BATFE SILENCER REPAIR Q & A - Page 2

Armory » Silencers

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BATFE SILENCER REPAIR Q & A (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 4/18/2008 5:21:35 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
STOP ATTACKING GEMTECH

No more "you suck , blah, blah, blah".

Discuss the issues at hand but NO MORE ATTACKS.

You don't like the ruling .... go talk to your reps, start writing letter.

Is this a ok issue ??

did SWR receive a letter like the one kel did get ??

I did ask AAC , and will ask greeno to

If any other manufacturer has got a letter like that ,,could they please chime in

Posted: 4/18/2008 5:46:47 AM EDT

[#2]

height=8

Quoted:
STOP ATTACKING GEMTECH

No more "you suck , blah, blah, blah".

Discuss the issues at hand but NO MORE ATTACKS.

You don't like the ruling .... go talk to your reps, start writing letter.

But isn't this actually the issue at hand?

This wouldn't have occurred if someone didn't write a letter "asking" about procedure. It is kinda like saying that lung cancer is secondarily due to a lifetime of smoking cigarettes; if you hadn't smoked cigarettes in the first place, then you wouldn't develop lung cancer.

This is the EXACT same thing.

Posted: 4/18/2008 6:35:54 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
All,

Last time I was up at Tech Branch, I saw there were copies of Shotgun News and other magazines open on desks, with advertisements circled - anyone that doesn't think the BATFE doesn't also look on these websites is quite foolish. It's their job to be aware of what's been going on -- and no one had to bring it to their attention.

Kel

So true...there is a company and their web sight even today that offerers a replacement tube if damaged for a small fee. I guess this will change

As far as Gemtech being in contact with the BATF...that makes sense. If you want to manufacture class III and stay out of jail winking at the law wont help you. You ask questions and you ask often.

If a $800 can being destroyed and needing a new tax stamp makes you sick at least we can get a replacement. Imagine a 16k m16 splitting a receiver.

I saw a M16 go pop in GA at the suppressor shoot in fall of 07 Thank god it was only the upper.

Guess it's time to write a letter. (sigh)

Posted: 4/18/2008 7:17:23 AM EDT

[#4]

Has one already seen what Gemtech has knocked off of AAC?

Their new mount of course...EVEN FITS the AAC can and vice versa.

Keep your head down..dude and copy copy copy copy.

Posted: 4/18/2008 10:16:14 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
STOP ATTACKING GEMTECH

No more "you suck , blah, blah, blah".

Discuss the issues at hand but NO MORE ATTACKS.

You don't like the ruling .... go talk to your reps, start writing letter.

But isn't this actually the issue at hand?

This wouldn't have occurred if someone didn't write a letter "asking" about procedure. It is kinda like saying that lung cancer is secondarily due to a lifetime of smoking cigarettes; if you hadn't smoked cigarettes in the first place, then you wouldn't develop lung cancer.

This is the EXACT same thing.

Bitch all you want just no direct attacks on them personally.

Posted: 4/18/2008 11:25:48 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
STOP ATTACKING GEMTECH

No more "you suck , blah, blah, blah".

Discuss the issues at hand but NO MORE ATTACKS.

You don't like the ruling .... go talk to your reps, start writing letter.

Is this a ok issue ??

did SWR receive a letter like the one kel did get ??

I did ask AAC , and will ask greeno to

If any other manufacturer has got a letter like that ,,could they please chime in

Only the manufacturer who reqested the letter would have received one. Never heard of someone getting a letter becasue someone else asked for one to be sent to them.

It also seems like you could use a multi piece outter tube and replace the fore and aft pieces of that tube by cutting and welding if you retained the section that had the serial number. Makes for ugly tubes though...

I also think that this whole thing with Gemtech being upset by AAC replacing their suppressor with an AAC unit has been solved by Gemtech just copying AAC and others parts and calling them their own. Now they dont have to worry about AAC repairing their cans into better ones because they will just be indentical designs... wonder how long it will be till they just go all out and have 100% copied designs from other manufactuers...

Posted: 4/18/2008 11:48:37 AM EDT

[#7]

For those of us who are not that deep into suppressors yet, could some links and reviews be provides about the alleged copying of can designs?

Posted: 4/18/2008 12:05:24 PM EDT

[#8]

www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22033

Posted: 4/18/2008 12:24:12 PM EDT

[#9]

What are you talking about?

Those two are not EVEN close! You must not have a trained eye, because there are so many differences between the AAC and Gemtech....

Posted: 4/18/2008 5:12:32 PM EDT

[#10]

Where's someone like Cerberus Capital Management when you need them? They need to buy both Gemtech and AAC and put them under one roof to stop this pointless, endless, and useless bickering.

Posted: 4/18/2008 6:21:14 PM EDT

[#11]

height=8

Quoted:
Where's someone like Cerberus Capital Management when you need them? They need to buy both Gemtech and AAC and put them under one roof to stop this pointless, endless, and useless bickering.

What good would that do?? Gemtech makes worthless stuff.. the only decent things they have made are copied from someone else.. so in this case Cerberus would be good for AAC to provide the capital to sue the pants off of gemtech..

Posted: 4/18/2008 8:02:01 PM EDT

[#12]

Why gemtech why? I love the games the suppressor guys play. who gets screwed? all suppressor owners---i guess at least gemtech gets to save face since aac can't rebuild gemtech's cans now without an extra $200 charge. Now gemtech is off the buy list too--i guess i'll try yhm next.

But remember, we should be angry with the atf not at gemtech for asking for the ruling---right---let's kick a sleeping dog too. Seriously though---if gemtech didn't ask for this ruling why were they the first and only suppressor mfg to post about it? It seriously makes one wonder.

Posted: 4/18/2008 9:22:03 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Where's someone like Cerberus Capital Management when you need them? They need to buy both Gemtech and AAC and put them under one roof to stop this pointless, endless, and useless bickering.

What good would that do?? Gemtech makes worthless stuff.. the only decent things they have made are copied from someone else.. so in this case Cerberus would be good for AAC to provide the capital to sue the pants off of gemtech..

My guess is that if the two companies were under the same roof they would stop trying to directly and/or indirectly undermine one another. Then, in this imaginary world I've dreamt up, most of this fan-boy nonsense would come to a halt.

Both companies make great products. If Gemtech and AAC keep going after one another the only losers will be us. And before anyone accuses me of being bias one way or the other, let it be known that I currently have a Gemtech HALO and plan on buying an AAC can later this year for my up-and-coming UMP clone.

Posted: 4/18/2008 9:49:03 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
man thats bullshit
Im not real concerned with the tax or even the bullshit of getting photos prints etc
but if you get a new sheriff/ chief that is a dick you cannot get a cleo sign off and you are screwed or have to go to a trust or LLC

It F4's directly back to the end user. No CLEO / No prints.

so they can do some sort of amended form 4 with the new SN but you still have to pay tax ?

i guess i just cannot get my head around how that would not be a transfer and you would have to start over

Posted: 4/18/2008 9:59:50 PM EDT

[#15]

I kinda see this being the first step in shutting down the suppressor industry.........

Posted: 4/18/2008 10:12:14 PM EDT

[#16]

height=8

Quoted: Both companies make great products.

No, no, no, no....

AAC makes great products (and so does GreenO).

Gemtech simply copies them.

So I guess they make great replicas (up next - AIRSOFT).

Posted: 4/18/2008 10:28:55 PM EDT

[#17]

Well crap...

Even though it seems like we know how this came about, I'd still like to see the person or company step up and admit it. I won't hold my breath though..

-X

***ETA: Is there anything we can do to reverse this or at least stop the ATF from making decisions on a whim? I'm all in for a fire mission if we can find a way to make a difference.***

Posted: 4/19/2008 12:18:00 AM EDT

[#18]

If we can just think of enough questions, we can have British style gun control is under a decade.

IMO, that being said, AAC got a lucky "ruling". They proceeded to use it to repeatedly f with Gemtech in the most public ways they could possibly find.

Gemtech has stood for this shit for as long as conceivably possible before asking for a fucking ruling/some consistency from the refs. During that whole G5 hit piece BS, did Gemtech fuel the fire?

You abuse it, you lose it, AAC. Taking another company's NFA product and "re-manufacturing" it stinks to high heaven. If the original manufacturer had been doing ACTUAL REPAIRS, this would have VERY likely turned out differently.

The apparent eternal chip on AAC's shoulder has cost us all now.

Posted: 4/19/2008 5:20:17 AM EDT

[#19]

height=8

Quoted:
If we can just think of enough questions, we can have British style gun control is under a decade.

IMO, that being said, AAC got a lucky "ruling". They proceeded to use it to repeatedly f with Gemtech in the most public ways they could possibly find.

Gemtech has stood for this shit for as long as conceivably possible before asking for a fucking ruling/some consistency from the refs. During that whole G5 hit piece BS, did Gemtech fuel the fire?

You abuse it, you lose it, AAC. Taking another company's NFA product and "re-manufacturing" it stinks to high heaven. If the original manufacturer had been doing ACTUAL REPAIRS, this would have VERY likely turned out differently.

The apparent eternal chip on AAC's shoulder has cost us all now.

You have to absolutely kidding, or you must be a complete Gemtech fanboy.

AAC may have re-manufactured a few of Gemtech's less than ideal products, but atleast AAC never made a complete copy of one of Gemtech's products and call it their own invention. If you have any knowledge of the history of the AAC rebuilds, you would also know that the reason that AAC rebuilt them and not Gemtech is due to the fact that Gemtech either refused to rebuild, or would have charged the original owner the cost of a new suppressor to repair/upgrade the can.

The reason that Gemtech kept quiet during the G5 fiasco is because they knew they F'ed up. Everyone says, "nowhere is it documented that Gemtech states the G5 core is welded". Maybe not, but they sure do have Kel on videotape stating that it is....

It was not AAC's fault that this has happened. It is Gemtech's fault for crying (sending a letter) to the ATF asking about it. If they had not done that, this ruling would not have been made. If you need this put into a logical analogy, refer to my post above about smoking and cancer.

Posted: 4/19/2008 5:46:47 AM EDT

[#20]

I think Dater's words on subguns left a real sour taste in my mouth

Fot those of you who actually believe that it is legal for a manufacturer to simply transfer a number from an old silencer to a new one, check out ATF's Q&A guidelines on the link below. The information was posted last night.

This is not new information. The so-called Bardwell letter of 1999, if read carefully, says pretty much the same thing, but has been grossly misinterpreted. Private rulings, like private tax rulings, apply actually only to the recipient, but can be used as a precedent. This Q&A format simply posts it publicly.

What has been done by some folks in "remanufacturing" another manufacturer's product into their own by simply transferring the markings is simply tax fraud. Always has been.

Posted: 4/19/2008 5:47:11 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If we can just think of enough questions, we can have British style gun control is under a decade.

IMO, that being said, AAC got a lucky "ruling". They proceeded to use it to repeatedly f with Gemtech in the most public ways they could possibly find.

Gemtech has stood for this shit for as long as conceivably possible before asking for a fucking ruling/some consistency from the refs. During that whole G5 hit piece BS, did Gemtech fuel the fire?

You abuse it, you lose it, AAC. Taking another company's NFA product and "re-manufacturing" it stinks to high heaven. If the original manufacturer had been doing ACTUAL REPAIRS, this would have VERY likely turned out differently.

The apparent eternal chip on AAC's shoulder has cost us all now.

You have to absolutely kidding, or you must be a complete Gemtech fanboy.

AAC may have re-manufactured a few of Gemtech's less than ideal products, but atleast AAC never made a complete copy of one of Gemtech's products and call it their own invention. If you have any knowledge of the history of the AAC rebuilds, you would also know that the reason that AAC rebuilt them and not Gemtech is due to the fact that Gemtech either refused to rebuild, or would have charged the original owner the cost of a new suppressor to repair/upgrade the can.

The reason that Gemtech kept quiet during the G5 fiasco is because they knew they F'ed up. Everyone says, "nowhere is it documented that Gemtech states the G5 core is welded". Maybe not, but they sure do have Kel on videotape stating that it is....

It was not AAC's fault that this has happened. It is Gemtech's fault for crying (sending a letter) to the ATF asking about it. If they had not done that, this ruling would not have been made. If you need this put into a logical analogy, refer to my post above about smoking and cancer.

Thats still heresay and speculation..............and not fact.

Posted: 4/19/2008 8:58:14 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I think Dater's words on subguns left a real sour taste in my mouth

Fot those of you who actually believe that it is legal for a manufacturer to simply transfer a number from an old silencer to a new one, check out ATF's Q&A guidelines on the link below. The information was posted last night.

This is not new information. The so-called Bardwell letter of 1999, if read carefully, says pretty much the same thing, but has been grossly misinterpreted. Private rulings, like private tax rulings, apply actually only to the recipient, but can be used as a precedent. This Q&A format simply posts it publicly.

What has been done by some folks in "remanufacturing" another manufacturer's product into their own by simply transferring the markings is simply tax fraud. Always has been.

Why, it's the truth. The "new" opinions posted by the ATF are not new and have been the norm all along. A couple of manufacturers have done business in the grey area for the last few years but the final straw was the public nature of AAC's silencer rebuilding program. The truth of the matter is that the ATF has fielded a ton of questions about this subject from many people not just a single manufacturer. I don't know for sure but GemTech probably did contact them but the written opinions are hardly based on a singular contact. Further, and to prove that this was not based solely on GemTech, the ATF has been telling people they would weigh in on this subject matter for months now and notified more than just GemTech's lawyer when the documents were made public on the ATF's site.

I have to hand it to AAC, they've really used this as an oportunity to drive more negative feelings using the ignorance of the general silencer buying public. The irony is that while people are calling to have Gemtech burned at the stake this really doesn't change anything. Also, I firmly believe that were it not for the flagrant actions of AAC and Silencertalk.com the ATF would never have publicly posted the opinion. That is not to say I blame AAC for the restrictive actions of the ATF but AAC has made such a spectical of this issue it was probably unavoidable.

If you want to blame GemTech for this then AAC is as much to blame for forcing the issue. Personally I hold the ATF at fault. YMMV

Posted: 4/19/2008 12:11:20 PM EDT

[#23]

The only silencer owners this "hurt" are those who wanted to take advantage of AAC's illegal REmanufacturing process.

If you read the Q&A, these are NOT NEW LAWS, they are a Q&A rephrasing the current laws into a somewhat more easily readable form.

AAC is lucky the ATF made the Q&A and made it public as opposed to setting a precedent by raiding AAC.

Posted: 4/19/2008 4:26:30 PM EDT

[#24]

Regardless of the reason or who sent the letter, it's a retarded ruling.

If you replaced the engine of a car, you wouldn't have to re-register the vehicle and pay your ad velorem tax all over again. Same goes for any part of the vehicle.

If your house is knocked down by a tornado, you don't have to repay your property taxes just because you have to put new numbers on your front door.

Only in the firearms industry, one of the few industries "protected" by the constitution, does this happen.

Posted: 4/19/2008 4:35:06 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Regardless of the reason or who sent the letter, it's a retarded ruling.

If you replaced the engine of a car, you wouldn't have to re-register the vehicle and pay your ad velorem tax all over again. Same goes for any part of the vehicle.

If your house is knocked down by a tornado, you don't have to repay your property taxes just because you have to put new numbers on your front door.

Only in the firearms industry, one of the few industries "protected" by the constitution, does this happen.

If you get tired of how your 2000 F250 drives and take it to the Chevy dealership it would be illegal for them to take the VIN off your F250 and put it on a 2008 Chevrolet 2500.

Further, if you total said 2000 Ford F250 it would be equally illegal to take the VIN off said wrecked 2000 Ford F250 and put it on a 2008 Ford F250.

You can replace the damaged baffles of your can with undamaged baffles like you can replace the engine on your F250 if you throw a rod.

Posted: 4/19/2008 5:03:35 PM EDT

[#26]

I suppose I find this interesting, as I have always understood that it was NOT legal to serialize a new tube and destroy the old one for a repair. If this were legal, then it would also be legal to make a new AR lower with my old transferable serial number and destroy the old one... right?

Serial numbering the end cap would be a bad idea in the case the previously referenced weapon malfunction resulting in a baffle strike. If your cap goes down range and you can't find it, you are now in possession of an unregistered suppressor. Drive home safe - as there is a huge ass pounding awaiting you if you get pulled over...

Rather than blaming Gemtech, perhaps search this forum and others for detailed images and descriptions of companies re-serializing tubes for repair. Again - from the 1999 letter/ruling, I have always understood this to be wrong. And no - don't be a dumbass - I didn't ask the question either. Perhaps the ATF has an ARFCOM account also and saw the same pictures I did?

Just my thoughts.

Todd

Posted: 4/19/2008 5:20:40 PM EDT

[#27]

.

Posted: 4/19/2008 5:21:21 PM EDT

[#28]

If anyone is interested, I've got a letter written in March 2006 and replied to by the ATF in May of 2006 regarding the same info found in this Q&A.

Either Gemtech stirred shit up 2 years ago and the ATF didn't care until now or this mess is not Gemtech's fault but more likely because of recent activity of another manufacturer doing exactly what they are not supposed to be doing.

I would like to save the .pdf as an image and post it but I just can't seem to figure out how...

Posted: 4/19/2008 5:45:51 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I suppose I find this interesting, as I have always understood that it was NOT legal to serialize a new tube and destroy the old one for a repair. If this were legal, then it would also be legal to make a new AR lower with my old transferable serial number and destroy the old one... right?

Serial numbering the end cap would be a bad idea in the case the previously referenced weapon malfunction resulting in a baffle strike. If your cap goes down range and you can't find it, you are now in possession of an unregistered suppressor. Drive home safe - as there is a huge ass pounding awaiting you if you get pulled over...

Rather than blaming Gemtech, perhaps search this forum and others for detailed images and descriptions of companies re-serializing tubes for repair. Again - from the 1999 letter/ruling, I have always understood this to be wrong. And no - don't be a dumbass - I didn't ask the question either. Perhaps the ATF has an ARFCOM account also and saw the same pictures I did?

Just my thoughts.

Todd

A can has two ends

use mounting end ,,if that parts is flying downrange ,,i think bigger problems has just happen

Posted: 4/19/2008 6:33:35 PM EDT

[#30]

Posted: 4/20/2008 4:30:52 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
The only silencer owners this "hurt" are those who wanted to take advantage of AAC's illegal REmanufacturing process.

This is not correct. While I agree that some companies were skirting dangerous ground in "repair" claims (outside of the AAC rebuild thing, basically swapping out for newer models, wholesale, upon request and not to fix any damage), plenty of other manufacturers have replaced legitimately damaged tubes. I believe even Gemtech would replace leaded up .22 cans (at a cost), so if this was done at their prompting, I'd say it backfired on them as well - which should be taken as a lesson learned.

Overall, while I'm certainly not an industry insider, and only own 3 cans, myself, I'm not surprised about the parts of the ruling that prevent someone from essentially replacing an old model with a new one without jumping through all the hoops - the path we were on was going to a place where, assuming Manufacturer X was around in 20 years, I could get a can made today "repaired" to a completely different model, new dimensions, etc. where yes, it is basically a completely new device and not really a "repair". So... from a logical perspective, I get the ruling on the outside dimensions. I really don't think anyone would have expected replacement my the manufacturer of a dimensionally equivalent tube would require another tax paid, or that simply boring out the internals would qualify as manufacturing a new device. If we follow this logic outside this specific situation (I know "logic" and "gov't agency" don't belong in the same thought) it has some very dangerous implications elsewhere.

Posted: 4/20/2008 8:13:50 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
The only silencer owners this "hurt" are those who wanted to take advantage of AAC's illegal REmanufacturing process.

Re-read the FAQ.

There are some new points, no caliber changes, and even the original MFG cannot replace a tube.

Posted: 4/20/2008 8:54:27 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Regardless of the reason or who sent the letter, it's a retarded ruling.

If you replaced the engine of a car, you wouldn't have to re-register the vehicle and pay your ad velorem tax all over again. Same goes for any part of the vehicle.

If your house is knocked down by a tornado, you don't have to repay your property taxes just because you have to put new numbers on your front door.

Only in the firearms industry, one of the few industries "protected" by the constitution, does this happen.

If you get tired of how your 2000 F250 drives and take it to the Chevy dealership it would be illegal for them to take the VIN off your F250 and put it on a 2008 Chevrolet 2500.

Further, if you total said 2000 Ford F250 it would be equally illegal to take the VIN off said wrecked 2000 Ford F250 and put it on a 2008 Ford F250.

You can replace the damaged baffles of your can with undamaged baffles like you can replace the engine on your F250 if you throw a rod.

Your analogy is correct. Except that with a vehicle, I could upgrade the internals without changing the outside or the VIN. With a silencer, I could not.

Either way, it's bullshit that it's regulated by the government.

Posted: 4/20/2008 9:02:32 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Regardless of the reason or who sent the letter, it's a retarded ruling.

If you replaced the engine of a car, you wouldn't have to re-register the vehicle and pay your ad velorem tax all over again. Same goes for any part of the vehicle.

If your house is knocked down by a tornado, you don't have to repay your property taxes just because you have to put new numbers on your front door.

Only in the firearms industry, one of the few industries "protected" by the constitution, does this happen.

If you get tired of how your 2000 F250 drives and take it to the Chevy dealership it would be illegal for them to take the VIN off your F250 and put it on a 2008 Chevrolet 2500.

Further, if you total said 2000 Ford F250 it would be equally illegal to take the VIN off said wrecked 2000 Ford F250 and put it on a 2008 Ford F250.

You can replace the damaged baffles of your can with undamaged baffles like you can replace the engine on your F250 if you throw a rod.

Your analogy is correct. Except that with a vehicle, I could upgrade the internals without changing the outside or the VIN. With a silencer, I could not.

Either way, it's bullshit that it's regulated by the government.

We're in agreement. Silencers are not firearms no matter how you slice it.

Posted: 4/20/2008 3:29:37 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
[...

We're in agreement. Silencers are not firearms no matter how you slice it.

I agree in principle with one exception: In NFA-34 and GCA-68, Congress made them firearms by definition. They ought to be de-classified and unregulated.

Posted: 4/20/2008 4:33:24 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Your analogy is correct. Except that with a vehicle, I could upgrade the internals without changing the outside or the VIN. With a silencer, I could not.

Either way, it's bullshit that it's regulated by the government.

It says in plain English that the internals may be replaced or upgraded by an SOT when worn or damaged. Replacing the tube with new and putting the old s/n is what is illegal.

from BATFE FAQ:

Q2: May a Federal firearms licensee repair a silencer by replacing worn or damaged components?
A: A person who is licensed under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to manufacture firearms and who has paid the special (occupational) tax to manufacture National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms may replace a component part or parts of a silencer. Repairs may not be done if they result in removal, obliteration, or alteration of the serial number, as this would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). If a silencer part bearing the serial number, other than the outer tube, must be replaced, the new part must be marked with the same serial number as the replacement part.

The term "repair" does not include replacement of the outer tube of the silencer. The outer tube is the largest single part of the silencer, the main structural component of the silencer, and is the part to which all other component parts are attached. The replacement of the outer tube is so significant an event that it amounts to the "making" of a new silencer. As such, the new silencer must be marked, registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA.

In the event that identical replacement parts for a silencer are not available, new and different component parts may be used as long as the silencer retains the same dimensions and caliber. In addition, the repair may result in a minimal reduction in the length of the outer tube due to rethreading, but repair may not increase the length of the outer tube. Increasing the length of the outer tube significantly affects the performance of the silencer and results in the "making" of a new silencer. As stated above, a new silencer must be marked, registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA. Reducing the length of the tube by a minimal amount in order to repair a silencer is often necessary to replace damaged end caps, as the tube must be rethreaded. Such minimal reduction of the length of the tube uses all of the original parts, does not significantly affect performance of the silencer, and may be done as part of a repair process without making a new silencer.

Posted: 4/20/2008 7:15:49 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
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 their completely new suppressors (slincers and mufflers). The Bardwell letter from 1999 is consistent.

Originally posted on Silencer Talk by Kevin/AAC:
Not true. AAC has used original Gemtech tubes when repairing them. We have engraved them again on the opposite side when original markings did not meet current ATF regs. We do not build "illegal suppressors." You may want to be careful with things you state about me and AAC...

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 9:05:48 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[...

We're in agreement. Silencers are not firearms no matter how you slice it.

I agree in principle with one exception: In NFA-34 and GCA-68, Congress made them firearms by definition. They ought to be de-classified and unregulated.

Exactly. Silencers are just another firearm accessory. Bipods make for more accurate shooting and silencers make for quieter shooting. Bipods are $80 and can be acquired as easily as a pack of gum, while silencers required unfair tax, extensive paperwork, and months of time. Our European friends agree with me. Silencers for 22LR are available over the counter for less than $40 at most hardware stores in France. We are choked with undue cost and time constraints because of NFA/GCA. If we had any brains at all, we would stop fighting each other and focus money and time against the absurd archaic 1934 and 1968 unconstitutional regulations regarding sound moderators.

Posted: 4/21/2008 4:45:03 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[...

We're in agreement. Silencers are not firearms no matter how you slice it.

I agree in principle with one exception: In NFA-34 and GCA-68, Congress made them firearms by definition. They ought to be de-classified and unregulated.

Exactly. Silencers are just another firearm accessory. Bipods make for more accurate shooting and silencers make for quieter shooting. Bipods are $80 and can be acquired as easily as a pack of gum, while silencers required unfair tax, extensive paperwork, and months of time. Our European friends agree with me. Silencers for 22LR are available over the counter for less than $40 at most hardware stores in France. We are choked with undue cost and time constraints because of NFA/GCA. If we had any brains at all, we would stop fighting each other and focus money and time against the absurd archaic 1934 and 1968 unconstitutional regulations regarding sound moderators.

Yup, and then they would become illegal in most of the states where you can have them. Most states are "they are illegal unless registered", or "they are illegal, but being registered is a defense". If the "registration" goes away, so does the legality in a bunh of places. I would like it to have a $5 aow stamp.

Posted: 4/21/2008 5:21:17 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[...

We're in agreement. Silencers are not firearms no matter how you slice it.

I agree in principle with one exception: In NFA-34 and GCA-68, Congress made them firearms by definition. They ought to be de-classified and unregulated.

Exactly. Silencers are just another firearm accessory. Bipods make for more accurate shooting and silencers make for quieter shooting. Bipods are $80 and can be acquired as easily as a pack of gum, while silencers required unfair tax, extensive paperwork, and months of time. Our European friends agree with me. Silencers for 22LR are available over the counter for less than $40 at most hardware stores in France. We are choked with undue cost and time constraints because of NFA/GCA. If we had any brains at all, we would stop fighting each other and focus money and time against the absurd archaic 1934 and 1968 unconstitutional regulations regarding sound moderators.

Yup, and then they would become illegal in most of the states where you can have them. Most states are "they are illegal unless registered", or "they are illegal, but being registered is a defense". If the "registration" goes away, so does the legality in a bunh of places. I would like it to have a $5 aow stamp.

I would also like the ability to walk into the closest ATF branch and showing proper ID and papers to get a "unicard" of sorts like my CHL, so I can spend 10 or so minutes choosing a suppressor at my classIII dealer and walking out with it as fast as possible.

The two-three month wait for that and/or other classIII items is absurd.

I have a CHL and multiple suppressors and SBRs.............Why do I have to go through another waiting period?

Posted: 4/21/2008 5:37:08 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[...

We're in agreement. Silencers are not firearms no matter how you slice it.

I agree in principle with one exception: In NFA-34 and GCA-68, Congress made them firearms by definition. They ought to be de-classified and unregulated.

Exactly. Silencers are just another firearm accessory. Bipods make for more accurate shooting and silencers make for quieter shooting. Bipods are $80 and can be acquired as easily as a pack of gum, while silencers required unfair tax, extensive paperwork, and months of time. Our European friends agree with me. Silencers for 22LR are available over the counter for less than $40 at most hardware stores in France. We are choked with undue cost and time constraints because of NFA/GCA. If we had any brains at all, we would stop fighting each other and focus money and time against the absurd archaic 1934 and 1968 unconstitutional regulations regarding sound moderators.

Yup, and then they would become illegal in most of the states where you can have them. Most states are "they are illegal unless registered", or "they are illegal, but being registered is a defense". If the "registration" goes away, so does the legality in a bunh of places. I would like it to have a $5 aow stamp.

I would also like the ability to walk into the closest ATF branch and showing proper ID and papers to get a "unicard" of sorts like my CHL, so I can spend 10 or so minutes choosing a suppressor at my classIII dealer and walking out with it as fast as possible.

The two-three month wait for that and/or other classIII items is absurd.

I have a CHL and multiple suppressors and SBRs.............Why do I have to go through another waiting period?

Thats how its works with guns in Germany (no cans ) you apply for a permission to buy a Gun of a specific caliber ,,and then you can go shopping until you find what you like show the permit and can take it with you right away
then in you"" unicard "" the dealer ads you new toy and do notify the ""atf "" and so do you ,this is to prevent that no guns gets lost

this makes shopping much nicer ,,but beware of impulse buy

Posted: 4/21/2008 11:15:43 AM EDT

[#42]

After my first reaction of F#@$.....I had to read the rest and think about what happened. My take on it.

1. The customer wanted a product fixed by the original manufacturer Company #1(correct?)

2. The Company #1 did not want to fix or update said product. (Correct?)

3. Company #2 saw an opportunity to get good PR and the ability to get their product out to another consumer, and by doing this increase the likelihood of a future sale to said consumer. (Correct?)

4. Company #2 did the repair/overhaul to the displeasure of Company #1

5. Company #1 went to the government and complained multiple times to get a ruling that they wanted or benefited them. (Correct?)

6. Company #1 is happy they say that now everybody is on the same playing field.

7. If Company #1 had done the RIGHT thing in the first place by having the Company Mission statement of “the Customer is the reason we are in business” than none of this would have happened. I see their statement as “buy from us now and if a problem comes up we will sell you a new one not fix yours”. The only people that got screwed is us the consumer.

8. Please before you flame me think about. What would happen if only the manufacturer of your car could only fix that brand of car you own. And they don't want to fix it. What now, you would have to buy a new car or do without. Are vehicles regulated? Yup, maybe not to the degree of firearms but they are regulated. Maybe I am simplifying it a little too much but it just boils down to the consumer getting screwed and another Company that I will NEVER buy from. So they may have won the battle, but in the long run they will lose the war. The most important thing is they have lost this consumer’s trust and future bussines

Posted: 4/21/2008 11:48:32 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
If anyone is interested, I've got a letter written in March 2006 and replied to by the ATF in May of 2006 regarding the same info found in this Q&A.

Either Gemtech stirred shit up 2 years ago and the ATF didn't care until now or this mess is not Gemtech's fault but more likely because of recent activity of another manufacturer doing exactly what they are not supposed to be doing.

I would like to save the .pdf as an image and post it but I just can't seem to figure out how...

In Acrobat, select "save as" under 'file' and save it as a .jpg file.

And none of this is new. The June 2007 NFA Hadbook, page 56, (published by the BATFE - everyone here has their PDF copy, right?) says:

9.5.1.1 Repair of firearm silencers. Please see the forthcoming ATF Ruling on silencer repair and replacement issues.

So we have James Bardwell's August 1999 letter (that predates the BATFE suppressor repair FAQ by several years), a May 2006 letter, and the June 2007 NFA Handbook.

I think that if anyone has any other ATF letters that are different (i.e., that a SOT 02 can re-manufacture a outer tube and serialize it with the serial number of a damaged outer tube) then that was an error on the part of the BATFE (as far as he BATFE is currently concerned).

This Q&A is consistent with everything I've read.

And anyone who wants to manufacture, deal in, or own NFA items better get used to the cold reality that whether you believe that the NFA of 1934, as amended, is constitutional or not or bad law or whatever, its still the law. Play fast and loose with it and not only will you not be an SOT or NFA owner, you will probably be faced with a significant legal repercussion (unless you beg to throw some of your buddies under the bus to save your butt).

Posted: 4/24/2008 4:08:43 PM EDT

[#44]

Gee....thanks Gemtech......not a personal attack I think. hinking.gif

Posted: 4/24/2008 5:52:53 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Gee....thanks Gemtech......not a personal attack I think.

Thanks ODA but my reader does not have that option. Some how you got a full copy of Actrobat eh?

Anyway, it's the letter Ian posted...

Posted: 6/17/2008 5:56:21 PM EDT

[#46]

height=8

Quoted:
height=8

Quoted:
Regardless of the reason or who sent the letter, it's a retarded ruling.

If you replaced the engine of a car, you wouldn't have to re-register the vehicle and pay your ad velorem tax all over again. Same goes for any part of the vehicle.

If your house is knocked down by a tornado, you don't have to repay your property taxes just because you have to put new numbers on your front door.

Only in the firearms industry, one of the few industries "protected" by the constitution, does this happen.

If you get tired of how your 2000 F250 drives and take it to the Chevy dealership it would be illegal for them to take the VIN off your F250 and put it on a 2008 Chevrolet 2500.

Further, if you total said 2000 Ford F250 it would be equally illegal to take the VIN off said wrecked 2000 Ford F250 and put it on a 2008 Ford F250.

You can replace the damaged baffles of your can with undamaged baffles like you can replace the engine on your F250 if you throw a rod.

If this is so, let's say you hit a deer in your F250 and it comes through the window destroying your dash including the area where the VIN plate is located, but the VIN is still clearly legible to prove the vehicle is yours. You then remove the VIN plate and affix it to a new dash in your vehicle. Have you manufactured a new vehicle? Have you altered the VIN? I don't see how anyone could believe it is logical to make a part that cannot be replaced in kind with the same serial number if the original is destroyed.

Posted: 6/19/2008 3:21:25 AM EDT

[#47]

Further expounding on the VIN analogy, you have windows with the VIN etched in them. If you break one, you can get another with your VIN etched in it. You could also buy one from a used/junk vehicle that has ANOTHER vehicle's VIN etched on it and put that window in your vehicle.

Posted: 6/30/2008 8:48:24 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Regardless of the reason or who sent the letter, it's a retarded ruling.

If you replaced the engine of a car, you wouldn't have to re-register the vehicle and pay your ad velorem tax all over again. Same goes for any part of the vehicle.

If your house is knocked down by a tornado, you don't have to repay your property taxes just because you have to put new numbers on your front door.

Only in the firearms industry, one of the few industries "protected" by the constitution, does this happen.

If you get tired of how your 2000 F250 drives and take it to the Chevy dealership it would be illegal for them to take the VIN off your F250 and put it on a 2008 Chevrolet 2500.

Further, if you total said 2000 Ford F250 it would be equally illegal to take the VIN off said wrecked 2000 Ford F250 and put it on a 2008 Ford F250.

You can replace the damaged baffles of your can with undamaged baffles like you can replace the engine on your F250 if you throw a rod.

Yeah...and after all, who would want a ruling that favors replacing baffles vs replacing the tube or whole can...

Gee...maybe someone who doesn't weld their cans...

I guess when you can't make a product up to the specs of the competition, you whine for a change in the rules. Sad

Posted: 6/30/2008 2:35:31 PM EDT

[#49]

VIN number analogies are stupid, period. You are free to engrave the vehicle's VIN anywhere on the vehicle you want, as many times as you want. It's actually supposed to be engraved on certain parts...

The difference is obviously this- a Title II firearm gets ONE number for engraving in ONE spot, no more, no less. You have to follow that rule.

You can't generalize one instance where a product has a unique number and try to rationalize why another product and it's serialization system should or should not make sense to other people who CAN understand it.

Suppressors are their own little animals and are treated as such.

Posted: 7/3/2008 10:53:57 PM EDT

[#50]

"Additionally, replacing damaged internal components of a silencer with upgraded components such as are offered in a newer or improved model of silencer would constitute altering a firearm from its original form and would be the manufacture of a new NFA firearm not registered with the provisions of the NFA."

"In the event that identical replacement parts for a silencer are not available, new and different parts may be used as long as the silencer retains the same dimensions and caliber."

Can someone explain how both of these can be the opinion of the BATFE? They say the opposite thing.

Also where does this place people who got updated versions of a 2006 silencer to a 2007 when they are substantially different even in external size but before the ATF made this ruling? Who is responsible for the reregistering of the silencer or are those grandfathered in or what?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BATFE SILENCER REPAIR Q & A (Page 2 of 3)

Armory » Silencers

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us