silencer legal in all 50 states?

[ilbob]

It seems that Silencerco has brought a product to market that they claim is legal in all 50 states.

It is a black powder gun with a fixed in place silencer.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...-ever-50-state-legal-suppressed-muzzleloader/

I wondered if this was Illinois legal so I took a look at the actual law on such things in Illinois. I came to the conclusion it could well be legal given the definition of firearm found in the criminal code. At least under current law. I am not completely convinced though.

 

[climbnjump]

This is a quote from the FAQ for the MAXIM 50:

WHY DON’T I NEED A TAX STAMP?

The BATFE defines a silencer as a “device for
silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a
portable firearm...” By that definition, a silencer is
only a silencer if it can attach to a firearm.
The Maxim 50 is built on the base of a Traditions
™Vortek Strikerfire Muzzleloader.

Muzzleloaders are not considered firearms by the BATFE,
but are instead antique firearms, a definition and difference
that is very distinct.

Because of this, a moderator that is permanently
affixed to a muzzleloader is not legally defined as a
silencer, since it does not attach to a firearm.


The gun will also come with a copy of the BATFE opinion letter that states that it is perfectly legal. And we know they've never changed their mind on any of those before. But until then...


The FAQ also includes this bit of - I'm assuming unintended - humor:

The moderator also significantly reduces visible
smoke, making follow-up shots and target tracking
far easier than traditional muzzleloaders.​

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never had a problem with the smoke hanging around long enough to interfere with a "follow-up shot"... Target tracking, maybe, but follow-up shot???

And of course, you are "projectile limited" to those that don't have sabots or other "separating wadding".

 

[pdsmith505]

I'm genuinely curious about this setup. Still can't believe that the ATF would sign off on it. Also, what happens in states like NJ where BP rifles are firearms under state law?

From a non-legal standpoint... looks like the can is sealed completely. I wonder how the internals are laid out... seems like it would make it hard to load... and what happens when you spill some BP into the can itself? Also, cleaning a BP rifle is bad enough without a can on the end for your solvents and patches to get hung up in and lost.

 

[climbnjump]

and what happens when you spill some BP into the can itself?

The ML comes with a "brass loading tube" that inserts into the "moderator". This is supposed to keep the powder from going where it shouldn't.

I agree on cleaning, it must be an extra hassle.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to the owner's manual.

 

[Theohazard]

Still can't believe that the ATF would sign off on it.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Federally, a silencer is defined specifically as being used on a firearm. But this device is permanently attached to something that isn't legally a firearm. So it can't be a silencer under federal law.

We already have air guns with silencers that also aren't regulated by the ATF since they are also permanently attached to things that aren't legally firearms.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that it would take quite a bit of skewed logic for the ATF to decide these were legally silencers. Not to say that kind of thing can't or won't happen, but the ATF doesn't usually contradict federal law...

 

[Bang!]

Sorry, the requested page is not available.
Please use the menu or search above to find content.

That link didn't last long. OP's link in first post.

 

[Elkins45]

Not to be "that guy" but I had this idea a couple of years ago and just didn't have the energy to write a letter to the ATF.

I think they made a mistake by welding the thing to an el cheapo Traditions rifle. They should have spent a few more bucks and used a T/C as the base. To me this idea really cried out for Silencerco to lease the 10ml II design from Savage and bolt the can onto a smokeless-capable gun. No corrosion worries and high performance.

If they do this to a cap and ball revolver they will sell a gazillion of them. Yes, I know about cylinder gap....won't matter.

 

[climbnjump]

Also, what happens in states like NJ where BP rifles are firearms under state law?

Well apparently, NJ, CA and MA have now filed challenges as to the legality of the MAXIM 50 in their states.

Because, you know, muzzleloaders are used in so many crimes in those states that they don't want to have this far more lethal version available to their subjects, er, I mean, citizens...

Probably also why the link in the OP's post has also now become defunct.

 

[CraigC]

Fascinating. Might have to consider this.

https://www.store.silencerco.com/products/maxim-50?variant=37950952529

 

[Mn Fats]

I think they made a mistake by welding the thing to an el cheapo Traditions rifle. They should have spent a few more bucks and used a T/C as the base.

Yep, I agree.

 

[Walkalong]

This is just super cool.

 

[Bang!]

There are some videos on youtube. Here's one showing loading, firing, and unloading.

 

[1stmarine]

The silent shotgun. A repeater legal in all states...

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The kind of gun Drzymała's would keep in his wagon. I proposed this on Usenet alt.rec.guns in the early '90s (in the context of an integral barrel for a pre-1898 Mauser bolt action although I may have touched on black powder during the ensuing stuff-storm) and was called all kinds of nasty names (including being compared to serial killer Ted Bundy). Good times

Mike

 

[MachIVshooter]

The kind of gun Drzymała's would keep in his wagon. I proposed this on Usenet alt.rec.guns in the early '90s (in the context of an integral barrel for a pre-1898 Mauser bolt action although I may have touched on black powder during the ensuing stuff-storm) and was called all kinds of nasty names (including being compared to serial killer Ted Bundy). Good times

Mike

They have specific rules on modifying antique firearms that would make such an antique non-exempt. Antiques by age that fire available fixed ammunition are no longer antiques once altered, ATF sees/treats it as manufacturing a new firearm. So a pre-1899 shotgun with <18" barrels is legal, but a pre-1899 shotgun with the barrels shortened to <18" after 1934 becomes a title II SBS.

Such a gun altered after 1899 but before 1934 would technically not be an antique, but it would have been a legal alteration during that 35 year period, and there'd also likely be no way to prove it wasn't done before the cutoff making it subject to NFA.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

They have specific rules on modifying antique firearms that would make such an antique non-exempt. Antiques by age that fire available fixed ammunition are no longer antiques once altered, ATF sees/treats it as manufacturing a new firearm. So a pre-1899 shotgun with <18" barrels is legal, but a pre-1899 shotgun with the barrels shortened to <18" after 1934 becomes a title II SBS.

Such a gun altered after 1899 but before 1934 would technically not be an antique, but it would have been a legal alteration during that 35 year period, and there'd also likely be no way to prove it wasn't done before the cutoff making it subject to NFA.

The NFA has a stricter definition of antique (thus broader definition of firearm) than GCA68 (whether the centerfire ammunition is available in ordinary commerce). If you SBRed the antique you would make it an NFA firearm and the suppressor would be a silencer because it is intended to reduce the report of a firearm. I'm not proposing SBRing the antique.

Mike

 

[MachIVshooter]

The NFA has a stricter definition of antique (thus broader definition of firearm) than GCA68 (whether the centerfire ammunition is available in ordinary commerce). If you SBRed the antique you would make it an NFA firearm and the suppressor would be a silencer because it is intended to reduce the report of a firearm. I'm not proposing SBRing the antique.

Mike

But you are proposing permanently attaching a suppressor, ergo modifying the firearm. My money would be on FTB saying it becomes NFA with a permanently affixed can.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

But you are proposing permanently attaching a suppressor, ergo modifying the firearm. My money would be on FTB saying it becomes NFA with a permanently affixed can.

But the firearm would not be modified into an NFA configuration. When a rifle is sold with an integrally silenced barrel, you do the Form 4 for the barrel not the rifle. An SBR with a silencer requires 2 stamps. An integral under 16 inches would be 2 stamps.

Mike

 

[MachIVshooter]

But the firearm would not be modified into an NFA configuration. When a rifle is sold with an integrally silenced barrel, you do the Form 4 for the barrel not the rifle. An SBR with a silencer requires 2 stamps. An integral under 16 inches would be 2 stamps.

Mike

The rifle itself wouldn't become NFA, but the alterations which constitute manufacturing a new firearm with an antique aren't limited to NFA mods. Rechambering, for example, would remove the antique status. I'm certain that threading the barrel would, too.

All that said, neither my opinion nor yours on the matter is relevant. Only FTBs determination holds any water.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Absolutely not. There is nothing about rechambering or barrel threading that would make an Title I antique either a Title I firearm or a Title II firearm. Are you confusing regs on C&R modifications with the totally different topic of pre-98 antiques? Check out this letter and BATF reply regarding very extensive modifications of antiques.






Mike

PS. I've had two 1895 Chileans extensively sporterized by a 'smith in another state and mailed back to me. New barrels, stocks, sights, bolt handles, cock on opening mods etc.
PPS. The ATF even states that removing markings is OK since antiques are not covered by the by that legal restriction in the GCA! Never thought of it but it makes perfect sense. There is a tendency to memorize that certain things are OK or not and not remember the context.

 

[MachIVshooter]

That's a pretty old determination letter. With the really broad and vague new definitions on manufacturing since 2015, I would personally tread very carefully and want a determination letter specific to the antique and modifications I was doing. Things that used to be considered FFL01 gunsmith work now require an FFL07 or FFL10. Even many gun parts other than the receiever that were never regulated and never required licensure to produce and sell now constitute manufacturing.

 

[khari]

The URL for the article OP posted was changed. Here's the new one.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...cerco-releases-first-suppressed-muzzleloader/

 

[CraigC]

What does any of this have to do with the rifle in question? Nothing.

 

[MachIVshooter]

What does any of this have to do with the rifle in question? Nothing.

What does the question of suppressing pre-1899 antique rifles have to do with the suppression of a newly manufactured primitive ignition rifle? Quite a lot, I'd say, given that the arms themselves are covered in the same statute.

 

[CraigC]

No, all that rhetoric applies to cartridge guns, not muzzleloaders.