Innovator Enterprises, Inc vs ATF

[Bubbles]

Summary: Because the ATF has no defined standard for what a silencer is/is not, its determination letter stating that Innovator Enterprises, Inc's "stabilizer brake" is a silencer failed both the Chevron and Barnhart tests, and the ATF's determination was arbitrary and capricious.

ATF also has no standard/well-defined meaning of an "80% receiver", or of what "readily convertible" is for a semi-auto versus machine gun.

Innovator Enterprises, Inc vs ATF

 

[Arizona_Mike]

While I love the Court's analysis, this is just a remand back to the ATF. I suspect they will just be less flippant in reaching the same conclusion and this will end up in court again.

The "mother may I?" approach to the firearms industry remains unchanged.

Mike

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

From the link...

...Classification Letter, AR at 15. As will be discussed in greater detail below...

Giggle.

 

[N003k]

Even if they (The ATF) still find it to be a silencer...at least a court ruling like this pretty much is going to force them to determine it based on the sound dampening qualities, or lack thereof.

I love the rulings references to other things that share 3 traits with completely different things...especially "And a Bud Light is not "Single-Malt Scotch," just because it is frequently served in a glass container, contains alcohol, and is available for purchase at a tavern."

 

[MagnumDweeb]

I read it and it seems like a good ruling to me. Basically the judge looks at the ATF's actions and tells them they can't drink from the fountain on the other side of the road without actually crossing the road. The ATF had the ability to use its sophisticated expertise to determine if the muzzle brake functioned as a silencer but did not do so. Instead it simple examined it's physical characteristics without testing to reach its conclusion that it was a silencer. Thus it acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

This hopefully ends up as a good precedent (case law) for when folks submit samples of their products for testing and the ATF blithely determines the product to be illegal without having actually conducted any performance testing.

For example if you wanted to build a device that allowed for simulated(solely in appearance to the observer but not the shooter) fully automatic fire that did not actually cause the firearm to fire fully automatically, and the ATF, instead of actually testing the firearm based on the defining principles of a machine gun. Went ahead and just labeled it a machine gun. Understanding that a machine gun essentially is a firearm that fires two or more rounds upon a single trigger pull, or allows continuous firing with just a unmoving contracted digit on the trigger holding the trigger down. If the device did not allow for either, and the ATF's test showed that it did not allow for either, then one would have to think it was then not a machine gun. Thus why one would want the legal precedent of being able to force the ATF to actually have to conduct testing.

 

[wildbilll]

I am going to go out on a limb here and predict the BATFE is going to be more worried about how, when using a more scientific criteria for analysis of new submissions, it will affect previous determinations. We may be looking at products that have letters of determination rescinded.

 

[barnbwt]

Yup. People with linear compensators often remark how they drop sound levels. Hell, we may get into a situations where long barrels are treated as silencers. Besides, the ATF still gets to arbitrarily set the decibel reduction limit, so what exactly has changed, other than that they are forced to "look" less arbitrary and capricious? I think the judge was really telling them to 'cover up' and look presentable, is all, because legitimizing their positions would make the judiciary look stupid.

I'm all in favor of applying laws logically, but the law is so vague and poorly written that it cannot be applied logically without enumerable unintended impacts. The law says devices designed to drop sound levels; it actually says nothing about effectiveness, so why are we now measuring it? If I build a 9mm carbine and put a 20" barrel on instead of the minimum 16" so it will be as quiet as a suppressed gun --and state so on a public forum-- am I in position of a silencer when I attach the barrel (or simply turn the threads, or chamber it, or etc.)? Does a gas-cutoff valve that prevents gas from operating the action and exiting to emit a goodly bit of noise count as a suppressor? An AR70 or FAL with the gas cut off is demonstrably quieter, after all.

TCB

 

[dogtown tom]

barnbwt .... Hell, we may get into a situations where long barrels are treated as silencers.....

Might want to rethink that one.

 

[tyeo098]

Might want to rethink that one.

If a 'normal' barrel operates at a sound level of 160db, and a 'target barrel' reduces the sound by 30db (hypotetically )due to the extra length, how could that not be classified as a suppressor by using sound reduction only as the qualifier?

 

[dogtown tom]

tyeo098 Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
Might want to rethink that one.

If a 'normal' barrel operates at a sound level of 160db, and a 'target barrel' reduces the sound by 30db (hypotetically )due to the extra length, how could that not be classified as a suppressor by using sound reduction only as the qualifier?

Seriously?
Federal law already permits firearms to have barrels...........as a matter of fact a barrel is required on a rifle or shotgun. And the National Firearms Act restricts non NFA firearm with a MINIMUM barrel length...........and no maximum. To regulate a maximum barrel length would require amending the NFA.

As far as "normal" barrel vs "target" barrel? Federal law nor ATF regs define "normal barrel"............until they do any argument that a longer barrel is the same as a silencer is just plain silly.

 

[tyeo098]

any argument that a longer barrel is the same as a silencer is just plain silly.

Any argument that a 14" shoelace and a keyring is a machinegun is silly, but here it is: http://jpfo.org/images02/shoestring.jpg

Yet they would come from the same people.

 

[Jim K]

Since the only statutory requirement is that the device reduce sound, FTB's statement that that is the one thing they do NOT consider seems a bit absurd, something the court immediately picked up on.

Jim

 

[barnbwt]

"Federal law already permits firearms to have barrels...........as a matter of fact a barrel is required on a rifle or shotgun. And the National Firearms Act restricts non NFA firearm with a MINIMUM barrel length...........and no maximum. To regulate a maximum barrel length would require amending the NFA."

Actually, the laws of physics require firearms to have barrels (otherwise the whole thing kinda falls apart). Yes, the minimums are clearly stipulated (though not as clearly as one might think fixed numbers would make things), but the silencer law makes no distinction as to how the noise reduction is accomplished, so long as a 'device' is designed with that express purpose. Choosing a barrel long enough that it will reduce noise, intentionally, is 'attaching a noise-reducing device to a firearm'

What I'm saying, is that a 20" 9mm barrel isn't much different from a 10" integrally suppressed barrel, if you base the criteria on actual noise reduction. The other interesting question is "since the law stipulates noise reduction as the criteria; noise reduction from what, exactly?" One might be inclined to say as reduced from a simple barrel of the same length, but nowhere in the law is that codified --so it'd be open to the worst-case interpretation. Also, it is not specified what 'reduction' even means; as measured from where? Muzzle devices have great affect on directing noise, and some with expansion chambers even reduce or alter it. Many actually need such chambers to function; are they now banned?

Like I said, a 'reasonable' sounding criteria, but replete with unintended consequences. A duck blind and a potato would at least not be affected, since the law does at least stipulate the device must be attached (I think)

TCB

 

[Ryanxia]

I would love to see a real set of criteria for a silencer. I think it was Sig at one point made a barrel where the last part of it was basically the baffles of a suppressor but no covering. It therefore did not reduce sound at all, but theoretically one could modify it by placing a solid body around that part of the barrel and it would reduce DB. That barrel was ruled to fall within NFA.

 

[dogtown tom]

Ryanxia I would love to see a real set of criteria for a silencer. I think it was Sig at one point made a barrel where the last part of it was basically the baffles of a suppressor but no covering. It therefore did not reduce sound at all, but theoretically one could modify it by placing a solid body around that part of the barrel and it would reduce DB. That barrel was ruled to fall within NFA.

That was the GSG5......an HK MP5 clone imported by ATI before HK pitched a fit. The gun with the original fake suppressor was initially approved for importation. After ATF saw how easily the barrel and fake suppressor combination could be easily converted to a "real" suppressor they told ATI to recall those fake suppressors. It was kinda funny, they wanted dealers to collect them from customers and return them in bulk, THEN they would send the customer a replacement fake suppressor that met ATF's requirements.

I believe ATI sold around 13,000 before ATF told them they were illegal.

Here's what was posted on the ATI website:

To all retail customers:

On January 2010 American Tactical Imports Inc received official notification from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and explosives that the original barrel shroud (aka: fake suppressor) supplied with your GSG 5 SD model must be replaced. It has been determined that this shroud is regulated under the National Firearms Act. American Tactical will provide a replacement shroud at no charge for each GSG 5 SD model sold or currently in inventory.

Consumers in possession of a GSG 5 SD model with the original shroud in place on the firearm are now in violation of the NFA. To avoid continued violation of the NFA, ATI asks that all persons in possession obtain a replacement shroud as soon as possible. We anticipate arrival of the new shrouds to begin by the middle of February 2010.

IMPORTANT: THE ORIGINAL SD MODEL SHROUD MUST BE RETURNED ACOMPANIED BY THE FIREARM SERIAL NUMBER BEFORE A REPLACEMENT SHROUD IS ISSUED. THE DIAMETER OF THE SD SHROUD IS 1-9/16â€. DO NOT RETURN THE SMALLER CARBINE SHROUD.

WHAT TO DO:

If possible return your old shroud to the dealer where purchased and show him this notice. The shroud will be returned to ATI along with a list of serial numbers from the guns that the shrouds were removed. ATI will send replacements to the dealer for pick up at your convenience; ATI will be sending replacements as fast as logistics allow. If your dealer is out of business or difficult to reach, or you purchased your gun used, from a consumer, return the shroud directly by US mail or UPS to American Tactical Imports Inc. 100 Airpark Drive Rochester, NY 14624.

PLEASE TRY NOT TO CALL US. We will provide comprehensive information on our web site www.americantactical.us , and www.ar15.com or by e-mail to [email protected]

REMEMBER, INCLUDE THE FIREARM SERIAL NUMBER WITH EACH SHROUD OR A REPLACEMENT WILL NOT BE ISSUED.

This action IS NOT being instituted through any fault and is strictly due to NFA compliance. American Tactical will assume the responsibility to satisfy the requirements in an effort to minimize the impact on our customers and protect your investment.

We at American Tactical Imports Inc. sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused by this unfortunate situation.

Sincerely,
Anthony DiChario
President C.E.O. retailcandoc.02/12/10