Sig Sauer sueing ATF

[Downeast]

NEWINGTON NH— Gun maker SIG Sauer has filed a civil suit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claiming the federal agency wrongfully classified a "muzzle brake" SIG Sauer designed to reduce recoil as an item "intended only for use" when making a silencer.

SIG Sauer claims gun silencers are "subject to burdensome legal requirements," and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting it to "economic injury."

"If classified as a silencer, no market exists for the subject device given that it will not silence, muffle or diminish the report of a firearm and yet it would still be subject to the burdensome requirements set forth above as if it really is a silencer," SIG Sauer argues through Manchester attorney Mark Rouvalis and Virginia attorney Stephen Halbrook.

ATF Director B. Todd Jones is named as a defendant in SIG Sauer's lawsuit and has 21 days after being served to respond to the civil action, which is dated April 7.

Full story here: http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20140410-NEWS-404100392

 

[denton]

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2014/03/20/atf-gets-slapped-down-2/

ATF just got seriously clopped up alongside the head by a judge in a similar sounding situation. Sig Sauer probably has the winning hand.

 

[barnbwt]

Man, this Todd Jones guy has done a bang-up job getting the ATF in the papers, lately

"the federal agency is subjecting it to "economic injury."
No joke. IIRC, the MPX was supposed be getting sold by now, but the ATF reversed itself on this muzzle break, requiring essentially a complete redesign to the rifle/pistol and eliminating one of its most novel and marketable features (a muzzle break that is not --but can be turned into-- a low-proflle suppressor. So can a pipe, but it isn't considered a can until you put baffles and caps on it. The MPX barrel can't be considered a suppressor because it is integral to the barrel and doesn't reduce emitted sound --per the 'new' ATF 'criteria' they were just served by a judge)

I think SIG is pouncing on that Innovation Inc court victory, since their product was declined on the basis it 'looks' like silencer baffles while not actually suppressing anything (nor capable of without significant additions)

TCB

 

[Girodin]

The Innovator decision (linked to below) is spot on with how silly the ATFs classification was. As noted in the decision arbitrary and capricious is a pretty low standard and the ATF failed it. It is going to be hard to say how the sig MPX brake is a silencer and any number of other brakes are not.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0581-17

 

[Jim K]

ATF, never missing a chance to get on TV, has managed to ram its agents into the fuss over grazing rights in AZ. I wonder if they will figure out a way to arrest everyone in the state who owns a gun. Might overtax the holding pens, though.

Jim

 

[Speedo66]

Oil filters are next.

 

[barnbwt]

"ATF, never missing a chance to get on TV, has managed to ram its agents into the fuss over grazing rights in AZ."
Seriously? I was just pondering earlier today about how that was the only way that blank-storm could get any better

"Siege? We're there!"

TCB

 

[Arizona_Mike]

ATF, never missing a chance to get on TV, has managed to ram its agents into the fuss over grazing rights in AZ. I wonder if they will figure out a way to arrest everyone in the state who owns a gun. Might overtax the holding pens, though.

Jim

That would be Nevada.

Mike

 

[Panzerschwein]

guess they will have to ban coke bottles and steel wool next...

 

[barnbwt]

"That would be Nevada."
Right. I guess it's not that far gone, in that case. My bad.

TCB

 

[Frank Ettin]

I guess no one wants to discuss the lawsuit.