User Panel
Posted: 6/28/2014 8:06:29 AM EDT
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20140623-NEWS-140629921
By agreement, approved by the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire, Sig will “stay” it’s lawsuit against the ATF until Sept. 17. In the meantime, both sides agree, Sig will send the ATF a sample of its muzzle brake for review and the ATF will issue a ruling, its third, by Aug. 6. Faced with the federal lawsuit, which also names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as a defendant, the U.S. Attorney’s office notified Sig that it would reconsider its two prior decisions that call Sig’s muzzle brake an item “intended only for use” when making a silencer. The ATF asked the federal court to give it time to “review the matter and issue a new decision,” according to court records. Terms of an agreement, filed with the federal court, say that if the ATF’s decision is agreeable to Sig, the Newington firearms manufacturer “will have obtained the relive sought without further litigation,” If the ATF again rules that Sig’s product is a silencer component, the federal civil suit will proceed, according to the agreement approved by federal Judge Paul Barbadaro. Sig’s lawsuit says gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting the local company 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 it its lawsuit. Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, is not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act. “Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit. If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn’t perform as a silencer, Sig claims. A rifle with Sig’s muzzle brake was to the ATF on April 4, 2013 for evaluation, said Sig which describes the disputed device as 9.5 inches long and permanently attached with a weld to a 6.5-inch barrel, making the overall barrel length 16 inches. The ATF responded, by letter dated Aug. 26, 2013, that the device is constructed as a silencer component commonly referred to as a “monolithic baffle stack,” the suit states. “Welding it to a barrel does not change its design characteristics or function,” Sig says it was informed by the ATF. Sig appealed for reconsideration in September 2013, while reporting that sound meter testing proved the device amplified, not muffled sound. It also included evidence showing the device offsets and corrects recoil of a firearm when attached, Sig claims. By letter dated Feb. 21, 2014, the ATF stuck to its original finding, stating that Sig’s device is a part intended only for use in making a silencer. Sig argues in its subsequent suit that the ATF did not examine its data and the gun maker will suffer economic consequences as a result. Sig is asking the court to set aside the ATF’s determination as unlawful, to declare that its muzzle brake is not a part only intended for use in silencers, and to award it costs and damages. |
|
I'm sure Sig was strong-armed into calling it off for now. The fedz will back burner this until it needs another diversion to take the lemmings' attention away from another scandal.
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Sig’s lawsuit says gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting the local company 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 it its lawsuit. Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, is not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act. “Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit. If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn’t perform as a silencer, Sig claims. View Quote I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. |
|
Quoted:
I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Sig’s lawsuit says gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting the local company 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 it its lawsuit. Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, is not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act. “Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit. If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn’t perform as a silencer, Sig claims. I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. It's a considerable barrier to entry for any product to be heavily regulated, require a 10 month wait, and an extra $200 just to own it. |
|
Quoted:
I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Sig’s lawsuit says gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting the local company 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 it its lawsuit. Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, is not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act. “Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit. If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn’t perform as a silencer, Sig claims. I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. What's your badge #, Mr. ATF? |
|
I'm just waiting patiently until these are approved for sale, because I will purchase one. The ATF knows they will lose because they did no testing on the device whatsoever. Just dropped their decision like they always seem to do.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sig’s lawsuit says gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting the local company 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 it its lawsuit. Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, is not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act. “Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit. If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn’t perform as a silencer, Sig claims. I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. What's your badge #, Mr. ATF? Sorry to disappoint you, but just a regular guy. Not every one who has a different opinion is a Fed. |
|
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers.
|
|
Quoted:
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers. View Quote That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. |
|
Quoted:
That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers. That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. |
|
Quoted:
We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers. That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. It obviously has a use as the baffle stack for a suppressor, but the law clearly states that it has to be the only intentional use for the part for it to be classified as part of the suppressor. It also has another intentional use, which is as a muzzle brake. Sig is in the right legally. |
|
Quoted:
We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers. That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. |
|
Quoted:
It obviously has a use as the baffle stack for a suppressor, but the law clearly states that it has to be the only intentional use for the part for it to be classified as part of the suppressor. It also has another intentional use, which is as a muzzle brake. Sig is in the right legally. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers. That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. It obviously has a use as the baffle stack for a suppressor, but the law clearly states that it has to be the only intentional use for the part for it to be classified as part of the suppressor. It also has another intentional use, which is as a muzzle brake. Sig is in the right legally. I guess one way to find out is by comparing the recoil of an MPX-C with and without the muzzle device and see how much it "brakes". |
|
|
Quoted:
It obviously has a use as the baffle stack for a suppressor, but the law clearly states that it has to be the only intentional use for the part for it to be classified as part of the suppressor. It also has another intentional use, which is as a muzzle brake. Sig is in the right legally. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers. That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. It obviously has a use as the baffle stack for a suppressor, but the law clearly states that it has to be the only intentional use for the part for it to be classified as part of the suppressor. It also has another intentional use, which is as a muzzle brake. Sig is in the right legally. Yup. They're hosed, and they know it. My guess is they'll try to reclassify the device, hoping that Sig drops the lawsuit and doesn't get a court ruling. |
|
|
Quoted:
it has other uses. Namely it's an effective muzzle brake. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers. That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. And yet another use is to bait the ATF into a lawsuit regarding silencers. This is how shit gets done boys. Sig is an honorary American co. In my book. |
|
Sig is brilliant. Brilliant marketing, brilliant legal strategy.
They've brought out a series of products that blur the line and show how arbitrary and ignorant the ATF's rules are. When the MPX and Sig Brace were revealed I got a half chub knowing this was coming. |
|
Quoted:
I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Sig’s lawsuit says gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting the local company 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 it its lawsuit. Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, is not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act. “Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit. If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn’t perform as a silencer, Sig claims. I like the part about "no market would exist for the device" if it were classified as a silencer. My take is that that's pretty much the only market that will exist. Who's going to buy one with the 9" "muzzle brake" and not put a can around it? Also, about reducing recoil and muzzle rise, I'm not sure a brake that big and open does much for recoil and muzzle rise, and even if it did, you wouldn't need 9" of brake. The 9" length is to get the barrel longer than 16", no different than a pinned and welded FH on a 14.5 inch barrel. |
|
Quoted:
We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers. That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. Seems to me that Sig is selling the MPX-C with the "muzzle brake" as a way to comply with the law requiring barrels to be >16" or else you pay a $200 tax and wait for months. Otherwise they probably wouldn't go through the trouble to weld it on. |
|
Interested to see what shakes out. We really need a court decision on this to put ATF in their place. I hope this doesn't fade away.
|
|
ATF was on the wrong side of the law, Sig called them on it and now they're going to rule it isn't just a suppressor part.
I'm looking forward to all the other companies who are going to get on this bandwagon after Sig's device goes on sale. |
|
Quoted:
ATF was on the wrong side of the law, Sig called them on it and now they're going to rule it isn't just a suppressor part. I'm looking forward to all the other companies who are going to get on this bandwagon after Sig's device goes on sale. View Quote I foresee a bunch of new brakes on the market that look like similar to a mono-core baffle stack. |
|
Quoted: I foresee a bunch of new brakes on the market that look like similar to a mono-core baffle stack. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: ATF was on the wrong side of the law, Sig called them on it and now they're going to rule it isn't just a suppressor part. I'm looking forward to all the other companies who are going to get on this bandwagon after Sig's device goes on sale. I foresee a bunch of new brakes on the market that look like similar to a mono-core baffle stack. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-2-28-to-3-4-16-Muzzle-brake-Solvent-Trap-Oil-Filter-Thread-Adapter-223-5-56-/281376769318?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item41835cc526 |
|
Quoted:
ATF was on the wrong side of the law, Sig called them on it and now they're going to rule it isn't just a suppressor part. I'm looking forward to all the other companies who are going to get on this bandwagon after Sig's device goes on sale. View Quote Would feel a lot better about it if it were a court handing a decision down rather than the ATF covering their ass. |
|
Quoted: Would feel a lot better about it if it were a court handing a decision down rather than the ATF covering their ass. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: ATF was on the wrong side of the law, Sig called them on it and now they're going to rule it isn't just a suppressor part. I'm looking forward to all the other companies who are going to get on this bandwagon after Sig's device goes on sale. Would feel a lot better about it if it were a court handing a decision down rather than the ATF covering their ass. You will have nothing to worry about once your tube is registered. It will be just like an internally suppressed barrel. |
|
Quoted:
You will have nothing to worry about once your tube is registered. It will be just like an internally suppressed barrel. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF was on the wrong side of the law, Sig called them on it and now they're going to rule it isn't just a suppressor part. I'm looking forward to all the other companies who are going to get on this bandwagon after Sig's device goes on sale. Would feel a lot better about it if it were a court handing a decision down rather than the ATF covering their ass. You will have nothing to worry about once your tube is registered. It will be just like an internally suppressed barrel. What if I don't register the tube and they hangs their mind down the road? That is why I want a court decision saying these are legit. |
|
the tube would be the "suppressor" so not registering it would be illegal...
|
|
Quoted:
Would feel a lot better about it if it were a court handing a decision down rather than the ATF covering their ass. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF was on the wrong side of the law, Sig called them on it and now they're going to rule it isn't just a suppressor part. I'm looking forward to all the other companies who are going to get on this bandwagon after Sig's device goes on sale. Would feel a lot better about it if it were a court handing a decision down rather than the ATF covering their ass. Sig takes them back to court when they change their mind. |
|
Quoted:
Sig takes them back to court when they change their mind. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF was on the wrong side of the law, Sig called them on it and now they're going to rule it isn't just a suppressor part. I'm looking forward to all the other companies who are going to get on this bandwagon after Sig's device goes on sale. Would feel a lot better about it if it were a court handing a decision down rather than the ATF covering their ass. Sig takes them back to court when they change their mind. I understand how it works. I also have no desire to be a test case. I think this is good but I still hold true to my statement. |
|
Quoted:
What if I don't register the tube and they hangs their mind down the road? That is why I want a court decision saying these are legit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF was on the wrong side of the law, Sig called them on it and now they're going to rule it isn't just a suppressor part. I'm looking forward to all the other companies who are going to get on this bandwagon after Sig's device goes on sale. Would feel a lot better about it if it were a court handing a decision down rather than the ATF covering their ass. You will have nothing to worry about once your tube is registered. It will be just like an internally suppressed barrel. What if I don't register the tube and they hangs their mind down the road? That is why I want a court decision saying these are legit. Your not even going to be able to get the tube until your form is approved. If you make a tube (big no no) along with the "muzzle brake" on the MPX-C, expect a 10 year sentance and 10K fine. I would think they would nail you on intent on that one. |
|
Quoted:
We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone at sig is brilliant. Not for designing the brake but for conceptualizing the legal strategy. The only way to expose the arbitrary and contradictory nature of the ATFs law-by-decree is to take them to court and make them prove it on the record. Gun counter stories about shoestring machine guns, reweld receivers and xm177 moderators just arent going to get anything done. Let their counsel stand in court and explain how that 9mm brake is a silencer. Let them display their magic 8-ball that can determine the intent of millions of potential purchasers. That would be great. I think after they "test" it they will say it is not a silencer and will never have to go to court. I think that is the ATF's strategy. We all know it's not a suppressor/silencer the way it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is a suppressor/silencer part, which is where ATF has the issue. I don't know of anyone that would buy the MPX-C and just leave it the way it is. We will all be getting the tax stamp for the tube that completes the silencer/suppressor. And no, I am not ATF, but know some that are. Mine will stay in the original configuration for however long it takes atf to approve my sleeve. The big IF here is two fold. ATF ran it via their lawyers and they assigned a numerical value on the probability that they will get a ruling NOT in their favor. If that ruling happens, they will be open to getting a lot of "suppressor" cores in a lot of firearms! Now the firearm will not have to be registered as an sbr AND they still have part of a can attached to it that they can't regulate! I would not be surprised if they worked out a deal with SIG. ATF will rule that the "device" is a go, but for x amount of time they can't license the design. This creates a best case scenario for atf. They will limit the core to sig designs and minimize the impact from other manufacturers licensing the product. In short, ATF is in damage control mode.ETA: continue to classify suppressor components as suppressors.eta2: for non sig designs (typing on phone sucks) |
|
Quoted:
Your not even going to be able to get the tube until your form is approved. If you make a tube (big no no) along with the "muzzle brake" on the MPX-C, expect a 10 year sentance and 10K fine. I would think they would nail you on intent on that one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What if I don't register the tube and they hangs their mind down the road? That is why I want a court decision saying these are legit. Your not even going to be able to get the tube until your form is approved. If you make a tube (big no no) along with the "muzzle brake" on the MPX-C, expect a 10 year sentance and 10K fine. I would think they would nail you on intent on that one. It's been a long day and I misspoke. What I am worried about is changing their opinion on the brake itself not the tube. |
|
Quoted: It's been a long day and I misspoke. What I am worried about is changing their opinion on the brake itself not the tube. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What if I don't register the tube and they hangs their mind down the road? That is why I want a court decision saying these are legit. Your not even going to be able to get the tube until your form is approved. If you make a tube (big no no) along with the "muzzle brake" on the MPX-C, expect a 10 year sentance and 10K fine. I would think they would nail you on intent on that one. It's been a long day and I misspoke. What I am worried about is changing their opinion on the brake itself not the tube. I wouldn't buy the gun if you aren't planning on starting the paper work for the tube right away. You would be better served buying the pistol version with the Sig Brace. |
|
While sig may just put it on the rifle as a muzzle brake initially, I expect they will start selling them separately at some point.
|
|
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't buy the gun if you aren't planning on starting the paper work for the tube right away. You would be better served buying the pistol version with the Sig Brace. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What if I don't register the tube and they hangs their mind down the road? That is why I want a court decision saying these are legit. Your not even going to be able to get the tube until your form is approved. If you make a tube (big no no) along with the "muzzle brake" on the MPX-C, expect a 10 year sentance and 10K fine. I would think they would nail you on intent on that one. It's been a long day and I misspoke. What I am worried about is changing their opinion on the brake itself not the tube. I wouldn't buy the gun if you aren't planning on starting the paper work for the tube right away. You would be better served buying the pistol version with the Sig Brace. I will be looking for a pistol or factory SBR that way I can have multiple barrels and one can. I just don't want to see a situation where sig ships a bunch of these out and then ATF chooses to change their mind it would be a pain and end up in court anyway. Court is final for the most part. |
|
|
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: if the brace can fold, then it should be able to telescope I did this quick chop a while ago. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=63118&prev=1 |
|
Where is the link to the Judge's opinion that a 'pink ribbon' could be 'designed' or 'intended' to reduce sound and by the ATF's opinion a pink ribbon would be a silencer?
By that logic (with which I agree) the outer tube could actually be designed as a 'counter-weight to decrease recoil' and it would no longer be a 'silencer part' per the ATF's nonsensical logic. Sig Muzzle Brake Sig Brace Sig Counter Weight Someone needs to re-design the old Soviet 'whistle brake' to make it a 'device designed to emit a varmint attractant' for each shot. TRG |
|
View Quote sounds like sig is preparing in case they lose out with the "muzzle break" with that 12" + 4" barrel. |
|
Here is a good read on the Innovator Enterprises vs ATF suit.
http://www.guns.com/2014/03/27/makes-innovator-enterprises-v-atf-suppressor-case-interesting/ ETA: Another article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/20/66348.htm |
|
Suppressors should be removed from NFA control. I think the US is the only country that regulates them. Most countries you buy them over the counter and you are required to use them for noise control.
Hollywood quiet is what gets them regulated here even though we all know they don't stop the noise completely. |
|
For those wanting to support SIG and also get one helluva good deal..
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1643336_SIG_pistol_stabilizing_brace_for__124_95_and_receive_a_FREE_36__rifle_bag_and_FREE_shipping.html TRG |
|
Quoted:
sounds like sig is preparing in case they lose out with the "muzzle break" with that 12" + 4" barrel. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
sounds like sig is preparing in case they lose out with the "muzzle break" with that 12" + 4" barrel. Probably just a backup plan and we'll never see it. Another interesting idea though would be for them to sell a mini-muzzle brake version that allows you to swap the tube from the Sig-SD 9mm can on to it. |
|
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.