User Panel
Posted: 4/9/2014 4:15:02 PM EDT
Sig Sauer sues ATF for calling its 'muzzle brake' a gun silencer
NEWINGTON — 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 designed to reduce recoil, as an item “intended only for use” when making a silencer.
Sig claims that 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 argues through Manchester attorney Mark Rouvalis and Virginia attorney Stephen Halbrook. ATF Director B. Todd Jones is named as defendant in Sig's lawsuit and has 21 days, after being served, to respond to the civil action, dated April 7. Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, it's not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act. View Quote ETA: Link to complaint provided by NoloContendere http://www.scribd.com/doc/217525302/Sig-Sauer-v-ATF-Complaint Update 9-10-2014 AT Scribd: JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND THE STAY OF LITIGATION AND AMEND SCHEDULE pdf The Parties have been working to meet these deadlines, and have agreeably
allowed for adjustments in the schedule of submissions. ATF recently provided Sig Sauer with the results of its re-examination of the muzzle device. In its letter, ATF once again classified Sig Sauer's submitted device as a "firearm silencer," rejecting Sig Sauer's contention that the device is instead a"muzzle brake." Sig Sauer is preparing a response, which will be submitted on or before September 19,2014. Unless ATF changes its position, the Parties anticipate that this matter will make its way back before the Court. ...snip.... a. The Court will extend the stay of litigation for a period of forty five (45) additional days, until November 1,2014. View Quote ETA: 10/20/2014 14-Cv-00147-d-11-First-Amended-Complaint 14-Cv-00147-D-12-Motion-to-Extend-Time 14-Cv-00147-D-13-Answer-to-Plaintiffs-First-Amended-Complaint ETA: 01/13/2015 ETA: I'll save my Pacer account and link to the documents at michellawyers.com/sig-sauer-v-batfe-new-hampshire/: TRIAL NOTICE: Bench Trial set for the two-week period beginning 6/2/2015 09:00 AM before Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/22/2015 02:00 PM before Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. Pretrial Statements due 5/4/2015. LR 16.2(d) Objections due 5/18/2015. Summary Judgment Motions due by 1/9/2015.(js) View Quote Sig-Sauer-v.-BATFE_Index-to-Administrative-Record.pdf (12/15/2014) Sig-Sauer-v.-BATFE_Defendants-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment1.pdf (01/09/2015) Sig-Sauer-v.-BATFE_Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-and-Request-for-Oral-Argument.pdf (01/09/2015) ETA: Objections to Motions for Summary Judgements Plaintiffs-Objections-to-Defendants-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf(2-09-2015) Assented-To-Motion-for-Leave-to-Late-File-Defendants-Objection-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf(2-10-2015) Defendants-Memorandum-In-Objection-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf(2-11-2015) ETA: It appears both parties ask for a 60 Day extension on 4/29/2015 , judge set the following: 04/30/2015 TRIAL NOTICE: Bench Trial set for the two-week period beginning 8/4/2015 09:30 AM before Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/21/2015 03:00 PM before Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. Pretrial Statements due 7/1/2015. LR 16.2(d) Objections due 7/15/2015. (vln) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
View Quote ETA 6/30/2015: Updated court record from today: RESCHEDULING NOTICE of Hearing. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/17/2015 04:00 PM beforeJudge Paul J. Barbadoro. (vln) View Quote ETA: 7/22/2015 The Motion hearing was held 7-17: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. MOTION HEARING held on 7/17/2015 re[18] MOTION for Summary Judgment , [19] MOTION for Summary Judgment . Order to issue.
(Court Reporter: Sandra Bailey) (Pltfs Atty: Stephen P. Halbrook) (Defts Atty: William Ryan) (Total Hearing Time: 2:40) (vln) View Quote ETA: 8/6/2015 Checked for updates this morning and this is what I got when I went to download the Transcript. Full docket text for document 31:
TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings for Motion Hearing held on 7/17/2015. Court Reporter: Sandra Bailey, Telephone # XXXXXXXXXX. Transcript is available for public inspection, but may not be copied or otherwise reproduced, at the Clerk's Office for a period of 90 days. Additionally, only attorneys of record and pro se parties with an ECF login and password who purchase a transcript from the court reporter will have access to the transcript through PACER during this 90day period. If you would like to order a copy, please contact the court reporter at the above listed phone number. NOTICE: Any party who requests an original transcript has 21 days from service of this notice to determine whether it is necessary to redact any personal identifiers and, if so, to electronically file a Redaction Request. Redaction Request Follow Up 8/28/2015. Redacted Transcript Follow Up 9/8/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/2/2015.(vln) View Quote ETA 11/17/2015 SIG SAUER v ATF TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAUL J. BARBADOROD.N.H._1-14-cv-00147_31_0 (Scribd pdf) ETA: 9-26-2015 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER pdf ...snip...
IV. CONCLUSION
The ATF’s classification of Sig Sauer’s device as a firearm silencer was not “arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Accordingly, I grant ATF’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 18), and I deny Sig Sauer’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 19). The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. SO ORDERED. /s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge View Quote ETA: 11/17/2015 Notice of appeal filed10/15/2015: Pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, notice is hereby given that SIG SAUER, Inc., Plaintiff in the above named case, appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the Final Judgment entered in this action on the twenty fourth day of September, 2015. View Quote The hearing transcript has also been released. I will try to post it later this evening. SIG SAUER v ATF TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAUL J. BARBADOROD.N.H._1-14-cv-00147_31_0 (Scribd pdf) |
|
The only gun on my wishlist is the MPX-C with the muzzle break.
|
|
Sig vs. GCA
Good fight, but Sig won't win. ETA: Autocorrect sucks. |
|
What happened at Sig? It's as if one day they had a meeting and said, "You know what? Fuck the ATF."
|
|
The Newington gun maker's suit, filed in the U. S. District Court of New Hampshire, states that it submitted a rifle, with its muzzle brake, to the ATF on April 4, 2013 for evaluation. The device is described as 9.5 inches long and permanently attached with a weld to a 6.5 inch barrel, making the overall barrel length 16 inches. View Quote Wait, is this in regards to the short barrel 9mm carbine that was billed as "suppressor ready?" The ATF changed their minds? |
|
Good luck.. Since the 1986 FOPA legislation, any part of a silencer is considered a silencer itself.
|
|
I have purchased several Sig products so far this year, and will continue to buy Sig products as they continue to screw with the unconstitutional abomination that is the ATF
Good luck to them in this endeavor. I'm assuming this is referring to that huge brake on their new MPX?
|
|
|
I'm going to have to buy a Sig now.
And I don't even like them because all their best guns aren't lefty friendly!
|
|
Good. Big company with deep pockets, so hopefully they can get it reversed and establish precedence.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Makes me want to buy more Sig products. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What happened at Sig? It's as if one day they had a meeting and said, "You know what? Fuck the ATF." Makes me want to buy more Sig products. You always want to buy more Sig products. Same here. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah... this. Rather WTF? Granted WTF in a very good way, but still kinda WTF? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What happened at Sig? It's as if one day they had a meeting and said, "You know what? Fuck the ATF." Yeah... this. Rather WTF? Granted WTF in a very good way, but still kinda WTF? They apparently understand quite well their constituency. |
|
|
|
|
I had a suspicion something might be happening after this ruling for another muzzle device. http://www.shootingwire.com/features/228649 |
|
Quoted:
Yeah I was thinking the same.. This? http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sig-mdx-1.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. Yeah I was thinking the same.. This? http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sig-mdx-1.jpg yep the baffles are already in place just have to form 1 it and buy the sleeve and boom silenced. |
|
|
Quoted:
I had a suspicion something might be happening after this ruling for another muzzle device. http://www.shootingwire.com/features/228649 View Quote Thank you for posting that link. I knew I'd seen the ATF get spanked recently over the same thing in the past week or so... |
|
Quoted:
yep the baffles are already in place just have to form 1 it and buy the sleeve and boom silenced. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. Yeah I was thinking the same.. This? http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sig-mdx-1.jpg yep the baffles are already in place just have to form 1 it and buy the sleeve and boom silenced. Well all you have to do with a threaded barrel is screw on a suppressor. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
They need to release that bastard as a semi auto pistol. At that point I'll stop wanting an SP89.
|
|
Quoted:
Well all you have to do with a threaded barrel is screw on a suppressor. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. Yeah I was thinking the same.. This? http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sig-mdx-1.jpg yep the baffles are already in place just have to form 1 it and buy the sleeve and boom silenced. Well all you have to do with a threaded barrel is screw on a suppressor. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I thought the ATF looked at the baffles the same as the whole suppressor. |
|
|
Good for Sig. They seemed to have realized that they have an entire market they can tap by telling the ATF "Suck it. Here's stuff that works within your arbitrary guidelines".
|
|
Quoted:
What happened at Sig? It's as if one day they had a meeting and said, "You know what? Fuck the ATF." View Quote I don't know, but I like it. Even if they don't win, they'll make up the lawyer fees from people buying Sig stuff because they like this kind of thing. Brilliant marketing/publicity move on their part. I will likely be one of them. I hope this kicks off an arms race among gun manufacturers of who can fuck with the ATF the most. |
|
It would be cool to have perma attached baffles to get it down to sbr length, and with only one form 1 be able to install the sleeve on whatever gun you are currently shooting.
But I think its a stretch to think the atf would have gone a long with this. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
I don't know, but I like it. Even if they don't win, they'll make up the lawyer fees from people buying Sig stuff because they like this kind of thing. Brilliant marketing/publicity move on their part. I will likely be one of them. I hope this kicks off an arms race among gun manufacturers of who can fuck with the ATF the most. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What happened at Sig? It's as if one day they had a meeting and said, "You know what? Fuck the ATF." I don't know, but I like it. Even if they don't win, they'll make up the lawyer fees from people buying Sig stuff because they like this kind of thing. Brilliant marketing/publicity move on their part. I will likely be one of them. I hope this kicks off an arms race among gun manufacturers of who can fuck with the ATF the most. That is the most wonderful idea I've read all day. |
|
Quoted:
No pics of the disputed device in OP or link. Fail. View Quote It's a supressor baffle stack, without the external casing, permanently attached to the barrel. If you put a metal sleeve on it, it IS a supressor, but until you do (presumably on a NFA Form 1 if you wanted to), it's clearly not a supressor. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.