Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 11/22/2002 10:36:43 PM EDT
Awhile back there was a thread about putting a suppressor or suppressed upper on a post ban AR15. Most of the armchair lawyers on here said it was illegal, quoting the ATF's position that silencers not only quiet the shot, but hide the flash. Thus, in their wisdom, the silencer was a flashhider too. Boss called up Dalphon and they said the same thing.

Now, the gun store where I work, we've had ATF ageants coming up to it because we're getting our Class II manufacturing licence (just got our SOT 7). They couldn't tell us an answer, but gave us the number for the Technology branch:

202-927-7910

They got confused at first, because of the word 'suppressor' they thought it meant a flash suppressor like a birdcage. That's of course not allowed on a postban. But they did say that you can put a silencer on a post ban gun (we were talking about AR15's) and it would NOT be a point on the assault weapon ban.

With this in mind, I'm going to save up for a suppressed .45acp upper and build a little post ban carbine.
Link Posted: 11/22/2002 10:43:17 PM EDT
Sounds like good news. I would try to get it in writing though.
Link Posted: 11/22/2002 11:07:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: Sounds like good news. I would try to get it in writing though.
View Quote
Ditto! I'd also add that you should also seek competent legal advice, maybe even to document &/or confirm any verbal &/or written statements you receive. You sure as hell don't want to get sucked into some money pit that an ignorant civil servant might be digging for you, because their mistake will cost [i]you[/i], not [i]them[/i]. Count on it. Beauracracies are legendary for being unorganized & ignorant of their own rules. I remember a case involving some poor guy who was moving to Kalifornya in the midst of their state registration/ban garbage. He inquired of both the BATF & the CA Bureau of Firearms, asking them if what he owned was legal. He was told his toys were legal (in writing, no less), but guess what happened when he moved in to the peoples' republic - too bad, so sad. Sorry you trusted us pal. It's sort of like trusting a scorpian not to sting, or a snake not to bite - you just gotta know they'll do it, even if they promise otherwise. Follow Mr. Murphy's advice: always have a backup plan - just in case.
Link Posted: 11/23/2002 2:03:49 AM EDT
ATF has stated in writing that a silencer is a flash suppressor. Sorry you are SOL and you wont get anything but that in writing we asked this over 2 years ago your idea is not new.
Link Posted: 11/23/2002 4:35:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2002 4:44:18 AM EDT by Noname]
[url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter51.txt[/url]
A firearm silencer or muffler would also function as an effective flash suppressor; therefore, a semiautomatic rifle, such as an AR- 15, having a silencer or muffler and a pistol grip would qualify as a semiautomatic assault weapon as that term is defined in section 921(a)(30)(B).
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/23/2002 4:56:06 AM EDT
Doesn't mean shit unless you have it on a letterhead from ATF tech branch. "Well, Your Honor, Agent Fife said that putting a silencer on my Colt Match Target was okay!" Uh..huh.
Link Posted: 11/23/2002 2:51:53 PM EDT
In the July 1999 issue of Small Arms Review a letter from the ATF is printed that addressed this exact issue. This is the letter that Noname provided a link to. ATF has been asked, ATF has answered. We don't lke the answer but it's what we are stuck with. I'd suggest calling the technology branch and asking them about that letter.
Link Posted: 11/23/2002 11:39:22 PM EDT
Plus it would have to be perminatly attached, no threads on a postban.
Link Posted: 11/24/2002 9:25:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2002 9:26:11 AM EDT by phonegunner]
No need for threads.... three or two lug it ... Ted... Edited cause I just can't type with one eye open...
Link Posted: 11/24/2002 10:02:32 AM EDT
Just build your carbine! If you have paper work on the can, nobody's going to bust your balls on the post ban. p.s. Tell them I said so!
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 4:23:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 4:23:44 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
I always wondered why Gem-tech had this sentence in their literature: [b]"A version of the Bi-Lock without flash hider slots is also available for those who prefer to not have the appearance of a flash hider. At Gemtech, we can install the Bi-Lock to meet BATF specifications for a permanent installation."[/b]
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 7:05:07 AM EDT
Well getting a contradictory answer from ATF is no big challenge. You can call them on the phone and get a different answer depending on who you talk to. My personal best is three different conflicting answers to a single question. Unless you get it in writing, I wouldn't bet my money/life/rifle on it.
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 6:44:59 PM EDT
A silencer is a NFA weapon by law. With that being said after you pay your $200 bucks and get all your signatures. I thought you could put it on any rifle. If I remember right while the silencer is on your Ar, under the current laws this would make your rifle a NFA weapon. Now here is the tricky part, I thought pre/post ban laws do not apply to NFA weapons. So now this opens another box. If your rifle is by law a NFA wepon it should be able to have a folding stock and lug. But it would still only be a semi auto, 16" barreled NFA weapon. Sorry no full auto yet that would require another $200 bucks tax and a chuck of change for a LL or a DIAS
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 6:51:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gdean: A silencer is a NFA weapon by law. With that being said after you pay your $200 bucks and get all your signatures. I thought you could put it on any rifle. If I remember right while the silencer is on your Ar, under the current laws this would make your rifle a NFA weapon. Now here is the tricky part, I thought pre/post ban laws do not apply to NFA weapons. So now this opens another box. If your rifle is by law a NFA wepon it should be able to have a folding stock and lug. But it would still only be a semi auto, 16" barreled NFA weapon. Sorry no full auto yet that would require another $200 bucks tax and a chuck of change for a LL or a DIAS
View Quote
Nope. You're confusing a suppresor ($200 tax) with a RDIAS or RLL (also a $200 tax). Putting a sound suppresor on your AR just makes it an AR with a sound suppresor. You're still subject to the Krime Bill. The written opinion of the BATF is that a sound suppresor functions as a flash suppresor also, therefore you can't put it on a post-ban weapon. Now, if you were to have a RDIAS or RLL and put IT into your post-ban AR, you have now turned your post-ban, semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. You can now hang anything you want on the thing as long as the RDIAS or RLL remains in the rifle. Once you take it out, all the "evil" stuff has to come off. ***DISCLAIMER*** I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on AR15.com. These opinions are formulated from posts I have read here, as well as my understanding of the '94 Krime Bill. Anyone, please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made. -Gloftoe *whew*
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 7:34:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2002 7:35:34 PM EDT by gdean]
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: Nope. You're confusing a suppresor ($200 tax) with a RDIAS or RLL (also a $200 tax). Putting a sound suppresor on your AR just makes it an AR with a sound suppresor.
View Quote
Check out [url]www.subguns.com[/url] NFA weapons are: machine guns, sound suppressors (a.k.a. silencers), short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, destructive devices and "any other weapons". "18 U.S.C. sec. 921(a)(24) "The term 'firearm silencer' or'firearm muffler' means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly orfabrication." As can be seen this covers improvised sound suppressors, and component parts of a sound suppressor. There is no thresh hold level of sound reduction for something to fall under this definition. ATF used to require the device "appreciably" lower the sound (see Revenue Ruling 57-38) In general recoil compensators and flash hiders do not fall under this definition, but some designs could fall into the category. As with any borderline device the thing to do is to get a written opinion from the Technology Branch of ATF."
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 8:17:30 PM EDT
While you are correct in that a sound suppresor is indeed an NFA item, you are mistaken in thinking that putting one on your semi-auto rifle (AR15) makes said weapon exempt from the '94 Krime Bill. The AR15 is STILL an AR15. It is STILL subject to the restrictions of the '94 Krime Bill (detachable magazine, pistol grip, and NO OTHER of the "assault weapons" features.) What my point is, is that pre/post ban laws don't apply to MACHINE GUNS. They apply to semi-auto rifles. Putting a sound suppresor on your AR doesn't make it a machine gun. It makes it an semi-auto rifle with a sound suppresor (and in the written opinion of the BATF, an illegal "assault rifle" if said suppresor is installed in conjunction with a post-ban receiver). -Gloftoe
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 11:53:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: It is STILL subject to the restrictions of the '94 Krime Bill (detachable magazine, pistol grip, and NO OTHER of the "assault weapons" features.) What my point is, is that pre/post ban laws don't apply to MACHINE GUNS.
View Quote
Actually they also do not apply to an AOW. Who would like an AOW AR15 pistol? You can have all the nasties, put a suppressor on it and have a lot of fun. In fact you will have a short barrel to boot!
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 11:56:55 PM EDT
budam, good point! Are my other points correct regarding my above posts? If there are any wrong statements that you can see, correct me!! -Gloftoe
Link Posted: 11/26/2002 12:32:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By budam: Actually they also do not apply to an AOW. Who would like an AOW AR15 pistol? You can have all the nasties, put a suppressor on it and have a lot of fun. In fact you will have a short barrel to boot!
View Quote
(smartassmode) Ahh but you CANT have an AOW 'pistol'. An AOW is be definition NOT a pistol! [:P] (/smartassmode) Sorry couldnt resist. But yeah, can make an AOW and throw the kitchen sink on it as long as it doesnt 1) have a shoulder stock, 2) fire more than once at each pull of the trigger, 3) have only one handgrip.
Link Posted: 11/26/2002 8:30:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/26/2002 8:31:14 AM EDT by lmalterna]
Since you guys have obviously spent a great deal of time researching the suppressor issue, I would love to hear comments on this system by Jerry Rice: http://www.norcalprecision.com/nighthawkmuzzlebrakesystemphotos.html This interests me a great deal but I would like to hear your opinions. This appears to be nothing more than a large expansion chamber but vented at the rear and without the tight front clearance opening of a true suppressor- is this enough of a difference to placate the BATF??
Link Posted: 11/26/2002 9:58:09 AM EDT
re: Norcal's Tactical Vent System, I would hope Jerry Rice has run it past BATF's Tech Branch and gotten a written ruling on it. They will test a unit and if it can be shown to reduce the sound signature by any measurable amount -- even one decebel -- it is classed as a suppressor. Remember, when Colt developed the Modulator for the XM177 shorties, they were a device to increase back pressure and improve functioning -- but BATF discovered that if you took them off an M16 and put them on a .22 RF rifle they would reduce the sound signature, and so the XM1776 Modulators are classed by BATF as suppressors. As far as Norcal's design, it's cool but PRICEY! $600 installed on the customer's gun? At that rate I would just biite the bullet and put on a Gemtech TPR-S suppressor ($625). Yup, you've got a $200 tax to pay, but you get all the benefits of Norcal's flash hider PLUS a 28 db reduction. YMMV.
Link Posted: 11/26/2002 12:23:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I always wondered why Gem-tech had this sentence in their literature: [b]"A version of the Bi-Lock without flash hider slots is also available for those who prefer to not have the appearance of a flash hider. At Gemtech, we can install the Bi-Lock to meet BATF specifications for a permanent installation."[/b]
View Quote
Yes but their literature also says...
POST-BAN WEAPON NOTE concerning mounting the M4-96D or other sound suppressor on a so-called "post ban" assault weapon: BATF has ruled that a sound suppressor functions as an efficient flash hider. Although a non-slotted bi-lock can be permanently mounted on most .223 caliber weapons, attachment of the suppressor itself may place the user in violation of federal law, depending on the type and number of other cosmetic changes to the underlying semi-automatic weapon (pistol grip, folding stock, etc.).
View Quote
From [url]http://www.gem-tech.com/m4-96d.html[/url] So, you can have the Bi-Lock.... you can't LEGALLY use the silencer mounted on it when the upper is on a post ban! Also note, there are quite a few people with SR-25 Mk 11 Mod 0s that have bought silencers for them. These are all POST BAN weapons which has to make one scratch their head? As recommended, I would call the ATF and get the advise in writing as I still beleave it to be illegal to do!
Link Posted: 11/27/2002 6:01:08 AM EDT
Tony, Jerry has been through the BATF approval and can provide a copy of approval for this device. It is a great option for those living in states with rulings of their own about suppressors or with C.O.P. s that will not grant approval on the federal form. For me, for that money- I CAN get approval and would mount an AWC or Gemtech. I am looking for a solution to the comp problems(blasting my spotter or dust/vegatation disturbance) and something like a FF tube would allow the comp to do its job but then redirect the blast to the front. The comp lets me see the impact and send a correction(if needed) immediately. This would have to be on a preban as it would be a flash suppressor. Fo nro this is just an idea I have kicked around with a 'smith that holds a maufacture license and has BATF ties- THIS HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED YET. Just kicking it around.
Top Top