Suppressors, silencers, shrouds, brakes, whatever they may be called.

[ChaoSS]

I'm trying to figure out the legal aspects of these things. I've read a few articles on the subject that suggest that suppressors (by whatever name) permanently attached should be good to go, while ones that can removed could be considered NFA items.

So in the course of looking at various PCP options for a future purchase, I was considering a Discovery with a "muzzle brake" from TKO. Basically, it's a suppressor. I figured that if it was illegal, the ATF would have come down on them a long time ago, so I set out to do some research, and came across US vs Crooker.

Does Crooker mean that suppressors are good to go for airguns, so long as they aren't designed, or adapted, for use with firearms? I keep seeing people talk about how trying to build your own suppressor for an air gun would be a bad idea, but Crooker seems to give it the green light.


Anyone have some insight that I'm missing here?

 

[Hawk 3/21]

The TKO attaches with allen screws, unlike most factory installed ones that aren't removeable. However the factories are probably being over cautious. Attaching this to a real gun would be a joke. If it worked, then people wouldn't be paying $700 for cans. Making a pellet gun a little quieter is a far cry from making a powder gun silent.

That's why we only hear of one case. Which was overturned.

If you're worried, then affix the tko with epoxy.

Ok, this is a far cry from building your own. What if it's too good? Also there's the qustion of intent. Tko's intent is well established. Let's say for some reason the police are at your house & see your homemade one on the bench. Either complete or unfinished.....well they are free to interpret your intentions. At what, $45 shipped, why risk a misunderstanding.
Also you can send the pellet gun in to the seller & have it professionally installed. Then the risk is the manufacturers. You purchased in good faith. Same as a gamo whisper etc.
Now I went w/the TKO name for expedience, the same appleis for other brands.....oh yeah, rough sandpaper on the barell & inside of MD to ensure adhesion.

 

[Hawk 3/21]

Strange how this keeps showing up on different forums.....with the same set-up........makes me wonder

 

[ChaoSS]

People pay 700 dollars for a can because that's what people charge for them, and they can't legally be made without special licensing.

In countries with less restrictions, cans are much, much, cheaper.


If I were to make my own, it would be an issue of wanting it to be even quieter. I've heard mixed reviews of the disco/tko combo, everything from "no noise but the hammer and the pellet hitting the target" to "quieter, but still pretty loud".

Probably not looking to make my own, though, just interested in where everyone's opinions on this subject are coming from.

 

[Chevota]

I'd go with a Marauder, much better gun and already quiet. Technically all these suppressors on airguns are a felony if you read the law, and the punishment is like 20 years in prison. Buying a gun with a factory mounted suppressor will weigh heavily in your favor, but making your own or adding one is imo not worth the risk. Chances of getting caught are slim, chances of getting prosecuted are probably slim too. If you do have to defend yourself in court the atty fees alone will make it an unrealistic punishment. I'd guess it would be 5-10k just to start. A firearm suppressor can be anything that reduces the sound by 1dB for a single shot. Even if the device needs to cut or torched from it's original place, such as a car muffler. So mufflers, oil filters, soda bottles, bath towels, and many other things can be used and therefore illegal. It's up to the arresting officer, then the prosecutor, then the judge to decide if you will arrested, charged, and put in prison. Imo the BATF has WAAAY too much power and the law covers way too many things because everyone is already a felon, at least those with firearms are, the question is will they use that power. It's like that bs new law about detaining anyone indefinitely w/o charges or a crime being committed. Clearly a violation of the constitution, but the gov is all powerful and doesn't care about the ancient document. Odds of being detained for no reason is low, but if you stick out it could be high. Having a firearm and a car with a muffler and oil filter isn't sticking out, but having an actual suppressor kinda is... I have firearms so I feel uncomfortable with airgun suppressors so I only have "shrouds". It's just a name I know, but it's a different name, it doesn't look like a regular suppressor, and it came factory with the airgun. That's my opinion fyi...

 

[Sam1911]

Technically all these suppressors on airguns are a felony if you read the law

Just curious why you feel that is so?

 

[Chevota]

Because I read what the BATF considers a suppressor which I mentioned in my post covers all kinds of things, but an actual suppressor is just asking for it. Just because they haven't chosen to jail people so far, doesn't mean tomorrow they won't. Do you trust your government? I don't. I'm just pointing out that it's a gamble with an extremely severe punishment. I'd chose death over the punishment so I'd consider that pretty severe. It's not like you're rolling the dice for a million dollar pay out, it's just a little noise reduction from a toy gun.

 

[Sam1911]

(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

There's the law.

An air rifle is not a firearm. A sound muffling device designed to reduce the report of something that is NOT a firearm is NOT a silencer under 18 - 921(a)(24).

You may find reason to be worried if you cut off your airgun silencer and attempt to install it on something that IS a firearm -- hence making something that is NOT a firearms silencer into something that IS a firearms silencer -- but otherwise this is much ado about a matter which is already very clearly settled.

I'll guess you don't work in the legal department at Gamo.

 

[brianr23]

I just bought a Umarex Fusion with a built in suppressor. While not a high power airgun it does shoot a light .177 pellet over 700 fps. The pellet hitting the back of the steel trap at 20 yards is louder than the rifle. A .22 cb cap is a lot more powerful in a 10/22 but an air rifle is more acceptable for backyard plinking. My wife doesn't hear it at all when I shoot. Its accurate too with 5/16" 5 shot groups at 20 yards using match pellets.

 

[Chevota]

It also said, or at least last time I checked years ago, any device that can be transferred to a firearm even if it needed to be cut or torched off. Sounds like that part was virtually written for airguns since I could cut off a Gamo suppressor, or for Crosman simply unscrew it, and attach it to a firearm. So having either a suppressed Gamo or Crosman in my house or car with a 22 rimfire would imo be a risk. And remember, it only needs to be 1dB, and only last one shot. For a 22 rimfire that covers a lot of things, even a cantaloupe, T-shirt, or roll of duct tape. You could probably get a 1dB drop with a steel Crosman muzzle brake which would be a simple bolt-on for some guns. The fact that suppressors are sold on the open market does not excuse the
violation, and imo the Gamo legal team is pushing a boundry. As we already know they aren't afraid to lie to make a sale, so until they're stopped they will continue to make them. So picture driving 56 in a 55, sure nobody will give you a ticket for it, but it is illegal. Now if the ticket for 1 mph over was death would you consider it worth the risk? Now considering some cops can be real nice folks and go out of their way to bust you for something, or for leverage against you for something else, it's there for them to abuse you with. I also believe that the increased use of suppressors on airguns will bring enforcement, or bring it sooner. Or even if it doesn't it will draw more attention to airguns just like the increased power is doing. Sooner to later the gov to draw a line like other countries and everyone's fun will be ruined. If the rule is say anything above 12ftlbs is a firearm then not only will most airguns become illegal or require registration, but those with suppressors of any type are now a felony without question. So however it goes down suppressors are not a good thing, at best they will not be a factor, at worst they'll start kicking doors of buyers for a 20yr visit to hell.
I love suppressed airguns, the quieter the better, I'm just saying they're a risk to own. I won't take mine off my property, no way I'm getting caught in the field by some federal agent with a smile.

 

[Sam1911]

For a 22 rimfire that covers a lot of things, even a cantaloupe, T-shirt, or roll of duct tape.

Uh, right, but that kind of proves my point. Unless you're USING it to suppress a .22, you aren't going to get arrested for the cantaloupe. Even though it is a WHOLE LOT easier (fewer steps, less effort, etc.) to use the cantaloupe for that purpose than to disconnect that integral airgun suppressor and bolt it to your firearm.

You could probably get a 1dB drop with a steel Crosman muzzle brake which would be a simple bolt-on for some guns.

Sure. Or a "bloop tube" for target .22 match guns. I PROMISE you you get more than 1 db drop from them, as I've used them extensively and witnessed it many thousands of times. But they aren't suppressors and no one gets arrested for them. And various other muzzle devices works somewhat the same. Do you get a 1 db sound reduction from using a Noveske "Fire Pig?" Well? Of course you do! That's not a suppressor and is expressly legal to own and use.

I understand the idea that there are grey areas and fine lines, but part of understanding that those exist is also recognizing when you're standing pretty far inside the line.

The fact that suppressors are sold on the open market does not excuse the
violation,

No, the fact that it ISN'T a violation of the law is what excuses ... well, the not-a-violation.

Not designed for anything meeting the legal definitions of a firearm. Not USED on anything meeting the legal definition of a firearm. Don't worry about it.

 

[Chevota]

Like I said, just because people are selling those devices doesn't mean they are legal. I learned that first hand as a kid, and so did a friend with something else. Also, whatever device in question does not have to be on a firearm to make it illegal as you suggested. If you had an actual suppressor designed for use on a firearm, or a home-made one of pipe and duct tape, but never put them on a firearm, would that make it legal? Actually a suppressor is considered a firearm by the BATF, so you'd not only be busted for the suppressor, but possession of an unregistered firearm. If you made it then you're also busted for manufacturing and no serial#, also both felonies.
It looks like our main argument is you think an airgun suppressor is legal, which I assume is because they are sold and nobody is getting arrested.
My point is an airgun suppressor IS a suppressor as defined by the BATF, and suppressors are a felony. They don't specifically say airgun suppressors are a felony because they don't have to, it's already covered in their description. And even though they've been asked a million times if airgun suppressors are legal, they have never said they are. That alone should tell you something. Since an airgun suppressor doesn't have a serial # then you're also busted for possessing a firearm w/o a serial. Some claim "permanently attached" to the airgun is the difference but the BATF specifically mentions that it doesn't matter even if has to be torched off. That doesn't matter anyway because many are just screwed on.
If you believe that a thread-on suppressor (an actual noise suppression device made specifically to suppress the discharge of a gun) that can fit a firearm with minimal modification is legal (also keeping in mind the BATF refuses to say they are legal), then we're at a stale mate.

 

[Chevota]

It's long but just a small part of what I have saved thanks a previous argument a couple years ago.
Michael A. Crooker was found guilty on Wednesday, July 15, 2006 of illegally manufacturing a silencer. He faces a mandatory sentence of 15 years. (Latest flash, July 2007, review of the case, instead of throwing it out, may increase penalties up to 22 years!!).
Crooker made a silencer for a Korean Big Bore 909, a .45 caliber air rifle. In 2004 he sold the rifle and silencer to another party and he shipped it through the U.S. Postal Service, where it was intercepted.
When ATF tested the silencer on a firearm, it silenced the report. That is the legal definition of a silencer. Slam dunk.
Making a silencer is a violation of several counts of the same law. Because a silencer is considered to be a firearm by federal law, the maker has just made a firearm without a license to manufacture - count one. Firearms that are sold are required to have serial numbers, and this one didn't - count two. And possession of an unregistered silencer is also a crime - count three.
The jury did ask for additional clarification on what constitutes a silencer, but the judge was unable to give them anything beyond the law. I have written an article about silencers for Pyramyd Air. It should be up on their web site soon. I included the definition of a silencer in that article, so you can read it for yourself. When it goes up, this is where it will be:
For 12 years I have maintained that silencers and airguns do not mix. People who play with the law open themselves to prosecution. Even if you win your case, the experience will not be pleasant. Now that BATF has a win under their belts, I expect them to prosecute other silencer violations more vigorously. This was a jury trial.
by Tom Gaylord

Or this one by Robert Beeman:
Why haven't we had a definite ruling on the matter of airgun silencers?? Surely, those firms making silenced airguns would benefit from finally having a ruling that cleared airgun silencers - and they surely have the funds and know-how to mount a proper test case or request for ruling. However, it may well be that the reason that such makers, or user groups, have not pushed for a ruling may be the same reason that both pro-gun and anti-gun groups may not have pushed to have the Second Amendment clarified - the ruling just might be opposite of what that group wants! The BATF has ducked the airgun silencer issue by continuing to say that they have no jurisdiction over airguns - BUT they leave the matter open by pointing out that an airgun silencer that could be used on a firearm, even if it was necessary to destroy an integrated airgun to get it, is, by federal definition, A FIREARM - never mind the dictionary and the obvious matter that silencers do not discharge projectiles by "fire" - the official definition simply and really makes it so. This brings to us to a possible clarification - the government could just declare airguns, or airguns meeting certain power levels, calibers, etc. to be FIREARMS - just as firearm silencers are, by such federal definition, FIREARMS
The idea that some airguns, especially some adult versions, might be classified as firearms, as they already are in most countries, is not my idea. In actual fact, some governmental groups have already began to propose what levels of airguns should be classified as "firearms". (Again, remember, that a law can define any object as a firearm!) I strongly oppose such a classification and feel that it would be a disaster and counterproductive to the objectives of both pro-gun and anti-gun groups.
If some, or all, airguns were indeed classified as "firearms" then BATF would have jurisdiction over such airguns and the matter of silencers on them finally would be perfectly clear- the government and anti-gun folks would love such a resolution. This may well be the final solution if some short-sighted airgunners continue to push the envelope and draw attention to the airgun/firearm silencer enigma. Those talking heads who call for "let's make this airgun silencer matter clear for once and all" - may end up remembering that sometimes it is possible to be very sorry to get what you asked for!!

 

[ChaoSS]

Sam, I'm on my phone so I'll come back later to respond more, but look up the case I listed above. The argument you are making is the one eventually accepted by the appellate court. However, the original court, and the Atf agent who testified, disagree with you.

 

[Sam1911]

The argument you are making is the one eventually accepted by the appellate court. However, the original court, and the Atf agent who testified, disagree with you.

And that, folks, is why we have appellate courts.

 

[Sam1911]

Also, whatever device in question does not have to be on a firearm to make it illegal as you suggested.

A suppressor is a device designed to reduce the report of a FIREARM. A device designed to reduce the report of something other than a firearm -- or to be a cantaloupe as you've suggested -- isn't one. UNLESS you make it one by installing it ON a firearm.

Now, if you build yourself a suppressor bored to work with a .45, well, that may be different, maybe.

If you've got an airgun muffler bolted/soldered/affixed to an airgun -- a NON firearm -- it's even harder to redesign/re-purpose as a firearms silencer than that cantaloupe. Heck, it is harder to make it into a firearms silencer at that point than would be the piece of pipe and wad of steel wool in your tool box. That's not a silencer, either, unless you're making it into one.

Much unreasonable fear in this argument.

If you had an actual suppressor designed for use on a firearm, or a home-made one of pipe and duct tape, but never put them on a firearm, would that make it legal?

Obviously no, because those are DESIGNED to be firearms suppressors. Something semi-permanently attached to the muzzle of an air gun is not. However, like that piece of pipe you've got there, it possibly could be re-purposed into one, which would be illegal. So don't do that.

Actually a suppressor is considered a firearm by the BATF, so you'd not only be busted for the suppressor, but possession of an unregistered firearm.

I think you're a bit confused about how the NFA works. The crime you'd get busted for IS possession of an unregistered firearm. (Not "also.") That is, IF it was a suppressor, which it is NOT.

If you made it then you're also busted for manufacturing and no serial#, also both felonies.

Again, you seem unclear on the law here. a) IF it was a silencer, which it isn't, you could certainly manufacture it yourself, on a Form 1. (Instead of the Form 4, to transfer one someone else made.)
b) IF it was a Title 2 item, then yes it would require a serial number, but it isn't. (As an aside, if it was a normal "GCA" firearm, which it of course also isn't, and you made it for yourself, it would not require a serial number.)

It looks like our main argument is you think an airgun suppressor is legal, which I assume is because they are sold and nobody is getting arrested

The fact that the ATF isn't trying to enforce your view of this, and has allowed millions of them to be sold all over the country with out comment, is indeed quite telling. At some point you can't put genie back in the bottle. Further, no company would have ever even started going down this road -- wouldn't have made the first one! -- without an agreement that the BATFE wasn't going to try and call their device an unregistered Title 2 silencer and arrest them and all their customers.

My point is an airgun suppressor IS a suppressor as defined by the BATF

Except it ISN'T as I showed in the definitions above. That kills your argument.

They don't specifically say airgun suppressors are a felony because they don't have to, it's already covered in their description.

You're getting this backward. They don't say airgun suppressor because they'd have to say "and ALSO airgun suppressors..." because the fact that it is made for an airgun makes it NOT a suppressor under 921(a)(24).

And even though they've been asked a million times if airgun suppressors are legal, they have never said they are.

The ATF does not like to give blanket statements like that, with good reason. If they declare these devices universally legal, than that would clear folks who put them on their firearms -- technically "making" an unregistered silencer out of one.

then we're at a stale mate.

Well, no. You may be agreeing to disagree, but you haven't proven your point, or refuted any of mine. More like "check."

 

[ChaoSS]

Chevota, a Marauder is a consideration. An Airorce Talon SS is also a consideration. Both of those are significantly more expensive than a Discovery, but if i buy the Discovery and find out that even with modification it's too loud for what I want, I'm out even more money having to buy yet another gun. So yes, the Marauder is a definite consideration.

I'm interested, though, in your information on the Crooker Case. As I understand it his conviction was overturned in 2010, I believe, which makes the 2007 update old news. I may be misunderstanding what happened, or reading from bad sources, so any other information you have would be helpful.


Sam1911, your comment about a silencer for a .45 is interesting, as that was the case in point here. The silencer was adapted, by the ATF agent, to fit a handgun. The position of the appellate court was that doing that was what made it "for a firearm". The position of the original court was that "for a firearm" simply meant that it could be used on a firearm. They took the position that since Crooker clearly knew how to adapt it to such, it was "for a firearm". The appellate court took the view that such an interpretation would lead to a potato or a soda bottle being a silencer any time they were possessed by someone with the know how to adapt them to use on a firearm.


It's an interesting read.


Another issue is that I really need to look into the laws here in California. I haven't found the penal code section banning silencers in California, so I'm not sure if they follow the same as the federal law, or if they word thins differently.

 

[Chevota]

Well, I told you why they are illegal and how the airgun suppressor is clearly illegal including Gaylord and Beeman saying the same thing, but you refuse to accept it. It's like I'm saying the sky is blue, just look at it, but you keep saying no it's red. I can't argue with that so you win, I'm done.
Btw, tell Michael A. Crooker what you told me.

Chaoss: I hope it was overturned, but it still ruined Crookers life and that is part of my point. Even if you are acquitted you're screwed, so be careful.
The suppressors are a federal crime so they're banned everywhere, plus CA is unrealistically strict regarding guns so expect it to be worse here, not better. I'm in CA and I can't legally shoot any gun, air included anywhere near me with the exception of a couple gun ranges which is ridiculous and expensive. Not even a Daisy Red Ryder in my own basement is legal. So I use suppressors myself to avoid the police being called in the first place. It's much riskier, but greatly reduces the odds of getting caught. Either way having or shooting a gun is a risk in this "free" nation.

 

[Sam1911]

Wait...you're admitting to breaking the law by discharging an airgun where that's not legal?

Talk about worrying about the wrong problem!

 

[Chevota]

I never said I obey the law. I'm just pointing it out so people can avoid getting caught. I'd guess that 99.999% of all shots I've fired, air and fire, were illegal. If I'd been convicted for everything I've done I'd be in prison for multiple life sentences, along with most people. Or you could look at it how it was explained to me once as a kid: It isn't against the law to do these things, it's against the law to get caught doing these things. True in a twisted way, and it's the only way a person can be a law abiding citizen

 

[JohnKSa]

A sound muffling device designed to reduce the report of something that is NOT a firearm is NOT a silencer under 18 - 921(a)(24).

If the device can be attached to a firearm and would be expected to reduce the sound of the discharge, even a small amount, even for only one shot, then the BATF has, in the past, taken the stance that it qualifies as a firearm silencer and proceeded to prosecute.

A device designed to reduce the report of something other than a firearm -- or to be a cantaloupe as you've suggested -- isn't one.

Sure. Technically. But there's nothing special about an airgun suppressor that you would be able to use to prove that it wasn't designed to be a firearm silencer. Even if it would make a crappy firearm silencer, that's not going to save you. There is no special credit or exemption for being a poor silencer designer.

...the fact that it is made for an airgun makes it NOT a suppressor under 921(a)(24).

The problem with this is that it's purely a theoretical argument. You won't win the argument with the cop, you will get your chance to prove in court why what you say it was made for makes more sense than what the BATF says it was made for.

In practice, if it looks like a silencer, quacks like a silencer, walks like a silencer then you're going to be treated as if it it is a silencer. Doesn't matter if you claim it's only for airguns.

Maybe you can win in court. Good luck with that. Frankly, it's a moot point from my purely practical perspective--I can't afford that kind of a "win" and I don't know anyone who can.

If it can't be removed from the airgun without destroying it then what we've seen in practice is that the BATF hasn't made an issue of it. Manufacturers who have taken pains to make integral, non-removable suppressors on their airguns have been allowed to sell their products and there have been, to my knowledge, no prosecutions in the U.S. for persons owning airguns with integral, non-removable suppressors.

That's not a hard and fast guarantee that we'll always see that level of tolerance. It's only what we're seeing now.

 

[Walkalong]

I never said I obey the law. I'm just pointing it out so people can avoid getting caught. I'd guess that 99.999% of all shots I've fired, air and fire, were illegal. If I'd been convicted for everything I've done I'd be in prison for multiple life sentences, along with most people. Or you could look at it how it was explained to me once as a kid: It isn't against the law to do these things, it's against the law to get caught doing these things. True in a twisted way, and it's the only way a person can be a law abiding citizen

Here at THR we do not condone breaking the law, or even suggesting breaking the law. And to think it is only against the law if you get caught, is junvenile.

 

[Walkalong]

Re-opened by request.

 

[torqem]

ATF regional offices have a .22 Ruger pistol that has adapters for every known thread. Since any tube more than about 4" in length and 1" in OD, attached to a 22 hg will have an "audible effect", then every pc of pipe in everyone's home is a silencer. That includes PVC, folks, by past rulings by ATF. Their definition of a silencer is anything that "makes an audibile difference in the firing sound". Heck, just using different ammo does that much. You can't legally possess even one baffle for a "can", and ATF has claimed that a mere washer can be a baffle. If I were to have a "can" for an airgun, it would be WELDED to that airgun, and welded shut, so no baffles can be removed, and I would not have any firearms in the same building/area as that airgun. If I had made it myself, I would never tell that to a soul, I would remove all traces of that manufacturing, especially any that had carbon fouling on them or materials that are widely known to be used as baffling material (like screen wire). I would certainly not have in my possesion any "how-to" videos or books about can-making, nor be on record as having bought any such media, nor ordered any from the library, nor viewed any while at the library (if I had to show ID to do so). Does that sound excessive? You'd better believe that ATF is excessive, folks.

 

[ChaoSS]

Thank you for the re-open, Walkalong.


Does anyone else know of any other case law that might be applicable to this situation?