User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 6:45:56 PM EDT
   Bardwell, 1999 
This clearly states that Gemtech has been in the right all along and that AAC has been making illegal suppressors by putting other manufacturer's markings and serial numbers on completely new suppressors (slincers and mufflers). The Bardwell letter from 1999 is consistent. The ATF FAQ is in response to years worth of letters to the ATF, nothing else. Further, the FAQ does not state anything new, it has been the standard since 1999 but has been ignored by certain companies. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 6:59:51 PM EDT
[#1]
WHO IS Mr. Bardwell??
What/who made him write this letter ? You seam to have this info ! like to share this info |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:10:50 PM EDT
[#2]
But Gemtech sucks! All they ever do is copy other manufacturers' cans! And they stole my baby! Oh wait, that was dingos, but they paid the dingos to do it!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:16:34 PM EDT
[#3]
The second letter that generated the FAQ makes the restrictions tighter than the original Bardwell letter did. Now, even the original manufacturer can't replace a serialized component (namely the tube) without incurring a taxable event. There's still plenty of blame to go on whoever instigated it.
I don't suppose you are going to post the second letter with the company name non-redacted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:22:14 PM EDT
[#4]
Wow, this is bad news. Seems there are a few people who may be in possession of contraband suppressors.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:25:24 PM EDT
[#5]
If this is the letter that Gemtech had, but other manufacturers had letters stating different findings, why should anyone apologize to Gemtech for forcing their letter on everyone else? Why didn't whoever forced the ATF into their new broadsweeping regulations take into the account all of the consumers that would now be screwed by this reinterpretation? I agree that Gemtech was being screwed by the ATF, since they had to abide by a different set of rules than many of the other manufacturers, but the only people who are going to be hurt by these new published regs are normal consumers. If Gemtech is the reason for the new FAQ's they do not deserve an apolology, but scorn. They could have chosen to be the bigger man in this fiasco by honoring warranties and conducting repairs as they have been doing all along, but instead they chose to help the ATF punish consumers.
I don't know for sure if Gemtech was the responsible party for the new rulings, or if one of their fanboys were responsible for the rewrite, but Dater and company should become innovators, again, in the field of suppressor research and manufacturing and let their product dictate sales instead of trying to lower the playing field. Stamp collectors like me do not buy products solely based on warranty and such. Performance means much more to me, and I realize all mufflers wear out eventually, even on cars. Make a product that has a reasonable service life, and has innovative features and the product will sell. What I will not buy or support is any company who will willingly stab me in the back by crying to the regulatory body that already has too much opinion on what is legal and what is illegal, because another competitor can improve an existing product. This I see is spite, and can not benefit our community. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:33:00 PM EDT
[#6]
The second letter didn't "generate" the FAQ. It is pretty simple, if you write a letter to the FTB you get a letter in return (usually and with a lengthy wait). If Gemtech had written a letter they'd have gotten a singular letter in return, Gemtech isn't the singular cause of the FAQ, essentially the FAQ is a culmination of opinions in response to letters over the last 10 years and to actions that the ATF has taken notice of. While the FAQ, and other letters, pretty well suck it could be worse and companies could have been raided over known issues. Take your pick. You're two years too late to blame someone for the letter. What would it change anyway? Besides, the suppressor industry doesn't make the regulations or enforce them, the ATF does. If it were up to me, you, Gemtech, AAC or anyone else concerned with the suppressor industry there wouldn't be an NFA and silencers wouldn't be viewed as firearms. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:39:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Have you ever seen another letter from the ATF contradicting the two letters and the FAQ posted? I suspect that none exist because they'd probably have already been made public. I don't believe AAC or anyone else has a letter from the ATF FTB stating it is OK remanufacturer suppressors...but in this case I'd love to be wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 7:47:06 PM EDT
[#8]
He probably knows more about the NFA than anybody at the ATF, that's who he is. www.subguns.com/laws/laws.htm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 8:10:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Ian, I would love for you to be wrong also since they have been touting the right to do what they have been doing. I have read from their posts(AAC) they had a decision letter that was different than Gemtech's, and I have seen other manufacturers' claim they had different letters than the ones Dr. Dater has been known to have.
I own several cans from several different manufacturers, and I do not want to see any company get entangled within the web of legalities that the ATF seem to arbitrarily enforce. I am a fairly newbie to this industry since I only started collecting within the last 4 years, but I can see a bias in your posts, where I have no bias except for my personal freedoms. I am not a fanboy for any manufacturer, and if you ever visited my vault you could see for yourself by my purchases. From my own research, I can tell that Gemtech needs to update their R and D to keep with the program, I am sure they can sell enough product to stay in business and be successful, hell, ask any old timer, (ones who don't live on the internet,) and they will say the best products are still made by Gemtech and AWC. You and I know that their are better products out there for consumption, but Gemtech has a much larger breeding stock of customers than almost any company out there. From what I have discovered in my long hours of research, Gemtech can still be a player, but why don't they raise the bar of performance and innovations to compete with their main competitor? If they would produce a product that they had enough R and D invested into themselves, they would prevent the childness online battles that they are currently fighting. Still, they had no business bringing the man into the fight, if they are the ones who did this. I am afraid as a casual observer it definitely appears they were the ones responsible for the FAQ that is currently in question. Kel did not help their agenda by posting what he did, and I think if anyone else would have posted what he did, then the firestorm would not have been as big as it has been. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 9:07:37 PM EDT
[#10]
The laws have always been there. Different letters don't mean different things although it seems people want them to.
Just because you write one letter to the ATF asking for clarification on a few points and they don't come back and tell you what you are doing is specifically wrong doesn't mean it's not wrong according to the ORIGINAL rules. Rules haven't changed. They've been made clearer- that is all. I don't think allowing AAC to continue to remanufacture suppressors would force Gemtech to do anything different and it surely wouldn't force them to come up with new designs that would totally blow away fans of AAC. What some of you are asking for is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 9:12:24 PM EDT
[#11]
The man was already in the fight. I'm curious, why do people believe that the ATF made exceptions to the above letters for certain manufacturers while remaining strict with others? Since the Bardwell letter there has not been any publications contradicting the above.
Quite honestly I believe 07/02's for the most part are ignorant of the law or simply don't care. The general suppressor buying public has no real reason to be any more informed and takes the word of the dealers/manufacturers. I can understand the feeling that we all just got screwed but the reality is we got screwed a long time ago and it isn't until now that everyone is realizing it. The new FAQ's are not new nor are they now being applied to all instead of just a few, they have been the opinions of the ATF for a long time. For anyone that cares the letter above came froma post on ST by RSilvers. I don't know for certain whos it is nor does it really matter. It is what it is and shows what has always been. This witch hunt can continue but won't change a thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2008 9:51:53 PM EDT
[#12]
I have a problem with someone's statement that letters don't mean the law. By contrary, when someone has written statements stating the law, but then someone else asks for clarification on the same subject and they get a totally different answer. Why is the new and improved letter more valuable than the first letter, because peoples' lives are at stake? We aren't talking about personal financial gain, we are talking about consumers staying out of federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison. Ask any Atkins Accelerator purchaser how they feel about reclassification letters.
I don't care if some shenannigans from Gemtech's biggest competitor jeopardized the profit margins of Gemtech. The company having the contest, (AAC) claimed they were in the legal right to offer their services to improve products that were produced from sub-par manufacturers. I will admit that I had entered the contest with the first can that I ever purchased. I f'ed up buying what was in stock with the only dealer with in my trade territory. I now know enough about the technologies used in this industry to never make this mistake again. Ian, you probably know more about this industry than I do, so how can you tout any companies well-being over the consumers who vote on a company's success by the dollars they spend. I still stand by my previous statements that the most innovative products will succeed and the fluff will fall by the wayside, as it should. Instead of trying to level the playing field to the lowest denominator, whoever caused this fiasco should have been trying to be the best they could be in innovation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 3:18:10 AM EDT
[#13]
The whole issue here is not how the law is or not ,, its the fact that the ATF website changed
The reason WHY they did change it is what question Most people Do believe that SOME have pushed this change So what DO we know Kel himself has told that there lawyers was in contact with the ATF the day BEFORE the change They where told the change would come BEFORE anybody els ,, (his own words )WHY Kel himself comes at the ATF office so often that they let him see what they are investigating ( his own words ) WHY Kel himself tells us that as son as the change was made ,he got a personely letter frm the ATF about it,,, WHY When askt why only they did get a letter like Kel did get ,,silence here ,,,WHY BUT on subgun PHIL states that """"" Phil Dater of Gemtech posted on subguns wrote: Mark Barnes, who represents a number of manufacturers and importers and works with NFATCA, sent a copy of the Q&A to all of his clients when it was released. He does this with each regulatory agency decision that would affect his clients. As a courtesy to the industry, we simply posted the link to the AFT web site. Kevins reply This is completely false. Mark Barnes is our attorney (has been for a number of years) and he did not contact us regarding this matter. He contacts you if he is working with you on a matter, not randomly. Now if this is true ,,then PHIL is downward lying ,,,WHY If people think Gemtech is the one that brought this o the can community,,i for one really understand why they think so If they not are the ones ,,why the hell do they do everything to( or everything they do ) make it look like they are 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 3:19:37 AM EDT
[#14]
Sorry ,that link dosnt work for me ,,any other way to show 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 4:24:02 AM EDT
[#15]
Ian ,,here is a question
Is it by TODAYS and ATF standard legal for the end user to change out the vipes of his can Acording the letter you do show its NOT But as fart as i know it is legal TODAY ( i think its on the ATF website) This only shows that the letter YOU do show is not up to date if you and Gemtech wants to make this old letter a ruling ,,i think many owners of cans using vipes is going to blaim YOU ,,and only you why are you so determent to ruin everything for the can community by pushing trough thing like this Why just because Gemtech dont want to give the customers this service ,are you willing to take away this possibility from all ,,even yourself ,,do you really hate AAC that much that you are willing to burn every body ,,just to burn AAC |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 6:48:55 AM EDT
[#16]
Wolfdk, no offense, just curious- how does all this affect you? It appears that you live outside this country and the ATF rulings shouldn't affect you. Can you buy cans from the US? Can you sell them to people in the US? Can you send them here for repair? TIA, Joe |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 7:22:36 AM EDT
[#17]
No offense taken ,you are welcome to ask When the assult weapon ban came ,it was used by European anti gunners as a breaker bar ,,like see even in the US it is forbidden  Now the ban is gone in the us ,,but the changes it brought us here still remains  We have had some changes here about cans they used to be just "things " you could buy at the age of 18 now they have to be on papers ,theoretical easy enough ,,but NOT in real life I dont like this as ""someone " might to use this to make it even harder to get cans here And if it is like it seams to be ,that gemtech have there part in this,, i will have to blame what ever may com here to them As a human that also take a look at people ,and judge them how they treat every body ,,not just me ,,i can have my opinion about this issue I dont know if i can get a can from us ,, its not a problem to get it legal into the country ,,but rather the problems getting it out of the US because of the stupid ATF rulings We can get cans from Finland France England and and ,,so this really DOES affect me If ever getting a US can ,,my best guess would be the sending it back for repair would be a pita ,,again because of these rulings EDIT Come to realize this has in fact a much bigger effect All the cans that Gemtech and others do export,,they can not be send back for repair ,,unless someone is willing to pay the $200,,the letter says when its registered / in the book ,you can not exchange the tube hhmm bahh all this dosnt make any sens The ATF is willing to ruin the export of cans =less tax money ,,stupid stupid No wonder you economy is down the drain with agencies like that 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 7:35:10 AM EDT
[#18]
Interesting. Thanks for the response. Joe |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 8:33:59 AM EDT
[#19]
Another Bardwell letter further clarifying. This should beginning to look familiar to most people by now.
Bardwell, 1999, March clarification
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 9:07:52 AM EDT
[#20]
He isn't "touting any company's well-being" (whatever that means but I think I know what you are trying to say.) Some of you just aren't getting it. You think something has CHANGED when it has NOT CHANGED. Yes, new public letters trump old letters. If you won't accept new letters and new interpretations, the ATF is just going to case the laws to be changed and you sure as heck won't like what happens then. If Congress gets wind that the current laws are all being broken because people are writing letters for clarification and they are either still confused or end up thinking they can do what they are not supposed to do, they will pass new laws that are not ambiguous. This amounts to the ATF being a babysitter. They have to make sure all of us little kids abide by the rules our parents (Congress) has set. Just because Jimmy has been running around doing something he's not supposed to doesn't mean he CAN now because he's been unknowingly breaking the rules for years. Do you think your neighbor, who happens to like molesting kids, can continue to do so because he never knew he wasn't supposed to? Is telling him now explicitly and forcefully so he can't deny knowing the laws "mean" to him? Is it taking any of his rights away? That's exactly what has happened here. Just because something has been going on doesn't make it right. It might have been nice for the company doing it to provide as a service but technically it was against the law and it's just been made clear now. WolfDk- I still want to know why half of the posts in here are by you? You don't have THAT much concern in this to say as much as you do. You seem to not ask questions but state facts about what you think Gemtech did to AAC. Where are you getting this from? I think there might be a slight language barrier here and you are misreading the nuances of the posts. You should take the time to make sure you are reading everything correctly before acting like what you are reading is wrong. I'm sure it's just being read wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 9:59:36 AM EDT
[#21]
I might be wrong ,,but for years i have come to the conclusion that Gemtech is accusing AAC for just copying there cans Doing this when they know its not true is negative in my world recently we have been witness to Gemtech copying AAC`patented booster ,,negative In the G5 saga they did claim the G5 was what others should be judget against But when some did this ,,they did start denying that it should be a Fully welded can Many people did buy this can because they did believe Gemtech ,,but was let down when the truth did come out There IS a video where Kel ( i think ) is telling that the can is fully welded its not what they do to AAC ,, they will survive ,,its what they do to people that put trust in there words On subgun Phil is telling something that is not true ,,negative in my world dont you realize that what ever they are doing is hurting you too And now this Maybe you can answer the question that IAN is dodging Here it is Ian ,,here is a question Is it by TODAYS and ATF standard legal for the end user to change out the vipes of his can Acording the letter you do show its NOT But as far as i know it is legal TODAY ( i think its on the ATF website) This only shows that the letter YOU do show is not up to date if you and Gemtech wants to make this old letter a ruling ,,i think many owners of cans using vipes is going to blaim YOU ,,and only you |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 10:15:22 AM EDT
[#22]
I haven't dodged anything, I fail to see how you are involved in any of this being that you are a foreign national. I have not and will not answer any of your questions as they only serve as static to the value of the conversation. Not only that but your posts are almost incomprehendable I am left wondering if you even understand what we are discussing. Given such suspisions I will not respond to anything you have to say or want to know and I'd kindly ask that you mind your own business. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 10:31:14 AM EDT
[#23]
If you had read my posts ,you would know why i do post this is a public forum ,where you started a thread ,and i did ask a question to something YOU did put up I know my AmericanEnglish isnt perfect ,,but the question isnt that hard to understand The fact that i am not from the US dosnt change what is true or not you for one is claiming (in writing on the net)that AAC has made illegal repairs Could you tell if not me ,then all the US readers here what part was illegal ?? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 11:12:04 AM EDT
[#24]
Please Wolf, just stop posting. You are only confusing the situation. Your English is terrible and it takes too much time to try and figure out what you are saying, let alone try and make sure to word a response in such a way that you will understand it and quit with the stupid line of questions.
You don't have a dog in this fight. None of this is any of your business. I don't care if Europe or Denmark adopt US laws ever. You need to take the fight up with your own lawmakers. Nothing you can say or do here matters one bit. Is there an ignore button on this site? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 11:56:53 AM EDT
[#25]
I think both companies should just create a page on their website's to historically document all of their dirty laundry and let customers sort through it and take a side.
I don't like the way bits and pieces come to the surface and shitty things happen back and forth. It would be better obviously, if both companies could have ceased and desisted with the drama LONG AGO. I would like not to see completely interchangeable products from two different companies without any partnership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 12:13:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Wolfdk,
Sir, While I'm normally not in the practice of going back and forth restating what I've already said, I understand that if you are indeed a foreign national, you might have some challenge in understanding my words, so I'll restate to answer some of your incorrect assumptions that you've perhaps drawn because you don't have a grasp of the English language. When you write:
***You are reading something of your own into my comments - All firearms manufacturers of any size, including ourselves, speak with the BATFE and our attorneys on a fairly regular basis in the normal course of business. It's somewhat impossible to be in a federally regulated business where we submit and receive back thousands of BATFE transfer and registration forms and somehow avoid a working business relationship with your examiner, the supervisors, and administrative staff at BATFE. If you're an American on this forum and purchase silencers, or are considering purchasing a silencer, there's really not much need for the tinfoil hats. You will be, in some manner, accepting the procedures BATFE NFA Branch and Tech Branch regulate this industry with. If I reading your comments correctly, you seem particularly suspicious why I knew about this the day prior to it's release, yet I don't see any comments why Mr. Neil Parker, an Australian, apparently posted this news before I did on another site. I suspect Mr. Parker (and others) knew because he is a professional involved in this industry and follows these things closely. If you aren't in the loop on developments in this industry, it's simply because you aren't in this industry and just get your information off the internet. There's no insult in that, but I don't know why you wouldn't expect people that deal with the BATFE daily would be quicker to get news that affects the industry.
***Here, you're either mistaking your translation of English by putting words into someone's mouth, or trying to make a shill-like accusation through lying, as those clearly are not my "own words". If you're having trouble translating, I did not say I go to the ATF offices "so often", nor did I say that they let me see what they are investigating. Neither of your statements are correct or truthful.
***Since it seems you both have language difficulty as well as a paranoia about dealing with the BATFE, I can understand why you'd continue to put your prejudices into my comments. I did not get a "personal letter" about this, I got an email from an examiner that included the one sentence "I just saw this come out today and figured you may find some of it interesting". There was also an email from the BATFE about some Louisiana State paperwork that is required to process a Form 3. This is fairly routine correspondence when you deal in a product that requires you contact the BATFE every time prior to shipping it. Sir, if you don't like Gemtech, that's fine, that's your right. I'm not here to try to convince you otherwise. Whatever source of information entertains you, regardless of truth, is again, your business. I generally find it impolite to come onto any website and point out someone's inaccuracies, so I don't normally do so even though there are ample opportunities. If someone does not need knowledge of the facts in order for them to make public definitive statements about things they don't know the truth about, then I don't feel it is my task to try to evangelize to them as they advertise their ignorance. I make an exception here to hopefully help clarify what might be lost to you in language translation, not to enter into a dialogue. If you're not a shill, but are who you say you are, you should not read any insult into it. My regards, Kel |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 1:32:10 PM EDT
[#27]
First thank you for answering
At least you must admit i do tell why i think like i do ,thereby giving ,in this case you, a opportunity to point out where you think i am wrong I still have my doubts of what did happen ,i hope you can (and it seams you can) accept this But its things like Phil tells that the lawyer did send a letter to all about this ,,and Kevin says its not true (seams you have the same lawyer ,,kind of funny but in this case understandable ) You must admit they both can not be right on this ,,who is not right ?? Then IAN does show a letter that is out dated because this letter says it not legal to change the vipes in you own can ,, but ATF today says its ok ,, So these two letters are not telling the same story ..what shall i believe I did see the fully welded video AND the post that it was never told that it was fully welded ,,things like that dosnt help me to believe that Gemtech dosnt have a part in this If my short notes above seam rude ,it isnt meant that way ,,they are just short |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 3:29:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Wolf-
Kel and Gemtech shouldn't have to defend themselves against you and your accusations. You FLAT OUT owe him an apology for misreading and misunderstanding what you've come to believe. Learn the language first, then get involved in TECHNICAL conversations, PLEASE!! You are *BY YOURSELF* pushing this thread beyond where it needs to go. Just lay off. You obviously don't understand and everyone trying to explain things to you, someone who has no relevance to what is going on, is detracting from the real situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 4:36:49 PM EDT
[#29]
Wolf: Don't change a thing man. I (and I am sure most people here) aren't actually having any problems at all understanding what you post. Your understanding of the english language is fine so far. People on one particular side of this issue try to push you aside and insult you because they wish to distract from the real issue. It would not matter if you were from Mars. It doesn't change truth or logic, or the seeking of either.
They don't like what you are saying, so they want to "run you off".  I work for neither side, and owe allegiance to none. I (like many others who will never post), am also following all of this. I am watching closely and taking note. I will vote with my wallet accordingly. Thanks for taking the time to post here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 4:42:26 PM EDT
[#30]
According to your profile you've been a free member for all of eight days, and already have 91 posts? Fresh in the door and trying to stifle other voices.... Who are you really?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 5:15:57 PM EDT
[#31]
I'm not stifling anyone. It's just so annoying to hear him say the same stuff that's not even true. It's really just what he thinks he reads. He takes things the wrong way.
Kel just explained everything to him and WHY he misunderstood posts of Kel's in other threads. He misunderstands what he reads and I'd rather not hear it. I'd like to know everything going on so I know who's pulling what crap. All the silencer sound pretty much the same to me so it doesn't matter who "wins." I just want to know the truth because I don't like when one company sneaks shit in on another company. I'd like to vote with my wallet but I'm very cautious about what I'm hearing. I recently sent in the Form4 on my G5 and would like to get to the bottom of this. I'd like to hear more reasonable talk about what's happened in the past and who did what. Wolf's questions are just putting a halt to any normal discussions. That's all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 5:54:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Yeah there is a ignore button, stop posting. You been lurking long or are you just really into suppressors and had to find your way to the most debated thread forum on this sight? And WTF is everybody jumping on the foreigner? Can he not ask a question? At least he is willing to try to understand unlike most of the dipshits that post on this site. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 5:59:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Thats a pretty bold statement, you called the ATF yet? They have been replacing the internals and remarking the rebuilds, keeping the same tube/dimensions. Hence the reason they only rebuild suppresors that fit with their own baffles. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 6:27:10 PM EDT
[#34]
So is a Gemtech three-lug adaptor a suppressor component? It does serve as the rear end cap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 7:02:28 PM EDT
[#35]
According to Kevin AAC you are incorrect... Also, I do recall talk from multiple parties of Gemtech and other brands using laser engraving for their marks that does not fit the ATF requirements. If that is so, it would seem that AAC actually brought the Gemtech cans into ATF compliance with regard to marking requirements... I don't know what all of the actual details are, but if you are posting about AAC's actions without first hand knowledge and implying they are breaking the law then they deserve clarification and a chance at correction of what you are posting in that regard. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 7:17:55 PM EDT
[#36]
Dude his English is fine, have you guys ever surfed the more youthful forums??? Jeez...you got kids that can't even master 1 language and the average Euro speaks 2-4 languages with ease.
Apology or not, the timing is just suspect in my book and I am not surprised others feel the same way. And I am involved as a consumer and it does directly effect me. These letters are OPINIONS and nothing else. Not so long ago, ATF sent a letter to someone saying that they did not have to MARK their SBR's as long as the paperwork was fine and dandy. Suddenly reversed when everyone made a shitstorm and protest on it. I have stated in several boards and I will state it again. We are our worst enemy, not the anti-gunners. We bitch, harp, throw stupid letters at the ATF like a little brothers and sisters whining to mamma " OH HE STARTED IT...SHE PULLED MY HAIR" I can raise up cases upon cases in which it wasn't the ATF alone that raised the ruckus but simply a JUDAS or BRUTUS in our midst that just enjoys to muddy up the field. While Gemtech can raise their head up high and say "well..its the law.." it effects them like everyone else. For me...they are one company I will cross out on who to buy from if that is all they know how to do. Also....their mounts look exactly like AAC and strangely enough fits AAC products easily. Keep their head up high and copy copy copy. As for Wolf's English, its fine and he's a consumer like anyone else. How you do guys know if he is a Danish SF or military or some operator that CAN buy a can from the states? If so, he is effected like anyone else and has a right to give his opinion in a public forum. Oh yeah, this is ARF.com...it's a an American thing..please....go read some of the out of state home town forums, you'd be surprised how frequent the black rifle is around the world. For anyones information, I don't drink anyones koolaid. Not AAC, AWC, SWR( despite owning cans from all of them) or anyones ..but when someone sucker gut punches me and effects my rights as a consumer, I got a right to say something about it. In the end, thank you Gemtech.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 7:18:38 PM EDT
[#37]
In the same vein, Federal regulations allow for variations in marking methods, so unless you know for certain that Gemtech does not have approval for their marking methods, it's probably best not to speculate one way or the other.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 7:30:17 PM EDT
[#38]
That may be true Sir. I'll grant you that. I could write a letter to the ATF asking about it... Oh wait, that is how stuff like this sometimes gets started in the first place...  Sorry everybody: I couldn't resist!Either way, I'll not speculate on that particular issue as kc3 may be correct. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 7:32:42 PM EDT
[#39]
Taylor- Sorry I stumbled into a popular form (suppressors.) Maybe I found my way here just like you because it is popular? Just makes sense...
Wolf isn't a consumer. Normal ATF letters are not opinions. They are interpretations made by their tech branch suited to your specific questions. That's the only reason to have to not follow what someone else's letter states. It's still all fact, but because it wasn't told to you, you feel you can ignore it. That's fine. I would choose to use that info to help guide me a little bit. This Q&A isn't some letter. This is posted on ATF's site. Ignorance isn't bliss. You can't pretend it doesn't exist. And yeah, now that someone finally caused the ATF to post it (it was NOT Gemtech who "forced" them to post it to get back at AAC) you have to abide by the laws it's based on. You guys act like a bunch of children thinking you can do what you want until your parents find out. That's not the way it works. It's already been decided what you can and cannot get away with. You just haven't known how little you can get away with until now and now you want to cry about it. Get over it. These are the laws. These are the laws that some manufacturer's have been abiding by for a long time. Just because your favorite has to change a few things now because this has been thrown in their face doesn't give you the right to whine and complain about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 8:02:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Do you KNOW this or is this just a guess on your part? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 8:31:28 PM EDT
[#41]
"These are the laws" Extra credit question: Where in the law does it say that a manufacturer cannot change the caliber of a silencer or firearm without paying a $200 Gemtax? Legal text only, no made up opinions or interpretations... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2008 9:14:13 PM EDT
[#42]
AAC's opinion seems to differ, and I myself am now curious about Kel's reference to "Mr. Neil Parker, an Australian, apparently posted this news before I did on another site." You post this as if he was a stranger, but Kevin believes differently. Kel: Is Kevin wrong about who Mr. Parker is, or are you being intentionally vague in an attempt to mislead? |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2008 3:48:05 AM EDT
[#43]
the question here shouldn't be why the ATF did what they did, or who asked for the "clarification". the question should be... how did anyone ever think taking someone else's product, destroying it, making a new product, and stamping it with the first party's corporate information and serial number (which has been registered with a federal entity) was legal? secondly, what the ATF updated was their "FAQ". you all know what "FAQ" stands for, right? i highly doubt that a couple letters from one company or another would qualify as "Freequently Asked". it seems to me like that would be LOTS of the same questions asked by LOTS of people... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2008 4:10:08 AM EDT
[#44]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2008 5:06:22 AM EDT
[#45]
that'd be a helluva trick since their most recent "rebuild" had the information stamped radially, in a tube that originally had the information stamped lengthwise... if a certain company knows how to turn engravings 90 degrees on a piece of metal without destroying, obliterating, or removing them, i'm truely impressed. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2008 5:15:21 AM EDT
[#46]
I think the letter have a note about this something about noticing the ATF about it As long as the tube is the original it would be ok ,,they are not replacing it as i understand it But sins non of us now for sure should we not just wait and see ,if some thing was wrong we will soon know ps AAC has told that the next rebuild will be documented in all details over at ST |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2008 8:24:49 AM EDT
[#47]
Since everyone is posting their guess that it IS Gemtech I am free to post that it's NOT. Did you not read that this letter was sent out and posted by someone in Australia first? What makes you think it's Gemtech? Your assumptions are trying to harm another company while mine are not. I think my "guess" is a lot more valid than yours. Mine isn't full of accusations. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2008 8:38:32 AM EDT
[#48]
Well I'd like to apologize for belittling Wolfdk if I did so, which I may have. I'm sure he's a big boy and can handle it so I'm not too worried I hurt his feelings. If he ever comes stateside, he can shoot my suppressors and I'll buy him a beer.
The only reason I'm in this is because it just doesn't seem fair to Gemtech to take all the punishment. The ATF is restating law and that's it. If you THINK they added a new law here, you're wrong. What you are calling a new law or a new rule is simply proof that a FAQ was needed. If before you didn't fully understand the laws and now you do, it did it's job. Just because this is the first time it's clearly written what can and cannot be done doesn't mean it's new. Go into the rainforest. Find a new species noone's seen or known about and tell me God just invented it right then and there? You were just ignorant (ignorant in the true sense, no bad connotations meant) of this facet of the law. I like the new word "Gemtax." Really nice. This is unfair to point fingers. It seems, by law, AAC was not complying. Now they will. Thankfully nothing bad came of it. Let's just be happy AAC hasn't been set back 10 years. And you know what, had I actually known this about the law I would have written the ATF myself and alerted them (well maybe not, I'm too lazy to go after and try to hurt a company like that.) But, if they were my competition, I may more inclined to do so. From what I've been told, the ATF has been curious about this "process" for a long time now. Maybe (obviously) they thought it would be better to restate the laws clearly so that manufacturers would have a chance to comply without having to be jagoffs and try and bust every company for what they are doing. I don't have much time to spend here. If I am involved in a discussion like this, it just makes sense that I'll rack up a few posts quickly. Look around, I'm involved elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2008 8:41:36 AM EDT
[#49]
This was posted earlier ,,not by me Kevin/AAC posted on Silencer Talk: Kel is full of it. The examiners at NFA Branch and Tech Branch are totally different. You NEVER hear from Tech Branch, unless you send a formal request...no matter how many transfer you do year. Neil Parker, the Australian national, is one of the original owners of Gemtech. So, that is how he knew the letter was out, just like the rest of Gemtech. More BS as usual. AAC's opinion seems to differ, and I myself am now curious about Kel's reference to "Mr. Neil Parker, an Australian, apparently posted this news before I did on another site." You post this as if he was a stranger, but Kevin believes differently. Kel: Is Kevin wrong about who Mr. Parker is, or are you being intentionally vague in an attempt to mislead? Mer again Thats what makes one think it was Gemtech He knew it ONE WEEK before it was posted
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2008 9:04:56 AM EDT
[#50]
Sorry Cadd_Dude we where both typing at the same time ,so i dint see you post until i had posted mine
Yes ,,i´m a big boy and can handle it About the beer ,,thank you ,,but the can ,,are you really sure you want me to shoot it wouldn't it be damaged Ok i know my English isnt perfect ,,but the way you did write that ,could that be read like i would take aim at the can and shoot it Still learning Spoken english and written isnt the same |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
