Btw they didn't say "many", they said; "Numerous...
man·y
/ˈmenē/
determiner, pronoun, & adjective
- 1.
a large number of.
"many people agreed with her"
synonyms: numerous, a great/good deal of, a lot of, a large/great number of, great quantities of, plenty of, countless, innumerable, scores of, crowds of, droves of, an army of, a horde of, a multitude of, a multiplicity of, multitudinous, numberless, multiple, untold;
nu·mer·ous
/ˈn(y)o͞om(ə)rəs/
adjective
great in number; many.
"he has attended numerous meetings and social events"
synonyms: many, a lot of, a great many, very many, countless, scores of, innumerable;
The two words are synonymous. Trying to focus down very narrowly and wrangling about definitions of specific words makes it hard to see the big picture.
We have more information that will help us see the big picture. If "all" were the intended meaning then the second FAQ answer, wouldn't make any sense. And the second FAQ answer really doesn't make sense if you posit that their goal is to "tell airgunners to leave us alone" because they specifically state that airgunners should contact them if they have further questions.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-...ion-paintball-or-airgun-silencer-who-should-I
If I have any further questions as to the classification of a paintball or airgun silencer, who should I contact?
Please send a written request to ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV, 24505 or by fax at: (304) 616–4301.
Why provide contact information for questions about airgun silencers if you don't want people to contact you? Why have people contact you for specific rulings if "all" airgun silencers are regulated items? It just doesn't make sense.
Since most airgun suppressors are simply threaded on, that makes them illegal right there, does it not?
That's why, from the very beginning I've distinguished carefully between integral silencers and removable silencers, just as the BATF did in that ruling.
Removable airgun silencers MAY be legal based on reading and interpreting the BATF FAQs normally, but of the ones that they have tested, many/numerous are not. Crooker's case demonstrates that at least one airgun silencer has been shown to be legal in court, however I think everyone agrees that the risk is too great. It is safest to assume that removable silencers are illegal. That is one thing to learn from the Crooker case, but
the biggest value of the Crooker case is in making it crystal clear that the BATF WILL attempt prosecution for people who have removable silencers, even if they're not on a firearm--even if the person doesn't possess a firearm.
However, integral airgun silencers are clearly legal per the BATF ruling quoted.
It says they're legal as long as you have to destroy the gun to get the suppressor off.
That's not exactly what it says, but it is very clear that integral airgun silencers are legal, isn't it? Since you admit that you understand what it says in this case, you will have to look for some other way to discount that legality in order to defend your overall position. Let's see where that will take us.
ALL the suppressors I've seen can be removed without destroying the gun.
To remove them in some semblance of working order, the barrel, or at least a part of the barrel must be removed with them. If I came over and sawed the barrels off of all your airguns, I doubt you would be happy with my assertion that I didn't destroy them.
However, we don't need to, and we shouldn't get down into the weeds and argue about exactly what "destroy" means because that's not really the point.
Arguing about precisely what constitutes destruction is focusing very narrowly on a single part of the ruling and trying to pretend that is the whole of the ruling--this is starting to be a pattern in your reasoning. Reading the whole ruling makes things very clear and obviates any need to wrangle about the exact meaning of "destroy".
The second quote from the ruling makes things very clear. The unregulated status of the integral silencer was due to the fact that it was "permanently attached to an unregulated item" and removing it changes that fact. The ruling states explicitly that removing it changes its status from unregulated to regulated. It's really impossible to read that statement and come to any conclusion other than that integral airgun silencers are unregulated. If they WERE regulated, then it would be absolute nonsense to say that removing them is a violation of the NFA act. If they were illegal as integral silencers they would already be a violation of the NFA act when attached and removing them wouldn't change anything at all.
Lastly; it never mentioned airguns, the whole thing was about paintball guns.
Paintball guns, by any reasonable definition, are airguns. They are airguns that shoot painballs while pellet guns are airguns that shoot pellets and BB guns are airguns that shoot BBs.
But again, you're focusing very narrowly on one very specific aspect as a way of ignoring the main point when the main point is clear if you just step back at look at the big picture instead of trying to ignore the big picture and wrangle about tiny details. The exact classification of the item that the silencer is permanently attached to is not relevant--the relevant point is that the item the silencer is permanently attached to is an
unregulated item.
The item that the silencer is permanently attached to doesn't even have to be any kind of projectile dispenser at all--as long as the silencer is permanently attached to some item that is not a firearm and as long as the silencer can't be used as a firearm silencer while it is permanently attached to that item, it is unregulated. In that case, the ruling says that removing it so that it could be used/adapted for use on a firearm would be a violation of the NFA act because it would be changing an unregulated item into a silencer--into a regulated item. Changing it from legal to illegal.
The Crooker suppressor was, imo, a full blown firearm suppressor.
Not in the court's opinion--and not to put too fine a point on it, that's really the opinion that matters.
...it's also pretty clear they don't care as long it's not on a firearm.
This is absolutely false. A removable silencer is an NFA item even when it's not on a firearm. Even if it is possessed by a person who doesn't have a firearm. It is a regulated item in and of itself--that regulation does not stem from the fact that it is or isn't on a firearm.
The only way foolproof way to show that a silencer is NOT a regulated item is to attach it permanently to an unregulated item in such a way that it can not be used as a firearm silencer without defeating that permanent attachment.
If there's one thing the Crooker case does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is that the BATF WILL prosecute for silencers that aren't on a firearm. That's how the entire case came to be--they found Crooker in possession of a silencer that wasn't on a firearm.
I'm getting the feeling you'll never see what I see...
I see exactly what you see and why you see it.
But we don't agree because we are coming at this from two very different directions. I'm looking at the information and seeing where it leads, you are very heavily invested in a position that you must defend regardless of what the information says because to do otherwise would be to admit to yourself and others that you have put yourself in serious legal jeopardy by possessing homemade silencers without following the NFA laws.
The information is clear and unambiguous. In fact, it's quite simple to resolve the questions that surround the topic by reading through just what has been posted and linked on this thread.
I can see that you want to change my mind, but the information available just doesn't support your position. I can look at the facts and easily see what reality is and I don't have any incentive to try to twist what is clear to try to make it say something else because I'm not invested one way or the other.
Besides, changing my mind wouldn't do you any good because my opinion doesn't really matter in the big picture. Do you think you could convince Crooker that the BATF won't prosecute people for having removable airgun silencers that aren't attached to firearms? Do you think you could convince the court that ruled in Crooker's favor, that airgun silencers are always illegal? Do you think you could convince the BATF that their ruling about integral airgun silencers means something other than it clearly says? Doing any of those impossible things would get you somewhere--except that they can't be done.
Anyway, I'm not really trying to convince you at this point. Don't get me wrong, I would like you to understand the situation so you don't get into trouble--I don't like the idea of anyone being prosecuted for NFA violations because I think the NFA is unconstitutional. But I can see that unfortunately, you're too heavily invested to change your views on this topic, regardless of what evidence is presented.
Others will read this thread and I'm hoping to help them avoid getting in to trouble.