Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration on "untaxed" firearms (Page 194 of 194)
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: Well, Fuck. I gotta go back on what I said, and back to Form 4s. I spoke to the customers who already took possession and all are cool with filling out a Form 4 for their suppressors. With my background I should have thought of this first, but I got caught up in the excitement. Civil liability coverage only responds as normal when the insured is following the law. Transferring a $0 tax suppressor without a Form 4 is breaking the law. Sure, you cant be punished for it but any lawyer will tell you the NFA laws are still in place. Criminally you have nothing to worry about if you are a dealer or buyer of a suppressor without a Form 4 regarding the transfer. The manufacturers transferring suppressors on form 3s to their dealers, that they are encouraging to sell on 4473s have nothing to worry about either. The FFLs selling those suppressors are fucked if any of those suppressors are used in a way which results in harm or death. Scenario - FFL sells a suppressor to a guy on a 4473, no form 4. That guy sells it to his neighbor who puts it on the pistol he uses to kill his girlfriend. The Lawyers from the Brady bunch reach out to the estate of the dead bitch and find out where the gun and silencer came from. When they see the silencer was illegally sold by the FFL, that FFL is a named defendant in the wrongful death lawsuit. The FFL turns it over to their insurance who denies coverage because the suppressor was sold illegally. The FFL is now personally responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and a possible judgment they can never afford. The PLCAA isn't going to apply to an illegal sale. Until the actual law changes, or insurance companies specifically tell FFL it's ok to break this law to make a sale that they are insured - - any dealer selling on a 4473 is insane. Well fuck indeed. Score one for the anti-gun scum and their litigious terrorism. Hopefully someone else will hold the line over there in the meantime and we'll see you again when the next domino falls and things are a little safer. In the meantime please refrain from calling the people putting themselves at risk to make the injunction actually worth a shit insane unless you're ready to thank them later when their insanity helps open the way for you to start doing what they took the risk to do first. |
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: As you say you are going to spend a lot of money on lawyers to get to any conclusions and there are plenty of them that will file a suit simply in the hopes of a quick settlement. This. To be frank, it doesn't matter. The disarmament cockfags will eventually try to sue regardless, because they don't give a shit about law or money, they're pushing a political agenda. The goal is to punish dealers with expensive legal fees. As for what happened to bigbore regarding the frivolous suit, the follow up should've involved counter suing whatever anti gun groups were backing the dead woman's estate, dragging them into court and forcing discovery in their communications would've revealed their motive to screw over a gun shop, and their knowledge that the suit itself was frivolous to begin with. |
|
Originally Posted By FRT: https://i.imgur.com/iaOmsys.jpeg ROTFLMAO |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: Well fuck indeed. Score one for the anti-gun scum and their litigious terrorism. Hopefully someone else will hold the line over there in the meantime and we'll see you again when the next domino falls and things are a little safer. In the meantime please refrain from calling the people putting themselves at risk to make the injunction actually worth a shit insane unless you're ready to thank them later when their insanity helps open the way for you to start doing what they took the risk to do first. Send me the name of your insurance carrier, your agents name and contact info. If I can get guaranteed coverage in writing for this, I'll switch to your dude and go back to 4473 suppressor sales. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
Joined:
Mar 2024
Posts:
275
EE: 0% (0)
SC, USA
|
Originally Posted By DS11M: Just saw the email... https://media2.giphy.com/media/uudzUtVcsLAoo/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cztxd3s1v975wnp3tfnoppbjsl58vzcjg20y9p771&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Me too! So what does that mean for those of us who might be interested in making our own now? Do we still need to file a form 1 or does this mean suppressors are now like 80% lowers? Also could there now be a market for 80% suppressors. if they are no longer NFA restricted? |
|
Originally Posted By mike_nds: Monica Originally Posted By mike_nds: Originally Posted By mancow: I put one in my Nodak Spud limited fence lower with all original 1964 era XM16E1 upper and BCG. It deserved it. It was so satisfying letting it speak its natural language finally. Monica You made a fine product my friend. |
"Circular probability, zero. Have a nice day..."
|
Originally Posted By rb889: As for what happened to bigbore regarding the frivolous suit, the follow up should've involved counter suing whatever anti gun groups were backing the dead woman's estate, dragging them into court and forcing discovery in their communications would've revealed their motive to screw over a gun shop, and their knowledge that the suit itself was frivolous to begin with. That's not how it works. That would be nice, but that's not how it works. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: I still think there's some room to work with, seeing as "more commonplace" in my AO means going from "one guy shooting suppressed every 5 or 6 trips" to "I'm shooting suppressed and hell yeah someone else is too". I mostly agree on the SBR/S but I keep trying to include them alongside cand mostly so nobody derails anything by complaining about being left out  Mostly, I just want to provide an opportunity for people to have the experience of seeing them in public use to chip away at the mystery and rarity. I've had random people come bother me about my regular guns, so if they come bother me about my ridiculous looking suppressed mag-fed tactical lever action that's the most stupidly quiet gun they've ever seen, I'll smile and give a 30-second elevator pitch about how they can get in on the fun. It's not bragging to emphasize how cheap and easy it is and focus 100% on how they can do it too! thats how we build a political army that rolls the bullshit back. |
|
Originally Posted By Coati: If you have the $1k to drop at an FFL for a can you have $500 to drop on a 3d printer and get all the enjoined goodies you like without asking the permission of a gatekeeper. Originally Posted By Coati: Originally Posted By FRT: https://i.imgur.com/iaOmsys.jpeg If you have the $1k to drop at an FFL for a can you have $500 to drop on a 3d printer and get all the enjoined goodies you like without asking the permission of a gatekeeper. You can get set up to print titanium/inconel for $500? |
Not fly enough to be halal....
|
Originally Posted By Stefan2k24: Me too! So what does that mean for those of us who might be interested in making our own now? Do we still need to file a form 1 or does this mean suppressors are now like 80% lowers? Also could there now be a market for 80% suppressors. if they are no longer NFA restricted? It doesn’t mean anything different than yesterday or last week. The injunction is still in force exactly the same as it was since early August. You can do the exact same thing you could do since August 5. All it means is that if they aren’t going to appeal it, the chances of it being reversed on appeal are now zero. The injunction is effectively permanent for members of the plaintiff groups. |
Member
Joined:
Aug 2026
Posts:
74
EE: 0% (0)
MO, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: The law has not been enjoined, only the untaxed firearms. I am certainly not your lawyer nor do I play one on TV so this is a layman's view but by my reading, the law is unenforceable upon the untaxed firearms because the law can not, as written, apply to the untaxed firearms. The plaintiffs recieved relief because the law is invalid and its enforcement is not legal. If there were a state law that barred ownership of pickup trucks and later a court barred enforcement of that provision of law because the law as written was invalid, then sale of pickup trucks is not illegal and 'they just can't prosecute you for it'. The law making them illegal is invalid. They seem to be saying that a law that was enjoined because its improperly foundationed is still 'the law'? As far as I know though I don't think it is for parties granted the relief. Could be an interesting wrinkle though. |
Member
Joined:
Aug 2026
Posts:
75
EE: 0% (0)
MO, USA
|
Originally Posted By DFARM: The laws go back to being constitutional if the transfer tax goes back to anything other than zero, right? Yes. $0.01 would likely be sufficient. So long as any money is collected it goes back to being a tax law. No other arguments were heard or ruled upon, only the $0 tax stamp. In my pessimistic opinion we will not prevail on 2A grounds given the historical timeframe of thier existance and subsequent regulation. I'm almost positive the courts will be happy to allow all mannor of restrictions on specific features and accessories to firearms. The one thing that I think might work to our advantage is a long legal history of classifying them as firearms. I decided to take the plunge knowing its possible they reinstate the tax and if we get a D-D-D government in 29 I have a feeling that will be addressed. They are happy to do damage and inflict pain where they can. |
|
Originally Posted By graysonp: I know you've been sued before, but this seems like a non-issue and you may have an illogical interpretation of it. Transferring a suppressor without a form 4 is not illegal for parties of the plaintiff group. The law does not apply to them. It's not that they're breaking the law and the ATF/DOJ is just refusing to prosecute. It's that a judge has ruled it is not illegal for them. A counter example to prove my point: A NICS background check is required for all transfers from an FFL to a non-licensed buyer. In most states, a valid CCW is an exemption the the NICS check. The FFL is not breaking the law by not completing a NICS check. The transaction is exempt from that law and it is not applicable to their situation. There are probably hundreds or thousands of cases of statutes and laws that are not applicable to certain people or certain situations. The Form 4 registration requirement is not applicable to those within the plaintiff group. It is not an illegal transfer and there's no reason that an insurance company should deny a claim based on that. That being said, you can be sued for pretty much anything at any time. Originally Posted By graysonp: Originally Posted By bigbore: Civil liability coverage only responds as normal when the insured is following the law. Transferring a $0 tax suppressor without a Form 4 is breaking the law. Sure, you cant be punished for it but any lawyer will tell you the NFA laws are still in place. SNIP The PLCAA isn't going to apply to an illegal sale. Until the actual law changes, or insurance companies specifically tell FFL it's ok to break this law to make a sale that they are insured - - any dealer selling on a 4473 is insane. I know you've been sued before, but this seems like a non-issue and you may have an illogical interpretation of it. Transferring a suppressor without a form 4 is not illegal for parties of the plaintiff group. The law does not apply to them. It's not that they're breaking the law and the ATF/DOJ is just refusing to prosecute. It's that a judge has ruled it is not illegal for them. A counter example to prove my point: A NICS background check is required for all transfers from an FFL to a non-licensed buyer. In most states, a valid CCW is an exemption the the NICS check. The FFL is not breaking the law by not completing a NICS check. The transaction is exempt from that law and it is not applicable to their situation. There are probably hundreds or thousands of cases of statutes and laws that are not applicable to certain people or certain situations. The Form 4 registration requirement is not applicable to those within the plaintiff group. It is not an illegal transfer and there's no reason that an insurance company should deny a claim based on that. That being said, you can be sued for pretty much anything at any time. No one wants to be the test case when the stakes are higher to end you financially if the system doesn’t see it the same way as you do. Life if full of risk/reward analysis. |
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: Send me the name of your insurance carrier, your agents name and contact info. If I can get guaranteed coverage in writing for this, I'll switch to your dude and go back to 4473 suppressor sales. Sure, that'll be LOL inc, c/o Mr. Literally LMAO, 8787 ROFL way. I'm not in the business, I'm on the side where FATF rolls up to my home and demands that I register or surrender or destroy the two 4473 cans I bought or they'll kill my dog and burn my house down or whatever. Maybe they decide I'm harboring an SBR and get a search warrant to turn my home inside out, and maybe they invent some novel legal definition and use a workday in a machine shop to decide that some random thing I have was readily convertible. Whatever the case is, my ass is hanging in the wind and nobody will notice I'm gone or care enough to go looking. If they decide to get as shitty on me as they apparently did on you, I face the destruction of my life and livelihood because it will cost everything to pay some scummy lawyer to go argue with some other scummy lawyer who has the backing of the federal government and/or some bottomless well of NGO funding courtesy of the leftist patronage networks. If I take enough time off work to get through a prosecution, I probably lose my job. If I get convicted, the closest I ever get to working in my field again is breaking rocks or pouring concrete. We may not have the same level of visibility but we both face monumental threat if the tyrannical bureaucracy decides our number is up. I'd probably hear about it if a dealer got rolled up for doing 4473 cans, and I'd chip in for their defense and make ad much noise as one random peon in the world can make. I expect I'd get crickets and a shrug if anyone even noticed at all, and you'd probably make some snide remark about me having it coming for being insane enough to engage in commerce within the scope of relief as I understand it. And that's fine. You'll notice I was disappointed but I didn't call you any mean names or say anything particularly rude. You're uncomfortable sticking your neck that far out, sorry to hear it, hope to see you again when it's less of a stretch, please don't denigrate the ones shouldering the real and legitimate risk of the position they take. Don't dismiss the risk that the individuals on the other side of the counter are taking either. |
|
Originally Posted By TxRabbitBane: You can get set up to print titanium/inconel for $500? Definitely more than $500 but a lot less than you'd expect. I'd guess maybe 1000 for the setup to print that spool, I think the kiln is about 300, and you're in for a real adventure figuring out how it all works. Once you dial it in though and write off probably a kilogram of inconel PLA as part of the startup cost, you're looking at repeatable $80 inconel cans, give or take. I'd probably stick to the aluminum or stainless filament if I was crazy enough to attempt it, or just stick with high-performance conventional filament that doesn't need a 2250F kiln to finish. |
|
Originally Posted By hushpuppy26: I am certainly not your lawyer nor do I play one on TV so this is a layman's view but by my reading, the law is unenforceable upon the untaxed firearms because the law can not, as written, apply to the untaxed firearms. The plaintiffs recieved relief because the law is invalid and its enforcement is not legal. If there were a state law that barred ownership of pickup trucks and later a court barred enforcement of that provision of law because the law as written was invalid, then sale of pickup trucks is not illegal and 'they just can't prosecute you for it'. The law making them illegal is invalid. They seem to be saying that a law that was enjoined because its improperly foundationed is still 'the law'? As far as I know though I don't think it is for parties granted the relief. Could be an interesting wrinkle though. You keep mentioning the law. The injunction is protection from enforcement of what? The law. The statuary law is still in place. If you weren't breaking the law you wouldn't need protection from enforcement, would you? |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1281
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: You keep mentioning the law. The injunction is protection from enforcement of what? The law. The statuary law is still in place. If you weren't breaking the law you wouldn't need protection from enforcement, would you? Originally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By hushpuppy26: I am certainly not your lawyer nor do I play one on TV so this is a layman's view but by my reading, the law is unenforceable upon the untaxed firearms because the law can not, as written, apply to the untaxed firearms. The plaintiffs recieved relief because the law is invalid and its enforcement is not legal. If there were a state law that barred ownership of pickup trucks and later a court barred enforcement of that provision of law because the law as written was invalid, then sale of pickup trucks is not illegal and 'they just can't prosecute you for it'. The law making them illegal is invalid. They seem to be saying that a law that was enjoined because its improperly foundationed is still 'the law'? As far as I know though I don't think it is for parties granted the relief. Could be an interesting wrinkle though. You keep mentioning the law. The injunction is protection from enforcement of what? The law. The statuary law is still in place. If you weren't breaking the law you wouldn't need protection from enforcement, would you? I would argue, in a common law sense, the state of being in jeopardy is what determines if something is illegal. The statute is one element to being put in jeopardy; it is necessary but not sufficient to make something illegal. For example, the courts have refused any challenge to the federal switchblade act. It stands on the books, but because it's not enforced, the courts deny standing to challenge it arguing that no one is in jeopardy. The FSA cannot be struck as a statute because the federal judges claim it's not really illegal to violate it because no one has been prosecuted in 10 years (10 years might be false, but thats what federal judges have claimed). If you are not in jeopardy of sanctions for that subset of the NFA, I would argue, it is not illegal for you. |
|
Originally Posted By hushpuppy26: Yes. $0.01 would likely be sufficient. So long as any money is collected it goes back to being a tax law. No other arguments were heard or ruled upon, only the $0 tax stamp. In my pessimistic opinion we will not prevail on 2A grounds given the historical timeframe of thier existance and subsequent regulation. I'm almost positive the courts will be happy to allow all mannor of restrictions on specific features and accessories to firearms. The one thing that I think might work to our advantage is a long legal history of classifying them as firearms. I decided to take the plunge knowing its possible they reinstate the tax and if we get a D-D-D government in 29 I have a feeling that will be addressed. They are happy to do damage and inflict pain where they can. If they get a clean sweep they'll probably take the mask and gloves off and no amount of injunctions or case law or precedent will matter. We're all out of road to kick the can down so get whatever equipment and experience you can now just in case. If I'm happily proven to be a silly doomer and Nothing Ever Happens (tm) then we have a number of legal avenues to protect us and/or delay their attempts to reinstate their poll tax and we should still focus right now on making it as difficult and unpopular as humanly possible to try it. |
.
Member
Joined:
Aug 2026
Posts:
76
EE: 0% (0)
MO, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: You keep mentioning the law. The injunction is protection from enforcement of what? The law. The statuary law is still in place. If you weren't breaking the law you wouldn't need protection from enforcement, would you? The enforcement is enjoined because the law is invalid. I feel like I specifically stated that in what you just quoted. |
|
Originally Posted By hushpuppy26: The enforcement is enjoined because the law is invalid. I feel like I specifically stated that in what you just quoted. Originally Posted By hushpuppy26: Originally Posted By bigbore: You keep mentioning the law. The injunction is protection from enforcement of what? The law. The statuary law is still in place. If you weren't breaking the law you wouldn't need protection from enforcement, would you? The enforcement is enjoined because the law is invalid. I feel like I specifically stated that in what you just quoted. Correct. He said it’s unconstitutional. Not conditionally not as applied but facially unconstitutional. Then he enjoined its enforcement against the parties before him. |
|
Originally Posted By inkaybee: Correct. He said it’s unconstitutional. Not conditionally not as applied but facially unconstitutional. Then he enjoined its enforcement against the parties before him. Yes, and he would have enjoined enforcement for all, but is restricted in doing a nationwide injunction, and said as much. |
|
Originally Posted By Coati: I would argue, in a common law sense, the state of being in jeopardy is what determines if something is illegal. The statute is one element to being put in jeopardy; it is necessary but not sufficient to make something illegal. It's not up to you or BigBore or me. It's up to the judge hearing the case, and the liberals are experts at shopping for judges. Get a Clinton or Biden appointee and you're fighting that civil suit using your own assets because there's no insurance coverage for that transfer of a suppressor on just a 4473. |
Heller II - Challenging DC's bans on semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, and its onerous and expensive handgun registration process. http://www.HellerFoundation.org/
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1282
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bubbles: It's not up to you or BigBore or me. It's up to the judge hearing the case, and the liberals are experts at shopping for judges. Get a Clinton or Biden appointee and you're fighting that civil suit using your own assets because there's no insurance coverage for that transfer of a suppressor on just a 4473. Originally Posted By Bubbles: Originally Posted By Coati: I would argue, in a common law sense, the state of being in jeopardy is what determines if something is illegal. The statute is one element to being put in jeopardy; it is necessary but not sufficient to make something illegal. It's not up to you or BigBore or me. It's up to the judge hearing the case, and the liberals are experts at shopping for judges. Get a Clinton or Biden appointee and you're fighting that civil suit using your own assets because there's no insurance coverage for that transfer of a suppressor on just a 4473. I don't disagree, just want to point out it was the genius of Garland/Biden's DOJ, and their federal judges, that decided in Knife Rights v Garland that an unenforced law can't even be challenged because you're not in legal jeopardy. It is actually *their* argument I am citing. |
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: I'm not in the business,......two 4473 cans I bought..... I thought you were a dealer. You have basically zero risk in any of this. On the buying side of this issue the customers risk of future trouble is slim to none. Civil action is a non starter for you. It's not going to happen. If you're a dealer selling cans without a Form 4, I still think you're insane to do so without confirmation from your insurance that you are covered. If you're a non licensee buy away. If I could find another dealer in Ohio who would sell me a can as an individual on a 4473 with my Ohio destructive Ordnance License, I'd buy one in a heart beat. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By inkaybee: Correct. He said it’s unconstitutional. Not conditionally not as applied but facially unconstitutional. Then he enjoined its enforcement against the parties before him. That's cool and if you aren't the dealer who sold the can I wouldn't worry about it. If you were the dealer that's an excellent point for the lawyer you are paying $300 an hour to sue your insurance company for denying you coverage. Non licensee - No problem. Licensee - Take 5 minutes to ask your insurance if you are covered. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: Definitely more than $500 but a lot less than you'd expect. I'd guess maybe 1000 for the setup to print that spool, I think the kiln is about 300, and you're in for a real adventure figuring out how it all works. Once you dial it in though and write off probably a kilogram of inconel PLA as part of the startup cost, you're looking at repeatable $80 inconel cans, give or take. I'd probably stick to the aluminum or stainless filament if I was crazy enough to attempt it, or just stick with high-performance conventional filament that doesn't need a 2250F kiln to finish.  |
"Fully-loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness." - Malcom Reynolds
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?
Joined:
Feb 2011
Posts:
16682
EE: 100% (22)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: That's cool and if you aren't the dealer who sold the can I wouldn't worry about it. If you were the dealer that's an excellent point for the lawyer you are paying $300 an hour to sue your insurance company for denying you coverage. Non licensee - No problem. Licensee - Take 5 minutes to ask your insurance if you are covered. Originally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By inkaybee: Correct. He said it’s unconstitutional. Not conditionally not as applied but facially unconstitutional. Then he enjoined its enforcement against the parties before him. That's cool and if you aren't the dealer who sold the can I wouldn't worry about it. If you were the dealer that's an excellent point for the lawyer you are paying $300 an hour to sue your insurance company for denying you coverage. Non licensee - No problem. Licensee - Take 5 minutes to ask your insurance if you are covered. There will always be some level of risk. You're obviously free to do as you wish, but I'm glad there are FFLs all over the country selling cans outside of the NFA process. |
|
Originally Posted By VacaDuck: PA6-CF is cheap enough. I have roughly $43 worth of filament in these cans and $10 in thread adapters. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/102931/3737-3813065.jpg Originally Posted By VacaDuck: Originally Posted By CZRider: Definitely more than $500 but a lot less than you'd expect. I'd guess maybe 1000 for the setup to print that spool, I think the kiln is about 300, and you're in for a real adventure figuring out how it all works. Once you dial it in though and write off probably a kilogram of inconel PLA as part of the startup cost, you're looking at repeatable $80 inconel cans, give or take. I'd probably stick to the aluminum or stainless filament if I was crazy enough to attempt it, or just stick with high-performance conventional filament that doesn't need a 2250F kiln to finish. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/102931/3737-3813065.jpg How did the test firing go? |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
Originally Posted By M41A: There will always be some level of risk. You're obviously free to do as you wish, but I'm glad there are FFLs all over the country selling cans outside of the NFA process. Because they never thought about this in terms of insurance. If all those dealers called their agents tomorrow and were told they aren't covered, every single one would stop selling suppressors without a Form 4. Ignorance is bliss. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By VacaDuck: PA6-CF is cheap enough. I have roughly $43 worth of filament in these cans and $10 in thread adapters. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/102931/3737-3813065.jpg That would be the conventional filament I was referring to, I just didn't want to say PA-6 and have someone jump in with "what about PA-12 or PAA or [insert crazy filament here]". Damned if you do, damned if you don't I'm curious though, what does the carbon fiber bring to the table that nylon doesn't have? I thought it was strong enough on its own and your most likely failure mode would be something temperature-related, like the thread interface melting and causing the can to sag until it started eating rounds and blew apart. |
How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?
Joined:
Feb 2011
Posts:
16683
EE: 100% (22)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: Because they never thought about this in terms of insurance. If all those dealers called their agents tomorrow and were told they aren't covered, every single one would stop selling suppressors without a Form 4. Ignorance is bliss. Originally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By M41A: There will always be some level of risk. You're obviously free to do as you wish, but I'm glad there are FFLs all over the country selling cans outside of the NFA process. Because they never thought about this in terms of insurance. If all those dealers called their agents tomorrow and were told they aren't covered, every single one would stop selling suppressors without a Form 4. Ignorance is bliss. If you ask enough questions, the answer will always be "no you shouldn't do that". |
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: That would be the conventional filament I was referring to, I just didn't want to say PA-6 and have someone jump in with "what about PA-12 or PAA or [insert crazy filament here]". Damned if you do, damned if you don't I'm curious though, what does the carbon fiber bring to the table that nylon doesn't have? I thought it was strong enough on its own and your most likely failure mode would be something temperature-related, like the thread interface melting and causing the can to sag until it started eating rounds and blew apart. |
"Fully-loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness." - Malcom Reynolds
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
Don't let the join date fool you... here since '97
Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
7390
EE: 100% (24)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: I thought you were a dealer. You have basically zero risk in any of this. On the buying side of this issue the customers risk of future trouble is slim to none. Civil action is a non starter for you. It's not going to happen. If you're a dealer selling cans without a Form 4, I still think you're insane to do so without confirmation from your insurance that you are covered. If you're a non licensee buy away. If I could find another dealer in Ohio who would sell me a can as an individual on a 4473 with my Ohio destructive Ordnance License, I'd buy one in a heart beat. I have less visibility, different risk, and equally high potential consequence. I can have a can get lost or stolen and show up in some kind of crime later, to God knows what kind of trouble. My risk of civil retribution would be centered around a self-defense incident and is thankfully mitigated by Florida law, but other states don't necessarily have that protection on the books and Florida wouldn't have codified it if there wasn't an existing problem with the attacker or their friends/family going after a victim in civil court after the attacker dies or loses in criminal court. You also jump right past the potential consequences if the anti-gun faction in ATF regains power with a favorable change in government and goes after 4473 buyers through the FFLs that sold them. Your shop doesn't have a dog, does it? I have no idea what that whole Ohio thing is. Kind of makes sense why the damned zoomers turned you guys into a semi-perjorative term the more I hear about things there, though. Act within the bounds of your conscience and your tolerance for risk, personally and professionally. Just stop trying to shit in everyone else's cornflakes for trying to proceed at their own risk into potentially troubled waters. If you'd love to buy/sell on 4473s but insurance is the issue, maybe talk to some other FFLs or pro-2A groups and get some conversations going about mutual awareness and mutual aid. If insurance will cover you for "regular" operations but won't cover that specific thing, work with people in the industry to figure something out for it. Try and set something up so any shop that gets civilly targeted doesn't face it alone and unknown. I'm in for that GoFundMe or whatever, but I need to know it's happening. Tell me all that can't happen because it's difficult or scary or too much work or FFLs don't get along well enough to hang together on this one issue for everyone's eventual benefit and I'll tell you why the left wins and the right loses so often. Or just hang around calling people insane more, I guess. Either way, I'll be here, trying to figure out how the hell to get carbon out of a can that's all welded shut... 
|
Don't let the join date fool you... here since '97
Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
7391
EE: 100% (24)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: Because they never thought about this in terms of insurance. If all those dealers called their agents tomorrow and were told they aren't covered, every single one would stop selling suppressors without a Form 4. Ignorance is bliss. |
www.HansohnBrothers.com
|
Originally Posted By VacaDuck: My understanding with PA6-CF is higher rigidity and heat resistance. Huh, interesting. I would think the PA6 would still melt at the same point regardless of having a carbon fiber strand in it, so it'd just degrade and leave a bunch of useless string, but I'll go with it! |
|
Poll tax was illegal to begin with. The argument was invalid. A good argument in front of SCOTUS would end the tax bullshit. Yes, congress has the authority to tax. But poll taxes are illegal. Taxing rights is unconstitutional. Common use. Millions will be sold before the next liberal pres takes office. This SCOTUS will not invalidate millions of 2ndA rights when the cat is out of the bag. That part of NFA is not coming back. |
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: Huh, interesting. I would think the PA6 would still melt at the same point regardless of having a carbon fiber strand in it, so it'd just degrade and leave a bunch of useless string, but I'll go with it! The reason fiber filled nylon is popular is due to conventional nylon having a ton of issues with warping unless you have a very high temp heated chamber. it's a nightmare to print even on a good consumer machine. Adding the fibers helps stiffen the material as it prints and makes it much easier to print without warping. Also, the amorphous and matte texture is nice too. |
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: Because they never thought about this in terms of insurance. If all those dealers called their agents tomorrow and were told they aren't covered, every single one would stop selling suppressors without a Form 4. Ignorance is bliss. Scottsdale Gun Club has an estimated annual revenue of over $10,000,000. I'm sure there are plenty of other FFL's doing more business than SGC, but odds are slim to none that they didn't clear things with their attorneys and insurance. I feel for you, and what you've been through in the past. I would never blame or fault an FFL who doesn't want to do 4473 suppressors just yet. I hope that one day you might find a better insurance company. In the meantime if I lived in your AO I would have no problem doing Form 4's at your shop. |