Ruling In SIG Muzzle Brake Case

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://www.guns.com/2015/08/19/judge-hands-atf-potential-win-over-sig-muzzle-device/

Bizarre remand on a point of law where both parties stipulated to the facts IIRC; but a ruling of sorts.

 

[Devonai]

I'm surprised there's this much hulabaloo over an issue that seems, to me, to be the same as possessing both an AR-15 and a FA fire control group. If an individual owns both the brake and the sleeve, then the onus should be on them, not Sig nor the supplier of the sleeve.

Of course, I think that suppressors should be legal anyway, and the mere act of owning two separate items that could be combined into something regulated is dumb. But you'd think they'd simply go with the machine gun parts rule for this, too.

 

[Ryanxia]

Disappointing. At least he reiterated that he wants the ATF to set a standard for what is classified as a silencer. I mean oil filters should all be pulled off the shelves if Sig's muzzle brake is classified as a silencer. The fact that shoe strings are considered machine guns but 'exempt' just shows that all this NFA crap needs to get thrown out so we can all move on with life.

 

[danez71]

So the next battle will probably be based on this part of what the judge said:

Yet, the judge said the ATF failed to directly state in court documents leading up to the hearing that it thought Sig intended to skirt regulations by calling the device something it isn’t.

“Your position really is, they’re lying … but you didn’t find that they were lying,” he told attorneys with the ATF and added, “[Y]ou didn’t say … ‘You just are wrong. You’re not intending to market this as a muzzle brake. You’re intending to market it as a silencer. We’re calling you out on it. We (meaning the ATF) don’t believe you because the evidence doesn’t support a belief in the truth of what you’re saying.’”

The judge said perhaps he would defer to the ATF’s ruling if it had been so blunt in its response to the gun maker.

“It does appear to me that you guys (Sig and the ATF) know very well that this is a silencer part, and it does appear to me that this is not likely to have a significant market as a muzzle brake,”

Sig provided the evidence that it does act as a muzzle brake and in fact provided evidence that it actually amplified the sound (using some ATF standard of test).

So Sig's next step would be to provided evidence that there IS a significant market for it as a muzzle brake and then they have addressed the judges points.

Of course... who's to say what the next judge would rule but the current ruling certainly left the door open for Sig.


I like that Sig is willing to challenge the status quo on the vagueness of the ATF's position/rules/interpretations/rulings.