It doesn't matter if it's baffles, wipes, Chore boy or a potato........as an FFL I can repair silencers. This is common knowledge in the silencer industry. (and an SOT is not required)

I hear you loud and clear; you don't have any legal bonafides that I should respect over my own layman's judgement. You're the same as me, trying to figure out what these laws mean, where the limits are, and what the ATF is actually enforcing & how. Just trying to get by and stay out of the big house like the rest of us, and you disagree with me on how to do that. Also disagree that it isn't always a simple answer, or that the answer can change at ATF discretion. And rather than try to actually engage me, you just say I'm an ignorant illiterate peasant who should ignore my own technical experience and intellect, and accept your/ATF's interpretation as valid. Again, without much supporting argument beyond your insistence I'm wrong.

That re-printed letter from the ATF Tech Branch clearly says an SOT is needed to service silencer parts, which wipes are now, courtesy of another ATF Tech Branch opinion (or field agent suggestion, or however Dead Air was notified privately). So, your opinion is the Bardwell letter was never valid (presumably even for the particular item in discussion), and the whole industry that operated under it for 20 years was doing so illegally, but the ATF merely decided to exercise enforcement discretion all this time for no reason (which would be the only justification for suddenly reversing this practice now) but still put it in writing? Because there is no "regulation" stating that wipes are regulated silencer parts, just the Bardwell exception that was published & followed by enforcement for many decades.

TCB

 

[dogtown tom]

I hear you loud and clear; you don't have any legal bonafides that I should respect over my own layman's judgement.

True, I'm not an attorney, but I have pointed out multiple factual errors in your posts.......none of that requires a law degree.

You're the same as me, trying to figure out what these laws mean, where the limits are, and what the ATF is actually enforcing & how. Just trying to get by and stay out of the big house like the rest of us, and you disagree with me on how to do that.

True, but I'm relying on the actual law, not anecdotal information based on "feels".

Also disagree that it isn't always a simple answer, or that the answer can change at ATF discretion. And rather than try to actually engage me, you just say I'm an ignorant illiterate peasant who should ignore my own technical experience and intellect, and accept your/ATF's interpretation as valid. Again, without much supporting argument beyond your insistence I'm wrong.

I do question your literacy. Only someone who is illiterate or simply trolling could believe that I haven't provided plenty of facts to support my argument. In fact some of your document links prove several of my arguments.

That re-printed letter from the ATF Tech Branch clearly says an SOT is needed to service silencer parts, which wipes are now, courtesy of another ATF Tech Branch opinion (or field agent suggestion, or however Dead Air was notified privately).

What "reprint"? What "letter"? That wasn't a reprint, it wasn't a copy of an ATF letter.....it was an article that purportedly included information from the ATF.
And AGAIN, as I asked earlier....."what ATF regulation says an SOT is required to gunsmith NFA firearms?
You can't provide that can you? You really can't provide much of anything.

I guess the current ATF website link I provided (which directly refutes your claim and that article) is less authentic than that nine year old magazine article?

. . So, your opinion is the Bardwell letter was never valid (presumably even for the particular item in discussion), and the whole industry that operated under it for 20 years was doing so illegally, but the ATF merely decided to exercise enforcement discretion all this time for no reason (which would be the only justification for suddenly reversing this practice now) but still put it in writing?

With the clear definition of silencer in Federal law, I have difficulty understanding how the Bardwell letter could have been issued. But it was.
As I stated earlier (and as written by ATF) opinion letters only apply to the individual to whom they are directed. They aren't law, they aren't a ruling and they aren't regulations.....they are OPINIONS. Anyone who relies on an opinion letter written for someone else is a fool.
And Dead Air are fools for relying on that letter.

Because there is no "regulation" stating that wipes are regulated silencer parts, just the Bardwell exception that was published & followed by enforcement for many decades.

Well, what do you think? I've asked several times why you think wipes are exempt from the definition of silencer in Federal law........answer the question.