Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/16/2003 4:45:44 PM EDT
Hi all...

Is it legal to have a suppressor on a post-ban rifle? Obviously you can't have a threaded barrel, but I understand there may be some that latch on to certain brakes or something.

I'm interested in suppressing a post-ban upper legally. Can someone point me in the right direction as far as equipment?
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 5:11:43 PM EDT
Not possible on a semi-auto post-ban AR with a detachable mag.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 5:22:26 PM EDT
I look at it this way... If I pay the fucking 200 dollars to get the dog gone can, I'm putting it on whatever fuggin' gun I want.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 7:23:01 PM EDT
Hey Mark, if you have time next week , maybe we can do some work on your sentence structure. [thinking]
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 8:13:11 PM EDT
If you wanted to try to make sure you could minimize your chance of being prosecuted (even though no one has as far as I know been prosecuted on a FH-equipped Post ban)- you could buy a (well this is harder than I thought [Gemtech and KAC probably need the length to keep allignment and can't be turned down, AAC's M4 2000 has threads,] I guess your only alternative would be a setup like the M4-3L Titanium 3-lug(mount perm attached) sound suppressor made of titanium that sells for a totally obscene price. The name of the company escapes me. then you could remove it when neccessary as long as it wasn't really hot which it easilly could be. [b]the best idea for legality is to go thumbhole with the JP Enterprises A2 style wire connected Houge gripped thumbhole setup and then you can have the permanently attached FH.[/b]
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 8:20:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Green0: [b]the best idea for legality is to go thumbhole with the JP Enterprises A2 style wire connected Houge gripped thumbhole setup and then you can have the permanently attached FH.[/b]
View Quote
Nope. Thumbhole stocks do NOT get buy the 94 Krime bill. It's still a pistol-gripped stock.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 8:59:44 AM EDT
i was told by my class 2 manufacturer that i could install a silencer on a postban. he had spoke with atf and they did say a silencer was also flash suppressor. he has adapters for post ban rifles so no threading is required. his statement to me was that atf ruled that a silencer was a flash suppressor, but it was not part of the law. i don't understand all the techical lawyer stuff. tech brute, he is in corpus christi, tx. who have you been talking to in texas?
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 9:44:29 AM EDT
Noone yet. I just got a wild hair and so I'm in the info gathering phase.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 9:51:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GDITheman: i was told by my class 2 manufacturer that i could install a silencer on a postban. he had spoke with atf and they did say a silencer was also flash suppressor. he has adapters for post ban rifles so no threading is required. his statement to me was that atf ruled that a silencer was a flash suppressor, but it was not part of the law.
View Quote
I don't think whether the flash supressor is on a threaded barrel or not is the critical issue. The law prohibits "a flash suppressor [red]or[/red] threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor."
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 10:05:01 AM EDT
i agree, but the class 2 guy said that each item can only have one definition. so is it a flash hider or a silencer? he says it can't be both. if it was a flash hider he could sell them with the transfer tax. again, these are his statements. maybe he is techincally correct. maybe we all need a lawyer in our pocket before we buy a gun today.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 10:46:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GDITheman: i agree, but the class 2 guy said that each item can only have one definition. so is it a flash hider or a silencer? he says it can't be both. if it was a flash hider he could sell them with the transfer tax. again, these are his statements. maybe he is techincally correct. maybe we all need a lawyer in our pocket before we buy a gun today.
View Quote
He's absolutely wrong. The BATF has ruled (and I believe there's a letter stating so) that a sound suppressor is an effective flash suppressor as well.
"if i was a flash hider he could sell them with the transfer tax."
View Quote
is false, because a flash suppressor is NOT an NFA item, therefore can't be sold with a transfer tax. It is specifically banned by the 94 Krime bill, unless you are MIL/LEO.
"...but the class 2 guy said that each item can only have one definition. so is it a flash hider or a silencer? he says it can't be both."
View Quote
Not to be disrespectful or anything, but "he says" means exactly jack shit when it comes to dealing with firearm laws, and the BATF. Does he have a letter from the Tech. Branch? If he doesn't, take EVERYTHING he says (relating to firearms) with a grain of salt. He's telling you things that can get you into REAL trouble if you do them.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 11:06:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GDITheman: i agree, but the class 2 guy said that each item can only have one definition. so is it a flash hider or a silencer? he says it can't be both. if it was a flash hider he could sell them with the transfer tax. again, these are his statements. maybe he is techincally correct. maybe we all need a lawyer in our pocket before we buy a gun today.
View Quote
Its kind of like the guys who thought they could get around the AWB by registering an M4 as a SBR. That did not work. [>Q] Registering an item does not make the AWB inaplicable.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 11:20:10 AM EDT
"Nope. Thumbhole stocks do NOT get buy the 94 Krime bill. It's still a pistol-gripped stock" That sounds like BS to me. The evil feature is a "prominent pistol grip" and they got around that on AK's with a thumbhole stock. So they should be able to do the same on an AR and buy one more evil feature. You could also possibly mount a KAC M4QD or Gemtech M496D FH mount that was modified with the "milled removal of the FH flukes or whatever they are called" you would probably weaken the design.... Actually [b]You should find Cold Blue and ask him if it would be possible to modify an M4QD mount to make it NOT A FH. (I remember hearing about how one batch of FH's were not tempered correctly and the FH cracked up forward of the locking area but the mount was still functional just without the FH being functional.)[/b] This way you would have a quick detachable sound suppressor that in itself is legal and a mount that in and of itself is legal and your rifle would only be in violation with the suppressor attached. (so it would technically be legal and the only way it would be ilegal is when the suppressor was attached.) In the rare and highly unlikely even that someone gives you shit about it just remove the sound suppressor. [b]If you walk around gunshows at least in my area looking for a pre-ban you will find a lot of postban AR's in pre-ban configuration at the tables of rip-off artists trying to make money selling at pre-ban prices. THE BAN IS NOT ENFORCED OR THAT WOULD NOT BE HAPPENING. In short if your area is like mine I would buy any sound suppressor I wanted and mount it on a postban if need be. My personal AR is a hunting gun and has to be legal in case a warden would check it out (game wardens are assholes and I want to hunt with a sound suppressor to protect my hearing as suppressors are legal in WI for hunting)- so it is a preban POS Olyarms reciever with brownells Moly Coating on it. [/b]
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 11:25:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 11:31:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: Not to be disrespectful or anything, but "he says" means exactly jack shit when it comes to dealing with firearm laws, and the BATF. Does he have a letter from the Tech. Branch? If he doesn't, take EVERYTHING he says (relating to firearms) with a grain of salt. He's telling you things that can get you into REAL trouble if you do them.
View Quote
i hear you. this is why i am discussing it here. i question what he says also, but part of me hopes he may be technically correct somehow and i can put a suppressor on a post ban. does anyone have a link to the atf ruling where they state a silencer is a flash hider?
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 11:33:50 AM EDT
troy, at this time, do you think that there is some room in the law to allow a silencer on a post ban?
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 12:27:08 PM EDT
[url]http://www.gem-tech.com/m4-96d.html[/url] Read the bottom of this page... 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.).
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 12:43:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevL: [url]http://www.gem-tech.com/m4-96d.html[/url] Read the bottom of this page... 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
i have read this a few times and this is why i'd like to see the atf ruling. i agree that it doesn't look good for putting a silencer on a post ban gun, but my class 2 guy and troy seem to think there may be some gray area. i'm searching for the gray baby.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 1:11:46 PM EDT
I had extensive Email correspondance with Gemtech 2 years ago. They consulted the ATF directly. The ATF said no. If things have changed I would like to see proof.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 1:41:52 PM EDT
devl, me too. i need to see the atf ruling and need to know how the ruling effects the enforcement of the law.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 1:46:53 PM EDT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 MAR 25 1999 903050:CHB 3311 Dear Mr. Bardwell: This refers to your letter of January 13, 1999, in which you ask about flash suppressors. As you are aware, the term flash suppressor appears in the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon in section 921(a)(30) of Title 18, United States Code. The term flash suppressor is not specifically defined in the statute. A flash suppressor is a device which diminishes the visible flash which occurs at the muzzle of a firearm as the bullet leaves the barrel. While certain devices are exclusively designed as flash suppressors, many other muzzle attachments are designed to perform multiple functions such as a combination flash suppressor and grenade launcher, or a combination flash suppressor and muzzle break. Any such combination devices which function as a flash suppressor would qualify as a flash suppressor for purposes of section 921(a)(30)(B)(iv). 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). We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have further questions concerning this matter, please contact us. Sincerely yours, Edward M. Owen, Jr. Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 1:56:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Green0: "Nope. Thumbhole stocks do NOT get buy the 94 Krime bill. It's still a pistol-gripped stock" That sounds like BS to me. The evil feature is a "prominent pistol grip" and they got around that on AK's with a thumbhole stock. So they should be able to do the same on an AR and buy one more evil feature.
View Quote
They got around that on AK's for the 89 import ban. The 94 Krime bill is totally different, and I _believe_ there is a letter from the ATF Technology Branch stating that a thumbhole stock does NOT get around the pistolgrip deal. If that were the case, we'd see thumbhole stocks on every AR out there, just to circumvent the ban. And there wouldn't be abominations like [url=http://gogogadgets.net/whats_new.htm]this[/url] around. It may sound like BS to you, but the sad fact is that it's NOT bs. The 89 ban and the 94 ban have relatively little to do with each other. Only good thing is we have a chance with the 94 ban, as it sunsets in less than a year.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 2:01:43 PM EDT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Washington, DC 20226 MAY 11 1998 F:SD:FTB:CHB 3311 Dear Mr : This refers to your letter of April 13, 1998, in which you ask about modifications to certain semiautomatic rifles. Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.) section 922(r) prohibits assembly of certain semiautomatic rifles from imported parts. The implementing regulation in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, part 178, section 178.39, provides that no person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of imported parts listed in paragraph(c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes. Certain firearms including the MAK 90 semiautomatic rifle were prohibited from importation, on April 6, 1998, and they cannot now be assembled from imported parts as provided in the cited sections. Such firearms which were imported or assembled prior to April 6, 1998, in compliance with the cited section may still lawfully be possessed. Adding a pistol grip and buttstock to a MAK 90 rifle using more than 10 imported parts would still constitute assembly of a semiautomatic rifle subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. section 922(r) and 27 CFR section 178.39. Adding a thumbhole stock to an AK style semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 imported parts would now also constitute assembly of a semiautomatic rifle subject to the cited sections. A MAK 90 style rifle having a thumbhole style stock with a pistol grip, but none of the other features listed in the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)(B), would not meet the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon. The "grandfather" exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 922(v)(2) applies only to a semiautomatic assault weapon which was lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the statute. A rifle which did not meet the definition of a semiautomatic on September 13, 1994, does not qualify for this exemption. A firearm which became a semiautomatic assault weapon after September 13, 1994, is subject to the prohibition in section 922(v). We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have further questions concerning this matter, please contact us. Sincerely yours, Curtis H.A. Bartlett Acting Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 2:03:34 PM EDT
Okay, IB. Where are you getting all these BATF letters? [:D]
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 2:43:26 PM EDT
[url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/law.html[/url]
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 3:38:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: However, I have been given some information from a reliable source that ATF's position, as given on a letter 8 years ago, has been reevaluated. While I have nothing substantive to give you to back this up, this comes from a source that is both very thorough and cautious about these things.
View Quote
I know a few folks were trying to get ATF to waive it for 45 & 9mm rifles, since there was no measurable flash reduction. (due to lack of flash at the start. :) don't know how that arguement ever went, but I doubt ATF cared.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 8:25:53 PM EDT
IMHO Dont fuck with the ATF no matter what state your in!Go getta class 3
Link Posted: 10/18/2003 5:28:45 AM EDT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Washington, DC 20226 OCTOBER 11 2003 F:SD:FTB:CHB 3311 Dear Mr : Put your suppressor on whatever you want. These laws are total horse shit in the first place. Pass this info on to all your fat internet friends! Sincerely yours, Curtis H.A. Bartlett Acting Chief, Firearms Technology Branch [/quote]
Link Posted: 10/18/2003 8:24:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By markm: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Washington, DC 20226 OCTOBER 11 2003 Curtis H.A. Bartlett Acting Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
View Quote
View Quote
***Pretty funny! Copy and distribute widely! :) However, nice try - but Sterling Nixon has been the new chief of the branch for a while now... :) kel
Link Posted: 10/18/2003 3:51:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/18/2003 3:52:23 PM EDT by JoshNC]
You could put a sound suppressor on a postban if you you set it up as follows: Use a Gemtech M496D or SWR Specwar2 which both mount via a bi-lock. Have Gemtech blind pin and weld on one of their bi-locks that is a muzzle break and not a flash-hider. Then, to remain legal with the sound suppressor attached, you would have to use one of the bastardized chopped grips as offered by ZM weapons and some other place in California. Of course, I would write a letter to ATF just to get their blessing on this setup, but it should pass their scrutiny. Josh
Link Posted: 10/18/2003 6:53:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kel: However, nice try - but Sterling Nixon has been the new chief of the branch for a while now... :) kel
View Quote
Well well... I weeded out an ATF agent! What do I win???
Link Posted: 10/18/2003 9:33:44 PM EDT
Whatever there are a lot of guys on this site that write letters or have written letters at some point to the ATF. Also people who deal with the ATF (to get tax stamps, register SBRs etc.) That's all it would take to know that. [b]I was thinking and I'll bet you the only people who know that the ATF may think a sound suppressor is a FH (I am not even completely sure now that I read about that no 2 classifications BS) are people on this site (advanced users and very knowledgeable people) I would doubt you would ever run into anyone who would know that and that is the whole premise for this legality issue. Mount it on whatever you want (no-one has been prosecuted and very few people even know the rules for sure anyway.) That Bi-lock idea was great I would do that.
Top Top