It's as if they want to force Congress' hand on the HPA.

What next?  Raw materials are now considered to be suppressors because they could be used to make a suppressor?

But I do seriously hope Jr makes dad aware just how badly ATF is stepping on their collective dick. The actions they've taken in just the last few days/weeks is outrageous.

Ronin Pro still has their usual complete kits listed.

then what about the dumb faux cans that came on my little imported Beretta and stupid GSG-1911.

this all is so dumb

Once suppressors become Title I, unless state law bars it, anyone can DIY at home.  Double-ended pipe can easily be sourced locally - heck Lowes and Home Depot sell it - and suppressor baffles and end caps would just become firearm parts the same way triggers, stocks, barrels, etc. are.

The reason that suppressor tech in the US is so advanced compared to the rest of the world is the $200 tax stamp just to get one; in the rest of the world they are often cheap and disposable.  When you're paying $200 + cost for a suppressor you want a high-quality, durable product.  Once they're Title I there will be a race to the bottom with .22 cans dropping to well under $100 each.

Personally speaking, I think this part of the law actually works in our favor.
The "and", I highlighted in red, means it needs to have been designed and intended to be a silencer. The tubes were designed and intended to be solvent traps.


What gave Sig a hard time was NOT that part of the sentence. It was the last part, "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication".
The ruling read, "Given that ATF supportably found that this type of gun does not need a muzzle brake and is not typically sold with a muzzle brake, and given that ATF supportably found that this part is identical to the interior of a silencer and does  not share the design features typical of other muzzle brakes, we see no basis for concluding that ATF's classification of this part as having been "intended only for use" in assembling or fabricating a silencer is arbitrary and capricious."


What I mean by "I think this part of the law actually works in our favor" is that the tubes are being sold as solvent traps. They're made with the intention to be a solvent trap (the ATF would have to prove otherwise) and that they are redesigned to be a silencer by the end user, not the seller. If the opposite were true, the ATF would have to start banning oil filters and Maglites.

Still waiting to see a ruling or some more info.

Was that screen grab, one page 1, from the owner of SDTA?
Why did he say he was going to get a lawyer?
Didn't he already claim to have the legal go-ahead, from the ATF, to sell solvent traps? He, at least used to, have a disclaimer on his website stating exactly that.
Didn't he even claim that anyone selling a solvent trap owed him a royalty?
Seems like a huge gamble, considering business costs and potential ass-rapage, to not have your lawyer on speed dial.

Did someone write a letter and fuck all this up?

I wonder if it has to do with his FFL07  where he "repairs" suppressor tubes with a re-core.

DM and ronin pro seem to still be up and running.

Sirearms does SDTA's recores.

Probably the NFATCA.

ok, I didn't see that I just saw it posted on his web site I thought it might be him.

either way, this is pure BS.

That works two ways. Production costs would plummet, why would I want to take the chance of having an off center home made one when I can go buy one super cheap?

There's always going to be 2 kinds of buyers, people that want cheap and people that want quality. What export restrictions like on current suppressors? Would making them title 1 make it easier for them to export them to other countries?

People spend lots of money on unnecessary money on the latest whiz bang tacticool gear. I don't see why this would be any different.

In SDTA's case they are a 07/02, they are specifically in the business of making these regulated items.  BATFE is charged with regulating 07/02s.  "Designed and intended to be solvent traps" is a steep argument to make if the company is the business of making suppressors, sells compete suppressors on form 4 based on the same parts, has videos produced by the company itself showing how to make suppressors from the parts, and sells the tools necessary to do it.  They are in a lot different situation than the others making solvent trap.  They produce a commercial suppressor, and they sell the same parts over the counter used in their commercial suppressor.  

From what has been posted so far none of this seems to matter to much.  Sounds like a IOI was on site visit and told them the parts are silencer parts and not to sell them again, or else the IOI would charge them.  This is not necessary a "determination" that threaded tubes as whole are silencer parts now, or change in direction in regulation of the parts.  It could be, we really don't know.  If SDTA kept selling them and the IOI took administrative or legal action to stop it, then SDTA could contest it at that point.  That would obviously put them in a difficult and risky situation. Additionally it would risky for their customers, as customer lists could be taken and BATFE could request return of the parts, regardless if you have a stamp or not.  As a 07/02, there was a process they could have followed but simply chose not to do.  They could have submitted the parts to the tech branch for a determination.  This is what Sig did unsuccessfully and what SiCo/Griffin has done successfully on other "questionable" parts.  The best case for everyone is HPA passes promptly.

THey are bot intended to be solvent traps. Certainly not by 99.9% of the people that buy them.

You can call them whatever you want but like the old saying "it is what it is"

Sig proved it worked as a functional brake and made the gun louder. ATF shouldn't get to decide what's what on this stuff. The law should be clear and not be up to their interpretation.

What I think is bull shit is that parts can constitute an entire suppressor on it's own. That doesn't apply to anything else. A wheel is not a car. A chair leg is not a chair.

How can one piece of something constitute the whole thing? That's the crux of the argument. I could understand if they said just the tube constituted the suppressor in the same way the receiver constitutes a firearm. But each individual piece to be considered selling a suppressor is ludicrous.

So, the seller should be responsible for how their product is used?
So, Bushmaster, Colt, Remington, etc, should be blamed for all the people killed by their firearms? (go back to your hole liberals )
The end-user's intent has nothing to do w/ the seller's (I would like to believe the majority of customers have an approved Form1). The threaded tubes look and function identically to all the other solvent tubes out there. Some even use the same thread pitch and parts. Deeming this a common market item would not be hard to do.


Actually, Sig did not prove this. It's stated right in the court documents, "In sum, ATF reasonably determined on the basis of the record that the part's capacity to reduce recoil and rise was merely an incidental consequence of the inclusion of the  part on the gun -- a consequence that ATF supportably found would result from adding any additional weight to the gun."

Sig's court case has little to no relevance to this one. They made a specialized part that not only looked like one of their silencers, and mimicked other available monocores, but had no useful function outside of providing the end-user an easy way to silence the firearm. I don't see how this is remotely close to making something that started out from a flashlight. Do I agree w/ the Sig case? Absolutely not. But, that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore pure facts and use some common sense to determine what the jackasses at the ATF are thinking. The whole thing is ludicrous.

“To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
- Sun Tzu



One has nothing to do w/ the other and it makes it easier for the ATF to regulate the firearm, by shaping the law this way.
Who said you need a tube to make a silencer? There are at least a dozen, tubeless, silencers on the market. By your reasoning, they wouldn't be considered a silencer.
The tube, in itself, is useless w/o the other components. A tube has little to no muffling characteristics. You NEED a baffle to begin the suppression process. This could be just an endcap. Thereby, reinforcing the ATF's position that each piece constitutes a silencer.

Again, I do not agree w/ NFA laws, but simply thinking they're stupid and poorly written does not negate the fact that they exist.

Say you did that. If you have an approved form 1 and a lathe, then you go buy a piece of bar stock that you intend to turn into a tube, did you then not just buy a suppressor part? So the company that sold you the stock is selling suppressor parts...So is Napa and AutoZone. This has stupid written all over it.

 Such bull shit.

How is this any different than 80% lowers? 

I was getting ready to buy one.

That's me, when this passes I'll flip for one of the expensive magnum machinegun rated colossal super cool omega awesome cans but at the same time I can't wait to see blister packed reflex cans hanging on a spinner at wallyworld.

I don't want to get sidetracked on Sig but they certainly did prove what I said. They had documentation that showed it acted as a muzzle brake and increased the noise. Just because atf wasn't ok with it is entirely different.

As to the solvent traps it is my assertion that they were not intended to be solvent traps and are pretty much sold to make cans. Seems like the fact that they sell them as complete cans is orettt good eveidence of that.

Nobody buys them as solvent traps. We should stop playing games and the ATF should stop making law.

It's all bullshit.

By that same logic every component of a firearm should be considered a firearm. A receiver on it's own is useless. A barrel on it's own is worthless. I get what you're saying and why you're saying, but it's beyond time we start holding our government accountable for these stupid ass laws that make no sense when held up to scrutiny.

I don't disagree. And that's a big reason I think the BATFE is going to get their dicks slapped for it.

Can you build a silencer w/o using a tube?....Yes.       Hence why every part now becomes a silencer, in and of itself.
Can you build an AR15 w/o using a lower receiver?....No.      Go buy a barrel, bolt, and lower parts kit. Do you have a functional rifle? No.    Obviously, the same can be said for the barrel, but, in this case, they only need to regulate one part, to control the whole assembly.

This is my point, as to why the law is written as such.

I was unaware that SDTA sold complete suppressors, on Form4's. This would be a game changer if they had to go to court. It would be an even bigger burden if they're the only one on trial. Try proving the solvent trap intent if you're using those same parts, exclusively, for a commercially available, NFA regulated item.

From what was posted it appeared the IOI just made the determination looking at the parts, if they investigate and figure out the tubes and ends are the same as the ones in the commercial suppressor they sell it would not be surprising to see charges and customers contacted to return parts.  Same with the baffles.  Its cool that auto zone sells freeze plugs, but those are designed and used for cars.  What SDTA didn't mention is they had the freeze plug factory make them plugs/baffles in in a size that fit their suppressor.  They have sold these as complete on form 4s.  Intention should save the solvent trap and 80% cup vendors, but when the maker posts videos of how to convert the parts, and then uses the same parts in their own commercial cans the intent seems pretty easy to prove.

so if this happens... what do we do if we have completed form 1's? return the stamped tube and lose our suppressor? would he be liable for our form 1's?

"Nope, the tube I received was out of spec so I went with a different vendor to finish my build, one that didn't make any suppressors."

My guess is its unlikely it would happen.  Also not sure the length of records he keeps.  I would hope they would accommodate it going to a unbuilt state where you could build again or refund.  Of course I'm sure others will have more creative fixes like above.

I concur...we need to root those MFers out. They are antis in good guy clothing. I'd like to know the names of every person in charge there, which companies they work for (so I can boycott), and exactly what they have been saying to ATF on this and all other issues. These SOBs are traitors. 41F proved that beyond any doubt.

Receiver extensions are threaded tubes and they have even have little holes in the other end.  Do all my ARs have suppressors sticking out of their butts?

I have no idea what this is referring to

exactly that. I hadn't previously followed that entire thread...so I didn't know that the NFATCA also tried to convince the ATF that big bore rifles (20mm etc.), firing regular non-explosive bullets, should be classified as DDs. WTF is that shit!?!??! Last time I had checked in, I just heard about the 41F treachery. This group needs to be outted as the antis they are. They are clearly a bunch of ATF lovers that are more concerned with their little groups power than they are 2A Rights.

Ummmm....  Can I interest you in a waterproof container?

The waterproofing will come in handy when  you lose it in a tragic boating accident

Anyone know of a manufacturer that has end caps that will match the SDTAC muzzle brakes/flash hiders?

That's really clever. Thankfully there aren't a bunch of idiots posting reviews talking about "This container really SILENCED my hunting trip. Lol, I'm so clever." Or even worse people posting in the questions section asking "What sized baffles will this firearm suppressor tube fit?"

They have posted on FaceBook today that at least as of now, they will only be able to sell suppressor parts to customers who can present a Form 1 or are an SOT.

Look in SDTAC's "Mounts" section

I was looking for alternatives in case they went tits up. But that doesn't look like it's going to be the case

...or posting about it on a forum about making suppressors...  

FNFA & FATF

They shouldn't even exist.

Thankfully this forum isn't as publicly viewed as Amazon.

So if they're going to make people have a form 1 before buying parts that could be assembled into a suppressor, or into something that's not a suppressor, are they going to make people have a form 1 before buying short barreled uppers because they could be assembled into an sbr instead of a pistol?

I think US v TCA would take care of that argument.



If you were being sarcastic I apologize.
I can understand why ppl get emotional in regards to the ridiculousness of NFA/ATF laws and rulings.

I wasn't being sarcastic, I did forget about that court case so I guess that answers that question.

It's used in the casting of engine blocks I believe.

They are just metal cups.