Quantcast

Suppressor for air rifles

Discussion in 'Air Guns' started by Keyfer 55, Apr 7, 2019.

  1. alfsauve

    alfsauve Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    480
    Location:
    N. GA
    In GA, Cobb County specifically, air guns are not classed as firearms. Other Local ordinances may vary.

    In Cobb you can not discharge a firearm except in self-defense or at a licensed range. But you can discharge air guns, if done safely. Of course, neighbors can be very touchy and not very understanding. I got my old MKI Co2 worked over and converted to a souped up .22. Trouble is its louder than my .22lr rifles.

    My air rifle is an under lever Weihrauch HW77 in .22. Love that gun.
     
    Keyfer 55 and Jeb Stuart like this.
  2. Jeb Stuart

    Jeb Stuart Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,805
    Location:
    Confederate Country
    And a lovely gun it is! Not sure I ever head of a Weilrauch that was not. I also own a Beeman R7 which is Weihrauch. And of course I bet you know them as well.
     
  3. alfsauve

    alfsauve Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    480
    Location:
    N. GA
    <slight thread drift>

    I also own the R7. It was my first adult airgun. When I went to get the HW77, Beeman wouldn't import it in .22 because he claim it was underpowered for the caliber. Of course this was when he was pushing 5mm. And I might agree if it were limited to the UK 12fp, but I got it from a Candian company, full powered. But that was 30 years ago. </std>

    The thing is, back sort of on topic, springers are a lot quieter than PCP/Co2 though you pay for it in weight and accuracy. Another advantage is springers require no external support system. (I think of PCP as crew served weapons.) You can leave a springer in the closet for a year, pick it up, cock it and you're ready to go.
     
  4. fpgt72

    fpgt72 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,817
    I agree with you....and yes they are sold as lead and dust collectors.....but I do think that it is not a real good idea, and it only takes one loon to try to do something stupid with one and then all eyes will be upon us.
     
  5. fpgt72

    fpgt72 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,817
    And in Kansas City there is no difference between a red ryder and a barrett 50.....this is why you need to know your area.
     
  6. fpgt72

    fpgt72 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,817

    I came very late to the PCP world, I was a spring guy. And I do like how you say PCP is crew served....it really in a way is. I will take issue and say a spring gun is not less accurate then a PCP....I will say it is more difficult to shoot it time and time again in an accurate manner.
     
  7. Jeb Stuart

    Jeb Stuart Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,805
    Location:
    Confederate Country
    They are sold as lead and dust collectors??? Hardly.
     
  8. fpgt72

    fpgt72 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,817
  9. Jeb Stuart

    Jeb Stuart Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,805
    Location:
    Confederate Country
    I have some Springers that are every bit as accurate as a PCP, up to a certain distance. The cost of PCP is crazy. Tanks, valves, gauges and an and on. Even when some one gets a budget gun and a pump, they end up spending thousands. And I have no love in shooting them. They do not even feel like a Rifle, They feel did. Springers have life, character. By the way, get a Vortek kit from Vortek. They are just dandy, increase power and smoothness. Makes them even more quiet than the standard.

    Here is my Beeman R7 Santa Rosa. Tuned by Tom Vaughn of Vortek. Actually the gun he used to develop the spring kit for the R7,

    X6GxtMB.jpg

    Also watch this fantastic video of the Walther LGV with rotary Piston. Yes, this gun will put a pellet in the same exact hole in the bullseye and crazy quiet!!

     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2019
    mdauben and alfsauve like this.
  10. tallpaul

    tallpaul Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,027
    There is no reason a gamo urban would have to be damaged removing the integral suppressor... hot water or hot air to soften the plastic suppressor and it will come off not hurting the airgun at all... the suppressor in this case would be damaged....

    And btw not all airguns with suppression have a pickle on the end of the barrel- some are shrouded and look like bull brrels.. a lil bit of reseacrh before spouting off on the net may be worth while :p I have a gamo urban I bought cheap and its a great lil gun- I hate the pickle but it works for now :) My marauders all have factory shrouds...
     
  11. Jessesky

    Jessesky Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    441
    I’m talking about a general way to identify in this instance and yes there are exceptions to every rule. I’ve done all the research needed before “spouting off on the web”
     
  12. tallpaul

    tallpaul Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,027
    again... you do not have to destroy any airgun to get a suppressor etc off of it... like you claimed... now if you are a monkey with a sledge hammer or a torch ya will likely but it does not mean you have to ...

    also according to the batf a suppressor only has to be capable of suppressing a firearm 1 DB one time and it can qualify ... just because a suppressor is made of plastic etc does not mean it can not hold up for several or more shots... A friend is a class 2 manufacturer and has [rinted .22 cans that have held up suprisingly well ro rimfire use.

    AndI bet as many shrouded guns are out thereas are the pickled ones so it may be a way to identify such but not in most or all cases... and many springers use larger items onthe end of thier barrelsnot to silence or suppress but to aid in cocking and comfort...
     
  13. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,333
    Link to the laws you are talking about, a pillow can do that and I don’t know anyone that has a registered pillow....

    How about this, if you are in doubt of breaking Federal laws call the NFA branch of the BATFE directly @ 304-616-4500 and get the straight scoop from the people that would “get you” if you were not following the law.

    Contrary to popular belief, they are nice folks and won’t mislead you.
     
  14. Chevota

    Chevota Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Messages:
    263
    I figured I'd get some replies from that post, but it doesn't change the fact that they are illegal w/o a tax stamp. The law was no doubt written to be all encompassing so bad guys can't weasel out of it, but that means, as mentioned, my T-shirt is illegal too. So it's a matter of common sense and the ATF is understanding and not concerned as mentioned.

    fpgt72 mentioned the MRod suppressor was part of the barrel, but actually the MRod suppressor is not only a separate unit, but it is the easiest to convert for use on a firearm. It is also, imo, the most effective suppressor to come with an airgun, and when I modded my MRod to be silent it was thanks to all oem MRod parts. If I were to make one for any other airgun it would be ideal to use the MRod parts, but the NP2 suppressor is no doubt easier to make. If I wanted to put one on my 22LR it would be the MRod unit because it work the best and be the easiest to fit. I can also easily convert the MRod parts into a thread on suppressor that fits a firearm, but that would be more work that using the Benjamin NP2 suppressor is much cheaper, but less effective, and I can make it thread onto a firearm w/o any tools. The entire process of putting an NP2 suppressor on a threaded 22LR would only require a hacksaw for one cut to make the shroud shorter. Or on a non threaded gun like mine, I'd need a screwdriver to remove the front sight, and some duct tape. So if varies gun to gun but doable.
    Some people say that if it's for sale then it's legal. I can tell you, first hand, of two times that proved to be untrue. I also bought some other toys that I did not get popped for, but they were in fact a felony. I think the only felonies I'm committing now are airgun suppressors. The local cops may care about my airgun suppressor, or be too stupid to know nobody else cares. If I were to be arrested for them and found not guilty it'll still cost me a massive amount of $, time, and possibly my job. I'm not expecting it, just saying it's possible. I'm not expecting to have my car impounded tomorrow, but it is certainly possible. Being convicted is possible too since the law is in place, and clearly written.
    Jeb mentioned the TKO, which is a firearm suppressor by definition. Again, being for sale does not make it legal. Not sure how the Walther LGV got in here, but I'd be curious to find out if it actually does what they claim, or just gimmicks. My guess is the latter w/ claims like; eliminates friction losses. The "rotary" part of the piston, from what I can see, does nothing to improve performance. You can site spring torque but you'd have to prove it's an issue to begin with. It also has excessive cocking effort for the power delivered, which is baffling to me. If they want to improve it I think that's where they should start, but lighter cocking doesn't sell guns, gimmicks and/or lies do.
    Same with the Vortek kit, which is certainly nice over oem, but it's a product who's #1 purpose in life is to make a profit, and I'm always wary of that. If you shot my HW95 you'd say it has a kit, but it doesn't and didn't cost me a dime. The kit has its place for sure since most people are unwilling to do any work themselves, but many would rather $pend that rather high cost on something else.
     
  15. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,306
    Location:
    DFW Area
    Did you read ruling in the Michael Crooker case I mentioned and that theairgunman linked to?

    Proving that a removable silencer is an airgun silencer and not a firearm silencer is difficult, risky, probably very expensive and maybe even impossible depending on the circumstances. But IF you can prove it's an airgun silencer and not a firearm silencer as Crooker was able to do in his case, then it's legal and does not require a tax stamp.

    The ruling in Crooker's case proves beyond a shadow of a doubt:

    1. That it can be proven, under at least some circumstances that a removable silencer is an airgun silencer and not a firearm silencer.
    2. That if it can be proven that a silencer is an airgun silencer and not a removable silencer as was proven in Crooker's case, the silencer is legal without a tax stamp.

    I would never take those risks and bear those costs and I would never recommend that anyone else does either.

    So if that's the case, why does it matter? Because that helps explain very clearly why suppressors that are integral to airguns are legal. One doesn't need to prove that they are only airgun silencers because their design makes it an inescapable conclusion. So the hard work is already done.
     
  16. fpgt72

    fpgt72 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,817
    Sigh....just Sigh.

    Many of the suppressors that are a "bulb" at the end are pinned in place. The Mrod system (about the same as the gauntlet) is really a shroud over the barrel.....the outer "shroud) is screwed into the "action" of the rifle, then there is a little "washer like thingy with an O-ring) that a spring will sit on....then little plastic cones sit on the spring that sits on the "washer like thingy" then after you put the PLASTIC cone like thingy's on the entire mess is held in place by a threaded cap that screws on the end of the outer shroud. One of the big issues with Mrod is if all the little "plastic cones" do not line up just right they can hit the pellet and accuracy goes to hell. I want to say there are 5-6 of these cone things.

    Now if someone can figure out how to make that work on a fire arm....well it ain't gonna happen.

    There are TONS of videos out on this as at the start of mrod production it was a real issue....do a little looking it is not hard to find....and if it is I will post up a video and link it my self

    I actually have to do some work this morning but I will be back.

    The amount of incorrect info on this thread is staggering.
     
    Keyfer 55 likes this.
  17. fpgt72

    fpgt72 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,817
    I was a very....VERY late comer to the PCP dark side (small GTA reference there) as I thought they are cheating by being just so darn easy to shoot. So I do get you there....however a spring gun is not any less accurate at any range then any other form used to put air behind a pellet....well perhaps a itty bitty bit, but we are really splitting hairs here. It is like saying well 4895 is less accurate in my hand loads than Varget....well it might be, but I bet it is not that much. The issue with spring guns is that double recoil makes it really darn hard to shoot. Your mistakes at 25 yards might be small, but that exact same mistake at 50 is going to be twice as big....that is not the gun, or the spring...it is you not having the skill to shoot THAT spring gun at THAT distance.....and if you move down the line to an "easy" spring gun to shoot say 500-700fps....well that slower means more time for everything to screw with the pellet....and at a distance you start to lob the pellets in like a mortar.

    Now to say cost is crazy...well...that all depends, I know people that have a drawer full of watches costing $3k or more per watch.....to me that is crazy....to him it is chump change. It all depends on you and your situation.

    Now that said, lets lay out some prices here.

    Grab a Benji Maximus around $230
    https://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Benjamin_Maximus_Air_Rifle/3910

    Grab a scuba adapter around $80
    https://www.pyramydair.com/s/a/Air_...ve_Adapter_Hose_Assembly_1_8_BSPP_Threads/534

    Grab a used scuba tank from a dive shop. (from a good shop) $180
    http://www.northeastscubasupply.com/used-pressed-steel-120-diving-tank-3500-psi/

    Get yourself a HL compressor. $300
    https://www.amazon.com/Compressor-3...ng+compressor&qid=1555328017&s=gateway&sr=8-5

    You are set to do everything yourself....if you have a dive shop close you can cross off the last item and cut $300 off the price.

    I put in here a "real" dive shop, as this is what I suggest, messing around with High Pressure Air is nothing to be taken lightly....one last link.

    Now the stuff I listed out for you are some pretty popular ways to be "self sufficient" in PCP. The gun is not the best in the world, but it is a good gun, but built to a price point....there are several in this price bracket. The compressor again not top shelf, but very popular out there, it works, works well....I have going on 2 years on mine and am happy....you can find it cheaper but with amazon if it is kaput it is easy to return...a little looking an you can find it cheaper if you want.....I wanted the ability to return it easy.



    Now to me that is not bad money....to other people that is a bit of money....but when looking at a "good" spring gun like the R7 you are looking at $300 anyway....RWS 34 usually called the "standard good spring rifle" will set you back the same....perhaps a tad more if you want the newest trigger. Walther is going to be double that for their LGU.


    Bottom line is if you want a shooting experience that is as close to a fire arm there are three choices, PCP, CO2 and MSP. That is it, no other choices out there. Now sorry this far in I don't remember your use, I want to say pesting, if that is accurate then MSP is off the list, the old pump 10 times and shoot....unless you are going after birds they really don't have the power (for the most part) to do anything bigger then that....and mammals really even "good guns like 39x are just not powerful enough for ME. I want a good clean and ethical kill, that is one thing that will get me preachy real quick....Mice don't count, just take your time and do head shots.

    Co2 with the exception of the Hammerli is also off the list, and again for ME it is very marginal for mammals of any size.....so really PCP is it.

    I hope this helps......and if you are needing to keep your bird feeder from being raided, like mine they even have air rifles that will take care of that.....

    For fun here is a short video of my bird feeder getting raided last weekend....and no I did not stop them...I got the video just as they finished.

     
    Keyfer 55 and alfsauve like this.
  18. fpgt72

    fpgt72 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,817
    I just remembered I did not put in a price for the dive shop to fill your tank.....I do not have a current price as I have been filling my own for about 2 years now....but last time I did it they charged $5 per fill.

    I drifted away from that because of their hours, as well as me living in the boonies.....that dive shop was 1hr away......one way.....but then dive shops are not real common in middle Missouri.
     
    alfsauve likes this.
  19. Chevota

    Chevota Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Messages:
    263
    fpgt72: I can't imagine pellets hitting the baffles on the MRod, but maybe the orig versions had much smaller holes or some other bs causing it? Mine is fairly precision so even if the holes were .250" it would not be an issue with .22 pellets. Also, my oem suppressor had 7 baffles, it now has 17 and still no risk of hitting. To get it on one of my 22LR's it would just need a little duct tape and possibly, depending on the gun, shortening the shroud. Rather than shorten the shroud I'd prefer to add more baffles, but either way it's totally doable. No I will not send a pix of it being done. You don't have the assy to look at and understand how it can be adapted, and you even thought it was fixed/non-removable. Here I am with both the MRod and a 22LR sitting side by side and I'm telling you it would be easy. So I guess I could say; "Sigh..., the amount of incorrect info here is staggering?

    JohnKSa: Yes I read about that long ago, but they didn't prove anything. Imo he simply skated because it was clear the law was sketchy in its definition and his intent to use on a firearm was not shown. In such cases it's better to acquit than convict and set a precedence (imo), so he got lucky. It doesn't mean any of us will be unlucky, I'm simply saying they are illegal per the letter of the law.
    Did you see my link?? That one is pretty frikkin clear... They still seem to be just mentioning that they are illegal without any real concern. They no doubt did said test and created said statement because the zillion people asking that same question. Anyone who knows the government knows that asking for clarification on something like that is a bad idea, so I'm glad the ATF worded it the way they did. It tells me they still have no interest in busting you, but are reminding you it is in fact still illegal.
    A little analogy I just thought up: Picture a rattlesnake that doesn't strike when you put a stick or anything else near it. Even your friend picks it up with his bare hands. Apparently there's no risk as proven by your friend, right? So go for it, pick it up... My friend actually had said snake and it was very docile and he would pick it up and play with it. He told me to go ahead and try, but I refused. I was 9. Today I might do it, but back then I wasn't quite sure and thought that odds are I will be fine, as I just witnessed, but it wasn't worth the risk...
    Last year in my yard about 6 feet from where my cats play, I caught a similar rattler. I was going to kill it, which is a typical knee-jerk human reaction that I dislike and try to avoid. I quickly noticed it was very docile like that one ages ago. It acted like a pet snake with no fear or aggression etc. So I gently pinned its head with a stick and picked it up. It did not resist, fight or anything at all. So I put it in a box and drove a half mile up the road and let it go. When I slid it out of the box it just sat there and looked at me. I still wonder what it was thinking, and I wonder if I could've simply picked it up and played with it? Maybe if my old friend was around to be the guinea pig... So while I'm not too worried about having said suppressors, I'm not going to push my luck. Pushing my luck would be taking a home-made one off my property.
     
  20. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,306
    Location:
    DFW Area
    This is a very poor summation of the case. The ruling says that the state did not prove that Crooker's airgun silencer was "designed or intended" for silencing firearms and therefore was not regulated. It is precisely because it was an airgun silencer and the state could not prove its case that he was acquitted.

    It had nothing to do with the law being sketchy, he was acquitted because the state didn't prove that his airgun silencers were firearm silencers under the law.

    The ruling provides clear proof that if a silencer can be proven to be ONLY an airgun silencer then it is legal, however, for the skeptical, there is more proof.

    The BATF FAQ (yes, I read it) helps to clarify the situation more. They don't say that airgun silencers are illegal, they said that many of the airgun silencers they tested qualified as firearm silencers and were therefore illegal without the tax stamp.

    "Many" is not the same thing as "all" by any means. But maybe their wording was simply poor and they meant "all". Well, there is another FAQ that rules that interpretation out.

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-i-have-any-further-questions-classification-paintball-or-airgun-silencer-who-should-I

    If "all" airgun silencers were regulated items, then this FAQ answer would be a waste of everyone's time--there would clearly be no purpose for people to get rulings from the BATF. The BATF could just state plainly and simply that all airgun silencers are regulated and therefore illegal without a tax stamp.

    The bottom line is that airgun silencers that are actually ONLY airgun silencers are not regulated by the BATF. The BATF has no regulations at all that pertain to airguns or airgun accessories.

    So why are people confused? Things get sticky because, as the BATF states, "many" removable airgun silencers also qualify as firearm silencers.

    At this point, the situation should be pretty clear, but we can find more information that makes it clearer still.

    Here's some information from the BATF in which they explicitly state that an integral airgun silencer is not regulated AND provide their rationale.

    https://www.atf.gov/file/55371/download

    Noteworthy, the definition of “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” requires that the device be one for diminishing the report of a portable firearm. The device under consideration is permanently attached to and an integral part of a paintball gun, which is not a firearm as defined in the GCA or NFA. The device cannot be removed from the paintball gun without destroying the barrel and rendering the paintball gun unusable. Under these circumstances, the integral device is not a firearm muffler or firearm silencer.

    It isn't a firearm silencer because it's is clearly only intended for use with an airgun. To make it even clearer they state that removing the integral airgun silencer constitutes "making" a regulated silencer.

    Because the device will no longer be permanently attached to an unregulated item, and because of its silencer design characteristics, removal will result in the making of a silencer under the NFA and GCA.

    Clearly integral/non-removable airgun silencers are unregulated in the BATF's opinion and that accounts for why people don't get prosecuted for them. It's not a matter of them turning a blind eye to it, it's simply that they aren't regulated.

    This is perfectly consistent with the ruling in Crooker's case that because the state couldn't proved that his airgun silencer was a firearm silencer, it was not a regulated item and he was entitled to acquittal.

    It is also consistent with the idea in the FAQs that although "many" airgun silencers also qualify as firearm silencers, some do not and that is why the BATF will examine an airgun silencer to make a ruling one way or the other.

    Removable airgun silencers almost always qualify as firearm silencers, in the BATF's opinion and are therefore almost always regulated--it is not that difficult to find examples of people being prosecuted for having them without a tax stamp.
    Ah, I see where the issue lies--I didn't understand where you were coming from.

    You want to prove that they are ALL illegal but that enforcement is very lax in order to justify/rationalize to yourself and others why your removable airgun silencers are unlikely to become a legal issue for you.

    Unfortunately, that is not at all correct. The BATF has demonstrated a clear willingness to prosecute people for having removable silencers because to them, a removable silencer is an NFA item unless the owner can prove otherwise. The Crooker case is one good example. On the other hand, they have also made it explicitly clear that the legal status of integral airgun silencers and removable airgun silencers is very different.

    If you have removable airgun silencers, they are almost certainly regulated under the NFA and GCA, and if they come to federal attention you are in serious legal jeopardy. Crooker proved that it might be possible to gain an acquittal, but the cost would be far higher than whatever it costs to legally own regulated silencers. If you have an airgun with an integral silencer, it is not regulated by the BATF because the BATF has no jurisdiction over airguns. HOWEVER, removing the integral silencer in working condition without complying with the NFA requirements will constitute an illegal act.
     
  21. Acrmny

    Acrmny Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2018
    Messages:
    51
    try a hogan decimetre,solid build quality,quiet and no hair curlers.
     
  22. fpgt72

    fpgt72 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,817

    That was an issue in the first guns....the holes in the little "cones" on mine are easy 30-35.
     
  23. Chevota

    Chevota Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Messages:
    263
    Interesting post but I still believe they are illegal but the ATF chooses not to push it b/c they aren't interested, plus it would be a can of worms and they don't want that either.
    Btw they didn't say "many", they said; "Numerous paintball and airgun silencers tested by..." That could mean all. Just as if they had said "Twelve paintball and airgun silencers tested by..." does not mean there were 13 or more, but does not mean there were not. Imo they are being ambiguous on purpose. I can't imagine any airgun suppressor not qualifying for the 1dB reduction. Even the older Benjamin shroud used on the B18 should do the trick just fine. So as mentioned, I believe they carefully worded it as a reply to the zillion letters they rec'd so people will stop asking, w/o actually setting anything in stone. They don't want to loosen the chokehold they have with the wording of the suppressor law, so how do they word it to tell airgunners to leave us alone. So some creative, well thought out wording, and you have the link I posted... I read between the lines and it says "Stop asking!"

    The link you posted only makes my case stronger. It says they're legal as long as you have to destroy the gun to get the suppressor off. Since most airgun suppressors are simply threaded on, that makes them illegal right there, does it not? To go a step further; ALL the suppressors I've seen can be removed without destroying the gun. Those "permanent" ones can simply be cut off, the gun still works. So imo that ruling says zero for airgun suppressors, and an uncomfortable amount against. Lastly; it never mentioned airguns, the whole thing was about paintball guns.

    The Crooker suppressor was, imo, a full blown firearm suppressor. It seems to boil down to opinion b/c imo the law is pretty frikkin clear, but it's also pretty clear they don't care as long it's not on a firearm. If for example he had said suppressor, exactly as it was, but was in possession of a firearm instead... Don't you think they would've treated it as a firearm suppressor? I have no doubt they would, but that's just my opinion. If they did then it is a firearm suppressor by the definition of the law, regardless of what it happens to be near. It doesn't suddenly become a firearm suppressor if within xx feet of a firearm, but not xx feet and one inch. That could apply to being convicted of it, but not to being legal or not.

    I'm getting the feeling you'll never see what I see, which is obvious to me. And I'll never see what you see, which is apparently obvious to you. I think this how wars start ;)

    The holes on my MRod baffles are .320". I WISH I could've had smaller, like .250 so I could use less baffles to get it silent. As it is I plan on modding them to be smaller, but that's back burner along with 50 other airgun projects I'll likely never do :(
     
  24. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,306
    Location:
    DFW Area
    man·y
    /ˈmenē/
    determiner, pronoun, & adjective
    1. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Not in the court's opinion--and not to put too fine a point on it, that's really the opinion that matters.
    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 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.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice