Suppressor for air rifles

[JohnKSa]

They said intent is irrelevant. It's about 'intended design'.

You realize that the word 'intended' is another form of the word "intent', right?

Engraving "Airgun Moderator" or "For Airgun Use Only" on a silencer is not going to dissuade the authorities from arresting and prosecuting someone found with something that looks like and operates like a silencer.

Similarly, discussions about what the designer intended the device to be, may be convincing in court, but it's not going to keep you out of court.

Along the same lines, carrying some paperwork around that effectively says: "This is not designed to be a silencer." is also not going to carry any weight with an LEO.

I don't know when people started thinking that they are entitled to hold a trial any time an LEO encounters them and tries to arrest them. It doesn't work like that. LEOs are not judges. They make arrests based on probable cause, they do not try cases. Having an item that looks and operates like a silencer without the proper NFA paperwork is going to be sufficient probable cause for an arrest and for prosecution--maybe even sufficient evidence conviction depending on how the case plays out.

If that kind of thing worked, anyone could print up their "paperwork" saying: "This is not a silencer.", mark the silencer with "For Airgun Use Only." and the NFA would be out of business. The only way to be prosecuted would be to be caught with it actually attached to a firearm.

If you are confident that your approach will work in court and you have the time and resources to deal with that kind of a "solution", then go for it. You probably aren't all that likely to be caught, unless something else draws attention to you. Maybe that's an acceptable risk in your opinion. Different people assess risk differently.

 

[Gadsden2A]

It's funny there are websites that sell the crap out of those moderators. How do you explain them not being prosecuted? Donny FL has been in business in Florida for years. He advertises publicly. Hundreds of people have bought his moderators. Nobody's been arrested. Please explain.

 

[Gadsden2A]

Not to mention the federal government has a 95% conviction rate. I don't see them making arrests when they know the charges will be dismissed. Or the defendant will be acquitted. There are too many people out there hunting with them on their rifles already. It would only take a couple of arrests to shut that whole business down. People would be too afraid to buy. That case law is the law of the land. I would carry a copy of that with me also. Maybe firearms owners are just jealous that air gun owners can have them without a permit.

 

[JohnKSa]

1. That ruling was in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Assuming that a substantially similar case comes up within the jurisdiction of the First Circuit Court, prosecutors might be inclined not to take it because they believe it would be overturned even if they gained a conviction. So the hassle might be limited to an arrest and temporary confiscation. Or there might be some minor difference in the circumstances of the case that makes a prosecutor believe that prosecution would be worthwhile and then the defendant would have to mount a defense and hope that they prevailed.

2. Outside of the First Circuit Court of Appeals' jurisdiction, it's not at all clear what would happen even if a substantially similar case came up.

So the risk varies somewhat depending on your location, but even in the First Circuit's jurisdiction, it's not a given that a person would walk away simply because they claim their silencer is only for airgun use. Crooker's successful appeal certainly isn't an across the board carte blanche to own something that looks and behaves like a silencer simply because it's got a particular marking on it or because the owner makes certain claims about it.

As I said, different people assess risk differently, and the odds of getting caught in the first place probably aren't really great so some folks, maybe even a lot of folks, might think that the risk is acceptable. If they guess right, they saved themselves a few hundred dollars. If they guess wrong, they ruined their lives.

If a person is really inclined to take a serious look at this, they would be wise to pay for some legal advice from an attorney who is qualified and experienced in this kind of thing and see what they say. Of course, then again, a person whose main concern is saving a few hundred dollars might think that's a waste of money.

 

[Gadsden2A]

In the real world everybody knows a Mossberg Shockwave is a short-barreled shotgun. Except that it's not. In the legal world, it does not fit the definition of a short barrel shotgun. I don't think the people that own Mossberg Shockwaves are worried about being prosecuted for possessing short barrel shotguns. I haven't seen any Feds attempt to prosecute people with SBS possession for owning a Mossberg Shockwave.

Florida used to prosecute felons for possessing percussion cap black powder guns, even though the statutes clearly exempted black powder guns from the firearm statutes.
It was a gross misinterpretation of the definition of 'antique firearm'. The Florida Supreme Court finally cleared it up.(Fl. v Weeks) Black powder guns are not firearms, and felons are allowed to possess and own them.

People buy and sell firearm receivers everyday without an FFL. How? The receivers are unfinished, needing about 20% more machining. In reality you're buying a receiver. In the legal world it is not a receiver per federal definition, and you cannot be prosecuted for having such an item.

Mr. Crooker did not have his conviction overturned on some legal doctrine theory argument. It was overturned because of a gross misinterpretation of the definition of 'silencer'. The appeals court even took the extra step of AQUITTING the defendant, not just overturning his conviction and sending it back for retrial. THAT NEVER HAPPENS and it speaks volumes. Furthermore, THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARDED OVER $170,000 FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION in this case. The wording of the definition is black and white. Prosecutors like to win cases, especially in the federal courts. In this case, they COULD NOT EVEN CONVICT A CONVICTED FELON, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN FELONIOUS ACTIVITIES BECAUSE THE ITEM DID NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF 'SILENCER'. The appeals court got it right when they clarified the definition of silencer. Airguns with moderators are good to go until they change the definition. Personally, I have no need for one, and besides they add too much length to the gun. I like carbines. But I would not hesitate to buy one.

The $170,000 award from the federal claims court shows how badly the lower court got this wrong. I don't see a federal prosecutor going down this road again. It would be an embarrassment on his resume.

 

[JohnKSa]

In the real world everybody knows a Mossberg Shockwave is a short-barreled shotgun. Except that it's not. In the legal world, it does not fit the definition of a short barrel shotgun.

I agree 100% that the legal world is what matters when the concern is the legal world. That's why my responses have been based on the legal world. The rest of your examples are similar--things that seem one way when considered from the point of intuition but are actually another when considered from a legal standpoint. I agree it's not wise to rely on intuition when it come to legal matters--which is why that's exactly what I'm arguing against.

I don't see a federal prosecutor going down this road again. It would be an embarrassment on his resume.

Again, if a more or less identical case comes up in the First Circuit's jurisdiction, the previous ruling could provide significant incentive to avoid a repeat performance from a prosecutor's standpoint. That could mean that the processor would try to learn from what are perceived as mistakes by the initial prosecutor, or it might mean that prosecution would be avoided entirely--as you predict. But if the circumstances are different enough, a prosecutor might believe that it doesn't apply and be willing to proceed.

Outside of the First Circuit's jurisdiction it's much less clear what would happen.

Look, as I've said multiple times before, different people assess risk differently. If you feel comfortable with it, then that's all that really matters to YOU, right? If you need me to agree with you before you feel comfortable with taking the risk, then forget it--I don't agree. But I'm not sure why that would be important to you as it should already be clear that we assess risk differently.

If you're really bothered about this, I already told you how to solve the problem--buy some legal advice from an attorney who is qualified and experienced in this type of case.

 

[Gadsden2A]

I told you moderators are not for me. You keep talking about assessing risk. I can tell you're paying attention and care about the relevant facts. You win. lol

 

[Gadsden2A]

Lawyers are overrated. On any given day, 50% of them are on the losing end of a legal argument.