View Full Version : ATF says certain suppressor parts are controlled items...
Apparently, the ATF has stepped up to issue a directive that parts like LCD pistons and different thread pitch adapters on 9mm suppressors are technically a controlled item.
At this point, the common wisdom is that things like the AAC blackout suppressor mount and others are not effected because they are not parts of the suppressor but rather parts of the gun.
Here is one of YHM's responses:
Sir,
Unfortunately I have bad news. We were finally notified by ATF Monday morning that we can no longer sell individual pistons, 3-lug adapters, fixed barrel adapters and most other components separately. We can sell a sound suppressor with one attaching device and that is it. We are not very happy to say the least. This is going to affect our business tremendously. Apparently we were the first, and now ATF is going to go after all other sound suppressor manufacturers as well. We are going to fight this, and the owner of this company has already contacted some attorneys about taking legal action. As you saw we were forced to take all the products off our web page or face legal action by ATF. We are waiting to hear the final word on the QD mounts, and I am not expecting good news about them either. All I can tell you now is to be patient while we appeal ATF's ruling and hopefully get it overturned. Sorry for the inconvenience, however our hands are tied at the moment, and no one is more upset than us over this matter.
Although I have no interest in pistol caliber cans, that sucks. :mad:
Although I have no interest in pistol caliber cans, that sucks. :mad:
I think the bigger worry for most of us at the moment is that they may try and extend their flawed logic to things like the M4-2k mounts, and OPS, Inc collars and brakes.
Which would be very, very bad.
As it stands, if this is accurate, they have criminalized several thousand people with the stroke of a pen.
LonghunterCO
07-17-09, 10:24
Not trying to apply an sence to the .gov, but that really does not make any sence.
:mad:
As it stands, if this is accurate, they have criminalized several thousand people with the stroke of a pen.
True. Folks with extra piston are stuck in no mans land.
k_cheerangie
07-17-09, 10:42
So what do people with those products now do, are they supposed to ship them back to the manufacture?
Assuming someone bought it with the intent to purchase a suppressor in the future, but currently do not have one.
Assuming someone bought it with the intent to purchase a suppressor in the future, but currently do not have one.
What is scary is that it appears that the ATF is stating it to mean that the internal piston or 3-lug adapter may be considered a suppressor all by itself.
Again this is not directed towards flash suppressor-type mounts. This is related to the parts like this:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/SHIVAN308/Stuff/htgcycle9d.jpg
and this:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/SHIVAN308/Stuff/htgcycle9c.jpg
Which many users bought to allow for a pistol can to mount to fixed barrel, 3-lug, or Browning actions.
This is fricking outrageous and I hope that all manufacturers that could be affected by this put any differences aside and band together for the common good.
This needs to be addressed in legislation. Lets get some pro gun democrats and republicans to jointly sponsor legislation that clearly spells this stuff out.
This needs to be addressed in legislation. Lets get some pro gun democrats and republicans to jointly sponsor legislation that clearly spells this stuff out.
That will never happen.
The leftists are in power and the first round of gun control has begun under the current administration.
That will never happen.
The leftists are in power and the first round of gun control has begun under the current administration.
So let's give up before we even get started? The fact is that lots of Democrats are afraid of the gun-control-bogeyman and we can get "reasonable" stuff passed if we try. Things like clarifying what a suppressor actually is and is not, etc should not be too hard.
I don't think we could repeal the NFA, or the 86 MG ban at the moment, but this sort of stuff we should be able to get done if someone with some reach starts the ball rolling.
So let's give up before we even get started? The fact is that lots of Democrats are afraid of the gun-control-bogeyman and we can get "reasonable" stuff passed if we try. Things like clarifying what a suppressor actually is and is not, etc should not be too hard.
I don't think we could repeal the NFA, or the 86 MG ban at the moment, but this sort of stuff we should be able to get done if someone with some reach starts the ball rolling.
I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but a realist.
We can't get the ATF Reform Act passed. How much more "reasonable" or "moderate" is this bill and we still can't get it done?
They aren't going to touch anything having to do with a silencer.
It isn't going to get any better for us.
I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but a realist.
We can't get the ATF Reform Act passed. How much more "reasonable" or "moderate" is this bill and we still can't get it done?
They aren't going to touch anything having to do with a silencer.
It isn't going to get any better for us.
Again, let's give up before we try. Reforming the ATF and making technical clarifications to what a silencer is are two totally different things.
And we need to keep the heat on the leftists and Democrats by pushing pro gun bills. Better to keep them busy swatting down our stuff and giving us ammunition against them in 2010 and 2012 than to let them be free to come up with their own crap
Chad
Again, let's give up before we try. Reforming the ATF and making technical clarifications to what a silencer is are two totally different things.
And we need to keep the heat on the leftists and Democrats by pushing pro gun bills. Better to keep them busy swatting down our stuff and giving us ammunition against them in 2010 and 2012 than to let them be free to come up with their own crap
Chad
I agree that we need to keep pushing and keeping them busy but our side has to realize we don't have a good chance of getting anything passed.
The small company/self-owned gun industry needs a stronger lobbying group with more political capital than it has...the NRA is probably not it.
When shit like this happens to drug companies, or car companies, etc there are lots and lots of people leveraging deals, and making it "go away".
I don't foresee AAC, Gemtech, AWC, SoundTech, SWR and OPS pooling their money to hire a top tier lobbyist, but it might be worth it in the long run.
I don't think anyone is wanting to give up, but the realism is that fighting the government in court could cost you everything, instead of just one niche area of your business.
parishioner
07-18-09, 00:44
If they did wind up going after companies like AAC and Surefire for their suppressor/flash hider mounts, I wonder if an A2 flash hider would be considered a controlled item since you can mount a Gemtech Halo on it.
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-18-09, 01:03
Scary stuff.
glockshooter
07-18-09, 05:32
Does anyone know what they are using as their justification? I am having a hard time with this. How can they make something that has no legal requirement to be controlled and arbitrailly make it controlled. If a less than 16" upper is not controlled, then how in the world can a coupling device be controlled. The funny thing is a coupling device is useless with out a can first, but an upper could be mated easily. I don't really have the need or want a pistol can, but that may change on day. The one thing I like about most pistol cans is the ability to change thread diminsions.
Matt
Does anyone know what they are using as their justification?
They've always held that the possession of even one baffle is possession of a suppressor. Whether you have the tube or ability to mount it to anything. So this is an extension of that interpretation.
Remember, this is the group that rules a shoelace could be a machinegun.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-18-09, 12:54
They've always held that the possession of even one baffle is possession of a suppressor.
That's Baffling.
Can some post some pics or links to what parts are involved. Is this for pistols only?
Sounds like they all need to join the NFATCA organization.
Can some post some pics or links to what parts are involved. Is this for pistols only?
Re-hosted and shown above.
theJanitor
08-12-09, 18:56
i heard rumors that there was a finite ruling yesterday. can this be confirmed?
From a YHM response, posted on TOS.
"Sir,
Thank you for your interest in our products and your business. We have been instructed by management not to sell
Wraith .22 QD mounts at this time, we are awaiting a final determination from the ATF in this matter. We can now
resume selling the Phantom QD mounts and Wraith 9mm QD mounts as of yesterday. I would think we should be getting
a determination on the Wraith .22 QD mounts soon."
I should think that this determination could be rolled back in light of the recent victory in the case of customs bad decision in trying to rule all pocket knives as switch blades. Plus the fact that Congress is already rocked back on it's heels from the fervor over their trying to socialize health care. Especially taking into consideration the way thousands of citizens have been turned into felons by the stroke of a pen. It seems to me the ATF was pretty short sighted in this ruling.
I hope this gets sorted out because I have really been thinking about one of the YHM QD .22 cans as my first foray into the suppressor world.
So what is their rationale for this? Are they claiming that it's a part, the only possible use of which is to build a suppressor? Sort of like their rulings on autosears?
Before gemtech came out with the Trinity, replacement endcaps for silencers were always thought to be suppressor parts.
I guess it was some aspect of the trident's design or construction that got it exempted from that restriction, and apparently, YHM's version does things differently.
Or ATF just changed their minds.
Sort of like their rulings on autosears?
Ruling? They'd like to think so too, but it's just a very heavy opinion.
Everyone has opinions, including differing ones from ATF director to ATF director, and it sounds like the ATF has simply pulled another one out of thin air.
Think about even the stupidity of the autosear opinion. The registered M16 lower is the machine gun, right up until you take the autosear out to clean it, work on it or replace it. If you set it on your bench and walk away, based on their opinion, you now have TWO machineguns there. Isn't that idiotic?
Now what they are saying is that having a threaded mount, that does nothing to dampen sound in and of itself, at all, is now considered (or maybe always has been) a suppressor all by itself.
Both opinions are idiotic. Then again, this is the same branch who determined that a shoelace could be considered a machinegun.
Ruling? They'd like to think so too, but it's just a very heavy opinion.
Everyone has opinions, including differing ones from ATF director to ATF director, and it sounds like the ATF has simply pulled another one out of thin air.
It's an agency with rule-making authority and one with personnel that are considered experts by prosecutors and courts. Their opinion (or ruling or pontification or however you want to describe it) carries more weight than yours or mine. That is reality whether you or I like it or not.
Think about even the stupidity of the autosear opinion. The registered M16 lower is the machine gun, right up until you take the autosear out to clean it, work on it or replace it. If you set it on your bench and walk away, based on their opinion, you now have TWO machineguns there. Isn't that idiotic?
Yes. That would be idiotic. It's also not what those opinions have said.
Now what they are saying is that having a threaded mount, that does nothing to dampen sound in and of itself, at all, is now considered (or maybe always has been) a suppressor all by itself.
Hence my question about the rationale for the opinion, which nobody has clarified.
Both opinions are idiotic. Then again, this is the same branch who determined that a shoelace could be considered a machinegun.
There's a lot more to that opinion than just a shoelace.
My supressors are not some sexy quick detach but screw on units from AWC.
They get it done & untill this BS is resolved I see no reason to get anything else.
Yes. That would be idiotic. It's also not what those opinions have said.
In the opinion of the ATF, possession of an autosear is always tantamount to intent to assemble a machinegun. Possession of an autosear is, in their minds, equivalent to possession of a machinegun because its only purpose is to convert a semi-auto AR to full auto.
There's a lot more to that opinion than just a shoelace.
Of course, of course...like a shoelace in the presence of a rifle, and it's installation on a rifle, etc. However, it never made a semi-auto rifle fire more than one projectile per operation of the trigger, it merely sped up the rate of semi-auto fire by assisting the trigger pull of the operator.
Furthermore, is the shoelace still an illegal machinegun when I put it back in my shoe? Or not? Since the ATF has also opined that once classified as a MG, always a machinegun.
Lastly, isn't it quite the perversion of the balance of powers in government to have people from an administrative arm of the Executive Branch providing "guidance" to the Judicial branch based on their opinions and not actual laws?
In the opinion of the ATF, possession of an autosear is always tantamount to intent to assemble a machinegun. Possession of an autosear is, in their minds, equivalent to possession of a machinegun because its only purpose is to convert a semi-auto AR to full auto.
It's not just their opinion - the Code specifically says that any part, the sole purpose of which is to convert a gun to a machinegun, is also a machinegun. If you have a registered receiver and one autosear (installed or not) then you don't have a problem. It's when you have spare autosears laying around that you may have an issue.
Of course, of course...like a shoelace in the presence of a rifle, and it's installation on a rifle, etc. However, it never made a semi-auto rifle fire more than one projectile per operation of the trigger, it merely sped up the rate of semi-auto fire by assisting the trigger pull of the operator.
If I remember correctly, that opinion letter dealt with a shoelace that was looped and exactly the right length to act like an autosear - not a "bumpfire aid."
It's not just their opinion - the Code specifically says that any part, the sole purpose of which is to convert a gun to a machinegun, is also a machinegun. If you have a registered receiver and one autosear (installed or not) then you don't have a problem. It's when you have spare autosears laying around that you may have an issue.
I also have spare cam pins, firing pins, takedown pins, barrels, flash suppressors and pistol grips. It makes sense to have spares of parts that wear or break. The OPINION is idiotic.
Women have the functionality to be hookers. With a car and alcohol we all have the ability to DUI. With common household chemicals we all have the ability to make some pretty nasty bombs. An opinion that declares guilt before an innocent person actual does anything to commit a crime is idiotic, wouldn't you agree?
If I remember correctly, that opinion letter dealt with a shoelace that was looped and exactly the right length to act like an autosear - not a "bumpfire aid."
It was installed on an AR as I recall, and no matter how you loop it if you hold the trigger back (follow through) you can never make the weapon fire more than once per trigger pull with semi-auto parts in the FCG and a shoelace.
If you loop it tight enough that the trigger reaches RESET, and gets pulled again immediately, you have one projectile per pull of the trigger. It's just faster than the ATF likes, and so they opined that a shoelace looped to X.XX" and placed on an AR was a MG...but not the combination of parts, and not the AR itself -- the SHOELACE was the MG....idiotic.
Much like their opinion that interchangeable thread mounts for suppressors are to be considered controlled items despite them having no suppressive capabilities on their own nor any function whatsoever when placed idly away.
Possessing one or more threaded mounts is not tantamount to creating a suppressor. It is frugal method to use one suppressor on several weapons. If someone does make their own ILLEGAL suppressor with those endcaps, prosecute them for constructing an illegal NFA item, otherwise the ATF needs to leave people alone and stop presuming that everyone is trying to do illegal things in their spare time.
... the Code specifically says that any part, the sole purpose of which is to convert a gun to a machinegun, is also a machinegun....
The M16 lower is the registered part of a registered M16, not the autosear. The autosear of an M16 has no serial number.
If you take the autosear OUT of the registered M16 and set it on your bench, by the letter of the code, which is "black and white", you have two machineguns lying on that bench based on the letter and spirit of the code and in concert with the opinions of the ATF.
If you take the autosear OUT of the registered M16 and set it on your bench, by the letter of the code, which is "black and white", you have two machineguns lying on that bench based on the letter and spirit of the code and in concert with the opinions of the ATF.
The Code says that any part intended solely for converting a firearm to a machinegun is considered a machinegun. If you have a machinegun receiver already, there is nothing to "convert" because it's already a machinegun and I don't see how leaving it next to the registered receiver on a bench would be construed as possessing 2 machineguns.
If you removed the autosear, put it next to an AR-15 receiver on the bench, shipped your machinegun off someplace else, and the wrong person walked in - yeah, I can see that being a problem. If you ordered a bunch of spare autosears for your one machinegun, that's a problem too.
I agree in principle that all of this shit - including the NFA itself - is pointless, but I think you're interpreting these opinion letters beyond what they actually mean and say.
The Code says that any part intended solely for converting a firearm to a machinegun is considered a machinegun. If you have a machinegun receiver already, there is nothing to "convert" because it's already a machinegun and I don't see how leaving it next to the registered receiver on a bench would be construed as possessing 2 machineguns.
So then possession of a spare in a toolbox would not be converting an already registered MG, it would merely be another SPARE wear item/non-serialized part.
Uh, except we both know the ATF did not opine in that fashion. They stated that possession of an autosear has only one purpose and that is to convert a gun to a MG, and possession of the autosear would be considered possession of an unregistered MG.
Well if that is the case, then find and prosecute actual conversions instead of making possession of a wear item the actual crime of possession of a "MG".
Similarly with possession of spare barrels shorter than 16", disconnectors, selectors, etc.
Uh, except we both know the ATF did not opine in that fashion. They stated that possession of an autosear has only one purpose and that is to convert a gun to a MG, and possession of the autosear would be considered possession of an unregistered MG.
Except - AGAIN - if you have a registered MG then it's not an issue.
Similarly with possession of spare barrels shorter than 16", disconnectors, selectors, etc.
We've been down the SBR issue road already in another thread and there is clear case law on that. Whether you can have "spare" uppers for a registered SBR or pistol, along with Title I ARs, is a hazier question.
Except - AGAIN - if you have a registered MG then it's not an issue.
We've been down the SBR issue road already in another thread and there is clear case law on that. Whether you can have "spare" uppers for a registered SBR or pistol, along with Title I ARs, is a hazier question.
Both being of the same cloth. If you are in possession of a registered SBR and a registered MG, AND have a spare M16 autosear as well as a spare 10.5" upper in your safe AND also have Title I AR's, due to the opinions of the ATF in concert with oddly worded statutes, you have the potential for overzealous prosecution of what amounts to non-crimes. Just because something might happen does not mean the ATF should classify parts of controlled items as controlled items themselves.
Three SBR uppers, two SBR lowers and one regular AR and you have an "issue" because of ATF opinion.
One registered MG, and the possession of two AR autosear assemblies and you have an "issue" due to ATF opinion. Nevermind that you haven't actually created a functional MG or SBR, it is the mere possession that the ATF has opined is illegal.
If you have a closed bottle of vodka in the car, why shouldn't the ATF opine that agents can cite you for intent to DUI?? It is exactly the same principle. As the only thing that consumable alcohol is used for is to inebriate the consumer.
To get back on topic though, the mounts shown below offer no suppressive capability on their own, and the mere possession of which should never be classified as possessing a suppressor. They are not a suppressor, and their possession does not mean you are going to thread a maglite and make a homegrown "assassin tool" using one. It just doesn't make sense for the ATF to take this tact.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/SHIVAN308/Stuff/htgcycle9d.jpg
and this:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/SHIVAN308/Stuff/htgcycle9c.jpg
One registered MG, and the possession of two AR autosear assemblies and you have an "issue" due to ATF opinion. Nevermind that you haven't actually created a functional MG or SBR, it is the mere possession that the ATF has opined is illegal.
No, you have two machineguns per the plain language of the Code. No ATF opinion needed.
To get back on topic though, the mounts shown below offer no suppressive capability on their own, and the mere possession of which should never be classified as possessing a suppressor. They are not a suppressor, and their possession does not mean you are going to thread a maglite and make a homegrown "assassin tool" using one. It just doesn't make sense for the ATF to take this tact.
Yes, we all get that you don't like this opinion and that the mount alone doesn't suppress anything. Sort of like an autosear alone doesn't make a machinegun (physically) and a short upper alone doesn't make a SBR (physically).
So do you, or does anyone else, have a copy of an opinion letter that deals with this? What is the reasoning? Or is this just informal communication between somebody at ATF and some manufacturers/dealers? In other words - what does this opinion, if there is one, actually say?
SHIVAN and dbrowne1- I'd like to say your debating is great. No, I'm not kidding or being an a**hole. It's nice reading the reasoning behind your thoughts. Being new to the NFA scene, there is a lot to learn and ya'll are giving some good insights.
You both have kept it civil and factual as you understand it. Way to go.:) Wouldn't see this on TOS. I'm learning much.
No, you have two machineguns per the plain language of the Code. No ATF opinion needed.
Exactly, and it's exactly what I said initially. If you take the autosear out of your registered machinegun (M16) and set it on the bench, you have two registered machineguns sitting on that bench by definition. Then when the ATF was given the opportunity to clarify this position, they made it worse by saying that possession of the autosear alone was tantamount to the construction of a new and illegal machinegun, and made the mere possession outside of the weapon a tentative operation for all M16 owners (other MG'ers too).
The M16 is the registered MG with or without the autosear, or other automatic FCG parts. Period. NFA item defined as such -- we agree. If you take the autosear out of your M16 and set it in on the bench you have "unmarried" the two items for that instant creating a scenario where you are in possession of a registered machinegun AND a part that is defined by code to be a machinegun. The ATF opinion only made it worse because they could have clarified that other criteria needed to be met before an unserialized autosear should be considered a MG -- again because the operative word was "converting" or "conversion" -- they didn't do that.
Examples: 1) Non-NFA registered AR lower drilled in correct spot for sear pin. 2) Possession of plans and jig to do the drilling. 3) Possession of all the auto FCG parts as well as #1 and #2 above....etc....
Instead they opined that even if you had a registered MG, you would be intent on construction of an illegal machinegun even if you only had a spare autosear for the purposes of repair or replacement in a fully legal machinegun titled to you.
That is wherein the ATF has made this situation worse with the suppressor mounts. It is not good enough that the law already states that you can not make a suppressor without the proper authority and approvals. They have to now solidified the craziness with a formal opinion that the mounts are suppressors and bully YHM on the matter.
Just because you CAN, does not mean you WILL do something illegal. Chase and prosecute the actual lawbreakers, leave the frugal users alone.
So do you, or does anyone else, have a copy of an opinion letter that deals with this? What is the reasoning? Or is this just informal communication between somebody at ATF and some manufacturers/dealers? In other words - what does this opinion, if there is one, actually say?
As I understand, secondhand from other FFL's, is that this is pretty formal and directed only to YHM -- so far.
Someone may have a copy of the ATF letter to YHM, but it is my understanding that this campaign of craziness is all being directed to YHM and it may not be in YHM's interest to release that letter or more information.
I have looked, and have not seen the letter to them. Sorry.
To get back on topic though, the mounts shown below offer no suppressive capability on their own, and the mere possession of which should never be classified as possessing a suppressor. They are not a suppressor, and their possession does not mean you are going to thread a maglite and make a homegrown "assassin tool" using one. It just doesn't make sense for the ATF to take this tact.
It's a part "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."
It certainly isn't intended to be used for anything else, is it?
Yes, we all get that you don't like this opinion and that the mount alone doesn't suppress anything. Sort of like an autosear alone doesn't make a machinegun (physically) and a short upper alone doesn't make a SBR (physically).
So do you, or does anyone else, have a copy of an opinion letter that deals with this? What is the reasoning? Or is this just informal communication between somebody at ATF and some manufacturers/dealers? In other words - what does this opinion, if there is one, actually say?
As I said above, this has been ATF opinion regarding replaceable endcaps/thread mounts/ etc.
Somehow gemtech managed to get ATF to look at the Trinity differently. Since then, it has been asssumed by various manufacturers that ANY method of constructing and attaching interchangeable endcaps/LIDs/3lug mounts is OK.
This is how ATF works. They are usually unaware of isolated transgressions of law or regulation, but when it gets too widespread to ignore, they clamp down.
I don't think anyone who has any understanding of NFA history would be at all surprised by this.
I'm only surprised they let it go on so long.
It's a part "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."
It certainly isn't intended to be used for anything else, is it?
It is picking nits, and AGAIN it boils down to the ATF having had the ability to OPINE in a logical way, yet they chose long ago to put a spin on the language to be as restrictive as possible.
They could have just as easily written an opinion that the spirit of the law, as interpreted by the Tech Director was that the langauge is assumed to mean "assembling or fabricating any unauthorized (aka illegal) suppressor or firearm muffler" giving a lawful user some latitude in the use of a non-controlled part.
Everyone keeps projecting that the ATF can only write an opinion that is more restrictive -- it is what they typically do -- but they could and should have written opinions that are more common sense and work in concert with the spirit of the law. Not essentially make ways to criminalize mundane things like possession of a spare threaded interchange or autosear while also in possession of a legal M16 or suppressor.
It is picking nits, and AGAIN it boils down to the ATF having had the ability to OPINE in a logical way, yet they chose long ago to put a spin on the language to be as restrictive as possible.
They could have just as easily written an opinion that the spirit of the law, as interpreted by the Tech Director was that the langauge is assumed to mean "assembling or fabricating any unauthorized (aka illegal) suppressor or firearm muffler" giving a lawful user some latitude in the use of a non-controlled part.
And yet that's exactly the tack they take (for now, at least :D) with regard to wipes.
They know that urethane sheets, or even punched out urethane donuts, can't be argued in front of a jury to be ONLY useful for assembling a suppressor, so they don't bother.
But a knurled bit of tube, with precision-machined threads on one end to attach to a suppressor, and threads on the other end (or some other mounting mechanism) to attach it to a gun barrel, pretty much makes that a suppressor part.
And if you remove one suppressor part in order to replace it with another suppressor part, you have an extra suppressor part, which by statute (not ATF's determination) gives you another suppressor.
QuietShootr
08-17-09, 19:52
This is fricking outrageous and I hope that all manufacturers that could be affected by this put any differences aside and band together for the common good.
Standing by for AAC to throw everyone else under the bus somehow.
And if you remove one suppressor part in order to replace it with another suppressor part, you have an extra suppressor part, which by statute (not ATF's determination) gives you another suppressor.
Which is where they could have been reasonable in their opinions clarifying the statute after the fact. The statute is missing specificity, and therefore needed to have administrative clarification.
The ATF could have easily said, "We feel the statute is applying to sole possession of X part, in the absence of a lawful suppressor for which the part belongs, and having found other unlawful parts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that John Q. was intent on unlawfully constructing illegal suppressors."
However, what they said was otherwise lawful possession of a non-serialized replacement part (can't stress it enough) all by itself, even if you have lawful reasons to own it, and have not demonstrated any sort of intention, is possession of a separate suppressor or MG.
It was the most restrictive way they could have, uh, "aided" in the interpretation of a statute that lacked specificity in regards to "illegal fabrication" or "illegal assembly" versus "lawful replacement" and "lawful interchangeability".
I'm with you on that, but then you'd have an enforcement agency VOLUNTARILY abdicating authority over an activity.
Telling Congress all the stuff they DON'T have to worry about isn't a good way to get a bigger budget.
I'm with you on that, but then you'd have an enforcement agency VOLUNTARILY abdicating authority over an activity.
Telling Congress all the stuff they DON'T have to worry about isn't a good way to get a bigger budget.
Yeah, exactly. It is the exact issue that faces the Department of Education, GAO, DCAA, etc. They are really beholden to no one in the latitude for their opinions, yet must ratify their existence with some sort of hard numbers to show to Congress for funding.
Yeah, exactly. It is the exact issue that faces the Department of Education, GAO, DCAA, etc. They are really beholden to no one in the latitude for their opinions, yet must ratify their existence with some sort of hard numbers to show to Congress for funding.
Government grows, that's what it does.
Thanks everyone. This thread has reinforced why I am so disgusted and unhappy with our government. Where is Ross Perot when you need him? He may have been boring but he did have common sense. Common sense isn't so common, especially in politicians and most bureaucrats.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.