When is a muzzle brake an unregistered silencer?

[SC-Texas]

When is a muzzle brake an unregistered silencer?

Is it when the gas is dispersed by a certain port?

Is it when the brake is a certain length?

Is it simply when the BATFE says so?

I guess this guy didn't get the message from the Sig case or with his first conviction and 6mo probation.

Be sure and read the screen shot of his eBay ad where he discusses the "Low tone".

As wrong as the law is, it is the law.

This man is going to jail because he ignored it. It's something to think about when gathering parts for a solvent trap suppressor or a home built suppressor.

The real question is why is this a silencer part and not just a long muzzle brake?

At what point does it change from a muzzle brake to a silencer change from a muzzle brake to a silencer part?

Is the standard the point at which there is no more gas impacting the muzzle brake ports?

Is it when it's too long?

The batf has a history of seizing these vendors credit card records, invoices, emails and cash receipts and then going and visiting everyone that bought something online. If if the convicted felon sold these on eBay, which he obviously did, the BATFE will subpoena the eBay records and track down each of those purchasers. If he sold them on other online sales forms, they will subpoena those records and track the buyers down.

My guess is that even if the brake was bought face to face with a credit card they will be calling and visiting these buyers and demanding the return of the parts unless that customer has an approved form 1.

I advise my www.TexasGunTrust.com clients to wait for the approved form 1 to begin accumulationing the parts for their suppressors build.

http://www.wfmj.com/story/32807776/a...rm-silencersuh

The link to the actual Ebay sale: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-x-6-SUPER-...-/221957276824
















Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[markm]

That thing us just a brake. It'd make a crappy silencer core for several reasons. It eats too much of the internal capacity of a silencer, and it's friggin aluminum. It might be a mediocre rimfire silencer core however.

As that sits, though.... it offers ZERO sound suppression.

[Ryno12]

That thing us just a brake. It'd make a crappy silencer core for several reasons. It eats too much of the internal capacity of a silencer, and it's friggin aluminum. It might be a mediocre rimfire silencer core however.

As that sits, though.... it offers ZERO sound suppression.

Yep. It's just a long, retarded muzzle device.

Not sure why this is even a thread. Seems as if it's just to solicit business.

[SC-Texas]

There is a thread because we have a lot of members and I have a lot of clients that build suppressors on form 1s

The solvent trap suppressor is a good example of this. This is always a fun debate. Is the solvent Trap illegal to possess without a Form 1?

If it is legal to possess, at what point does it become illegal?

That is a entertaining debate in and of itself. This is a little more clear in the sense that when someone looks at this, it is pretty obviously a suppressor core.

I would be willing to bet that there are some solvent trap tubes that this thing fits in quite nicely.

A lot of people seem to think that it is okay to start accumulating the parts for their form 1 silencer prior to the form one being approved.

We also get into debates about dual use parts.

The thing that is important with this guy's conviction is that it shows that something that has a dual nature, and other words it can be used as a muzzle break or a suppressor part, can easily be labeled an unregistered silencer.

And I have that debate on a weekly basis if not a daily basis some weeks

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[SC-Texas]

That thing us just a brake. It'd make a crappy silencer core for several reasons. It eats too much of the internal capacity of a silencer, and it's friggin aluminum. It might be a mediocre rimfire silencer core however.

As that sits, though.... it offers ZERO sound suppression.

If you guys remember the Sig MPX debacle in which the ATF ruled that the MPX is muzzle break was actually a suppressor part. The Court ruled in favor of the ATF. That part , made the firearm louder.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[BigWaylon]

That part would also take some machining to make it a monocore.

It would all depend on where the meter was set as to whether it reduced the sound.

[SC-Texas]

That part would also take some machining to make it a monocore.

It would all depend on where the meter was set as to whether it reduced the sound.

The problem is that tech branch does not have any guidelines for testing other than obtain the desired result.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nova3930]

If you guys remember the Sig MPX debacle in which the ATF ruled that the MPX is muzzle break was actually a suppressor part. The Court ruled in favor of the ATF. That part , made the firearm louder.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

am I mistaken or didn't that turn on the fact the mpx brake was threaded externally to facilitate adding an enclosing tube? at least that's what it always seemed to me

this thing would take quite a lot of work to attach anything short of welding it together. if that's the direction things are going then any brake is a potential suppressor

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[SC-Texas]

I believe it was based on the length

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[TAZ]

It may have also been based on his claims. He mentions that it makes a nice low tone. That can be interpreted as it reduces the sound volume. It may only take it down .0000000001dB but technically it's still a reduction. A suppressor does t have to be good to need a tax stamp donation. Not agreeing with the law or the ATF's interpretation of it. We also have no clue what Albert Einstein in disguise said, wrote... to the UC agents that tried to buy one. Hell for all we know he is the UC and this is just his cover.