User Panel
Quoted:
To win, the ATF will have to adopt reasonable, clear and published standards for classifying firearms and their parts. This would be groundbreaking. Particularly considering in the 80 years the NFA has been in place no part of the government has done that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I really like the effort they're putting out, but I dont think they'll win this one. You cant even make baffles w/o the form 1 returned with a stamp. To win, the ATF will have to adopt reasonable, clear and published standards for classifying firearms and their parts. This would be groundbreaking. Particularly considering in the 80 years the NFA has been in place no part of the government has done that. +1 and OST |
|
Quoted:
at what point does a break become a suppressor? http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m9ddVrDd_25hcK6zafQIpiA.jpg http://barrett.net/images/firearms/m107a1/muzzle.jpg http://www.speedshooter.com/images/CCW223.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And there is no requirement that a cheese grater be the most efficient design. But the bottomline is that when SIG designed that "muzzle brake", they designed it FIRST as a silencer baffle stack that fits precisely into an optional silencer tube with the intended purpose of silencing the report of a firearm, so therefor it is a silencer part. The word "only" in the below silencer definition was put there so people wouldn't be charged with illegal suppressor parts if they owned common pipe, steel wool, rivets, washers etc with other real intended purposes. 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, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
Any device that meets the definition as stipulated above in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) is also subject to controls as defined in the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53 You still haven't explained why a standard muzzle brake silencer adapter, which clearly acts in the same fashion as this brake, and also functions as a short baffle stack when used in combination with a suppressor tube is somehow different. What if the Surefire/AAC brake was theoretically longer and acted as half the baffles in the tube? What if it replaced all of the internal baffles? It doesn't change the fact that it acts as a brake absent the true silencer parts(the tube/endcap). You start your argument out by creating a false premise that a standard muzzle brake silencer mounting device acts in the same fashion as this SIG muzzle brake. It clearly doesn't in all of its characteristics. So no point in even debating it. A mouse is not a squirrel simply because they both have fur, a tail, ears and four legs. at what point does a break become a suppressor? http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m9ddVrDd_25hcK6zafQIpiA.jpg http://barrett.net/images/firearms/m107a1/muzzle.jpg http://www.speedshooter.com/images/CCW223.jpg When it suppresses the noise? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
at what point does a break become a suppressor? http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m9ddVrDd_25hcK6zafQIpiA.jpg http://barrett.net/images/firearms/m107a1/muzzle.jpg http://www.speedshooter.com/images/CCW223.jpg When it suppresses the noise? Get out of here with that nonsense. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
at what point does a break become a suppressor? http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m9ddVrDd_25hcK6zafQIpiA.jpg http://barrett.net/images/firearms/m107a1/muzzle.jpg http://www.speedshooter.com/images/CCW223.jpg When it suppresses the noise? Get out of here with that nonsense. That sounds way too reasonable. Wait why do we care how much noise a gun makes again? |
|
Chew on this while we wait for the legal proceedings. The likely patent that is potentially used for the Sig design cites "A sound, flash and recoil suppressor for a firearm" in the patent.
Sig's case keeps looking stronger every day.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
at what point does a break become a suppressor? http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m9ddVrDd_25hcK6zafQIpiA.jpg http://barrett.net/images/firearms/m107a1/muzzle.jpg http://www.speedshooter.com/images/CCW223.jpg When it suppresses the noise? Get out of here with that nonsense. Technically, per the tech branch, you're wrong. It depends on where they put the microphone. Weren't they looking to classify the pig brake and the Levang brake as suppressors? Not that either make the gun quiet, they simply redirect noise so the shooter isn't exposed to concussive blast. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
That sounds way too reasonable. Wait why do we care how much noise a gun makes again? WHAT??? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! It's atrocious that our Government continues to make it difficult for people to get simple hearing protection devices that could protect against future medical costs. |
|
|
Quoted: I thought the ATF looked at the baffles the same as the whole suppressor. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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. |
|
Whenever unelected bureaucrats can make rules that carry the force of law, we are fucked.
This could be about EPA regs, FDA regs, whatever. The end result is the same. The only way to fix this stuff is to challenge it in court or pass a law that specifically nullifies the rule. Sig is fighting the good fight, and Im sure it cant be cheap. |
|
|
Quoted:
It's a fine marketing strategy, at least, because I sure feel like buying a Sig now, just because I like their moxie. 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." That makes 2 of us. Looks like their plan is working. |
|
Quoted:
In this case unelected bureaucrats did not write the definition of the term "silencer. CONGRESS has that "honor". See 18 USC 921 (a) (24). View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Whenever unelected bureaucrats can make rules that carry the force of law, we are fucked. In this case unelected bureaucrats did not write the definition of the term "silencer. CONGRESS has that "honor". See 18 USC 921 (a) (24). You think a member of congress actually wrote that definition? Or you think maybe they just introduced it as written by the ATF man??? |
|
Quoted: In this case unelected bureaucrats did not write the definition of the term "silencer. CONGRESS has that "honor". See 18 USC 921 (a) (24). View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Whenever unelected bureaucrats can make rules that carry the force of law, we are fucked. In this case unelected bureaucrats did not write the definition of the term "silencer. CONGRESS has that "honor". See 18 USC 921 (a) (24). 18 USC 921 (a): (24) 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. Sigs argument is with FTB's interpretation of the part in red. Just because a parts can be used in a silencer does not mean it is "intended only for use in". Sig has amply demonstrated that their "monolithic baffle stack" does in fact reduce recoil while not reducing sound when the outer sleeve is not attached. Other silencer companies have had similar brake designs that are only completed by a serialized outer sleeve get passed the FTB. Basically, Sig is trying to convince the judicial branch of what most gun owners have known for years. That the FTB is a bunch of fucktards that have no scientific or even logical basis for 99.99% of what comes out of their mouths. And, that they really shouldn't have any rule making authority at all since they are as a matter of course and culture arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the laws as written. |
|
Subscribed. I actually thought this was resolved already *facepalm*
|
|
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 16 June 09, 2014 Joint Assented to MOTION to Stay Litigation Pending Reconsideration by Defendant of Muzzle Device Classification 17 June 09, 2014 ENDORSED ORDER granting 9 Motion to Stay. |
|
|
Quoted: 16 June 09, 2014 Joint Assented to MOTION to Stay Litigation Pending Reconsideration by Defendant of Muzzle Device Classification 17 June 09, 2014 ENDORSED ORDER granting 9 Motion to Stay. So ATF will reconsider their ruling? Sorry for being slow in the head.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
at what point does a break become a suppressor? http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m9ddVrDd_25hcK6zafQIpiA.jpg http://barrett.net/images/firearms/m107a1/muzzle.jpg http://www.speedshooter.com/images/CCW223.jpg When it suppresses the noise? That is really not the rule we want to see implemented. An A2 birdcage results in less noise than with no muzzle device by a decibel or two. |
|
Quoted:
So ATF will reconsider their ruling? Sorry for being slow in the head. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
16 June 09, 2014 Joint Assented to MOTION to Stay Litigation Pending Reconsideration by Defendant of Muzzle Device Classification 17 June 09, 2014 ENDORSED ORDER granting 9 Motion to Stay. So ATF will reconsider their ruling? Sorry for being slow in the head. Yes. Lawsuit is paused and ATF will re-issue a ruling for Sig Sauer. If Sig agrees, they will likely agree to dismiss. If Sig does not, lawsuit continues. |
|
View Quote Obummer is still in Office. 949 days to go. |
|
|
Quoted:
Yep. I'm betting ATF is trying to make sure this one doesn't go to court so they don't have to establish any standards since I doubt they have much of a case in regards to Sig's Brake design. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Fantastic news if it sticks! Yep. I'm betting ATF is trying to make sure this one doesn't go to court so they don't have to establish any standards since I doubt they have much of a case in regards to Sig's Brake design. Quit reading my mind. |
|
Quoted:
Yep. I'm betting ATF is trying to make sure this one doesn't go to court so they don't have to establish any standards since I doubt they have much of a case in regards to Sig's Brake design. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Fantastic news if it sticks! Yep. I'm betting ATF is trying to make sure this one doesn't go to court so they don't have to establish any standards since I doubt they have much of a case in regards to Sig's Brake design. That is the beauty of this case and the others. I hope they keep it up so ATF is forced into giving us a good set of rules to follow |
|
Quoted:
That is the beauty of this case and the others. I hope they keep it up so ATF is forced into giving us a good set of rules to follow View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fantastic news if it sticks! Yep. I'm betting ATF is trying to make sure this one doesn't go to court so they don't have to establish any standards since I doubt they have much of a case in regards to Sig's Brake design. That is the beauty of this case and the others. I hope they keep it up so ATF is forced into giving us a good set of rules to follow But then there wouldn't be so much need to submit new designs to the technical branch, to find out if the BATF feels like allowing them to be manufactured without NFA paperwork. What are all those technical branch employees supposed to do, if they end up with nothing to do at work?. |
|
Quoted: But then there wouldn't be so much need to submit new designs to the technical branch, to find out if the BATF feels like allowing them to be manufactured without NFA paperwork. What are all those technical branch employees supposed to do, if they end up with nothing to do at work?. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fantastic news if it sticks! Yep. I'm betting ATF is trying to make sure this one doesn't go to court so they don't have to establish any standards since I doubt they have much of a case in regards to Sig's Brake design. That is the beauty of this case and the others. I hope they keep it up so ATF is forced into giving us a good set of rules to follow But then there wouldn't be so much need to submit new designs to the technical branch, to find out if the BATF feels like allowing them to be manufactured without NFA paperwork. What are all those technical branch employees supposed to do, if they end up with nothing to do at work?. retire? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fantastic news if it sticks! Yep. I'm betting ATF is trying to make sure this one doesn't go to court so they don't have to establish any standards since I doubt they have much of a case in regards to Sig's Brake design. That is the beauty of this case and the others. I hope they keep it up so ATF is forced into giving us a good set of rules to follow But then there wouldn't be so much need to submit new designs to the technical branch, to find out if the BATF feels like allowing them to be manufactured without NFA paperwork. What are all those technical branch employees supposed to do, if they end up with nothing to do at work?. retire? |
|
Quoted:
So ATF will reconsider their ruling? Sorry for being slow in the head. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
16 June 09, 2014 Joint Assented to MOTION to Stay Litigation Pending Reconsideration by Defendant of Muzzle Device Classification 17 June 09, 2014 ENDORSED ORDER granting 9 Motion to Stay. So ATF will reconsider their ruling? Sorry for being slow in the head. BATFE may "reconsider" the decision. BATFE may take the opportunity to develop a better basis for the decision it already made and call it a "reconsideration". Lawyers who practice administrative law refer to the latter process as "stuffing the file". |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Is there an expected duration the ATF typically takes for rulings? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. Lawsuit is paused and ATF will re-issue a ruling for Sig Sauer. If Sig agrees, they will likely agree to dismiss. If Sig does not, lawsuit continues. Is there an expected duration the ATF typically takes for rulings? 7. Therefore, the Parties have agreed to, and request the Court’s approval of, the following terms: a. The Court will stay the litigation until September 17, 2014. b. On or before fourteen (14) calendar days from the date the Court grants this motion and approves the accompanying order, Sig Sauer will submit to ATF a muzzle device sample identical to that submitted to ATF in April 2013. Sig Sauer will provide ATF with authenticating information concerning the sample and any additional documents or information (beyond that previously submitted), for inclusion in the administrative record as part of ATF’s review upon reconsideration. ATF agrees that Sig Sauer may manufacture the muzzle device sample, if necessary, and send it via overnight mail, without further regulatory process or approval by the ATF, to: Earl Griffith, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405. c. On or before August 6, 2014, ATF will issue and provide to Sig Sauer a revised decision regarding Sig Sauer’s muzzle device. d. If Sig Sauer disputes all or part of the new decision on reconsideration, Sig Sauer may file, in its sole discretion, a “Request for Reconsideration,” with ATF including additional information and documentation for consideration, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the decision. Alternatively, Sig Sauer may proceed with this court case, as set forth below. If Sig Sauer submits a Request for Reconsideration, ATF will have fourteen (14) calendar days to provide a written response to Sig Sauer’s request. e. If Sig Sauer determines not to appeal the new decision provided by ATF, Sig Sauer will notify the agency, and the parties voluntarily will submit a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 stipulation of dismissal within thirty (30) calendar days of the decision. f. If Sig Sauer does not file a “Request for Reconsideration” or, in the alternative, disputes the ATF classification, Sig Sauer will have fourteen (14) calendar days to submit an amended complaint to this Court. g. ATF will have fourteen (14) calendar days following the submission of Sig Sauer’s amended complaint to file its answer with the Court. At this time, ATF also shall file the administrative record for this case with the Court. The parties agree that the administrative record will consist of: Exhibits A-D of the complaint; any product sample and additional information Sig Sauer provides on reconsideration; any ATF documents, electronic or otherwise, that were reviewed, generated, or relied upon in rendering its decision in connection with Sig Sauer’s classification request; any ATF guidance, policies, or standard operating procedures applicable to the classification request; and such other documents or information as the parties may agree. h. Following the submission of ATF’s answer and the administrative record, the case will be placed on the administrative track pursuant to LR 40.1. The parties will also request a conference with the Court to confer about the course of the case. |
|
Quoted:
But then there wouldn't be so much need to submit new designs to the technical branch, to find out if the BATF feels like allowing them to be manufactured without NFA paperwork. What are all those technical branch employees supposed to do, if they end up with nothing to do at work?. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fantastic news if it sticks! Yep. I'm betting ATF is trying to make sure this one doesn't go to court so they don't have to establish any standards since I doubt they have much of a case in regards to Sig's Brake design. That is the beauty of this case and the others. I hope they keep it up so ATF is forced into giving us a good set of rules to follow But then there wouldn't be so much need to submit new designs to the technical branch, to find out if the BATF feels like allowing them to be manufactured without NFA paperwork. What are all those technical branch employees supposed to do, if they end up with nothing to do at work?. Oh, I dunno,...... maybe transfer to the NFA branch and start pumping forms out? |
|
|
Metro Gun Systems Has been making extended ported shotgun barrels for a long time, they act as a silencer as defined by the ATF description:
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. Yet these barrel extensions have been unregulated as such.
|
|
Quoted: Metro Gun Systems Has been making extended ported shotgun barrels for a long time, they act as a silencer as defined by the ATF description: View Quote 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. Yet these barrel extensions have been unregulated as such. |
|
Quoted:
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. Yet these barrel extensions have been unregulated as such. At that point any barrel length past 0 is a silencer View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Metro Gun Systems Has been making extended ported shotgun barrels for a long time, they act as a silencer as defined by the ATF description: Yet these barrel extensions have been unregulated as such. At that point any barrel length past 0 is a silencer That is what has never made sense, barrel length has a huge effect on sound levels. If I made a gun with a 100" barrel, then cut that barrel down and added a 'suppressor' that only lowered its noise to its original level, then whats the difference? |
|
Is it possible that ATF is going to just allow the clock to run out rather than be forced into testing standards that apply to everyone?
Today's the day, right? |
|
|
Quoted:
Yes. And we have about 17 minutes to end of business today, by my watch... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it possible that ATF is going to just allow the clock to run out rather than be forced into testing standards that apply to everyone? Today's the day, right? Yes. And we have about 17 minutes to end of business today, by my watch... If it's something they have to file in a federal court, then they have until 11:59 P.M. to do so electronically. |
|
Quoted: If it's something they have to file in a federal court, then they have until 11:59 P.M. to do so electronically. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Is it possible that ATF is going to just allow the clock to run out rather than be forced into testing standards that apply to everyone? Today's the day, right? Yes. And we have about 17 minutes to end of business today, by my watch... If it's something they have to file in a federal court, then they have until 11:59 P.M. to do so electronically. |
|
The way I read the "stay" the ATF "revised decision" will go to Sig Sauer and NOT be filed with the court unless Sig and ATF can't resolve the issue in their out of court negotiations. Maybe a lawyer can verify.
|
|
Quoted: The way I read the "stay" the ATF "revised decision" will go to Sig Sauer and NOT be filed with the court unless Sig and ATF can't resolve the issue in their out of court negotiations. Maybe a lawyer can verify. View Quote I agree with what the OP said above. It reads to me like by yesterday (8/6) that the ATF was to send Sig a revised decision and then Sig has 14 days (meaning through and including 8/20) to either file a stipulation of dismissal (if they are ok with the revised decision) or amend their complaint (if they are not ok with the revised decision). From the order: c. On or before August 6, 2014, ATF will issue and provide to Sig Sauer a revised decision regarding Sig Sauer’s muzzle device. d. If Sig Sauer disputes all or part of the new decision on reconsideration, Sig Sauer may file, in its sole discretion, a "Request for Reconsideration,” with ATF including additional information and documentation for consideration, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the decision. Alternatively, Sig Sauer may proceed with this court case, as set forth below. If Sig Sauer submits a Request for Reconsideration, ATF will have fourteen (14) calendar days to provide a written response to Sig Sauer’s request. e. If Sig Sauer determines not to appeal the new decision provided by ATF, Sig Sauer will notify the agency, and the parties voluntarily will submit a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 stipulation of dismissal within thirty (30) calendar days of the decision. f. If Sig Sauer does not file a "Request for Reconsideration” or, in the alternative, disputes the ATF classification, Sig Sauer will have fourteen (14) calendar days to submit an amended complaint to this Court. |
|
OK, so 11:59 p.m. on 8/20 is the real deadline by which something will or will not be filed (unless SIG or ATF release information about a resolution earlier than that).
|
|
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.