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

[JRH6856]

The fact that there are many things that you can do to make it look like you're breaking the law doesn't mean that it's smart to do any of them--including the particular one under discussion here.

I believe I said that as well, if your sole or primary purpose is to avoid arrest, by all means refrain from all appearance of evil. Do nothing that might attract undue attention to yourself. But you keep asking (as I understand it) "How do you do something that might get you arrested without any risk of arrest?" The answer is, you don't, you have to accept the risk of arrest and be prepared to defend your actions in court. (You don't have to prove your innocence, either, just create a resonable doubt of your guilt in the mind of the jury. At least, that's the theory.)

 

[JohnKSa]

But you keep asking (as I understand it) "How do you do something that might get you arrested without any risk of arrest?"

No, that's not what I'm asking at all.

The discussion is about the legality of airgun silencers. The court case makes it clear that they are legal under federal law. The federal definition of a silencer makes it clear that airgun silencers are legal under federal law. Some people who have responded on this thread seem to think that's all that matters.

It is CRITICALLY important for everyone to understand that even though they are legal, it doesn't mean that possessing and using one can be done with legal impunity given the unfortunate and considerable difficulty in reliably proving that a detachable silencer is an airgun silencer and not a firearm silencer.

The question I keep asking is intended to get people thinking, to help them understand that even though an airgun silencer is legal, they may still be arrested and tried for possessing one.

You don't have to prove your innocence, either, just create a resonable doubt of your guilt in the mind of the jury. At least, that's the theory.

In this case, the defendant will not start out innocent. The defendant will be guilty from the start and will have to prove innocence. That is because the defendant was caught in possession of a device that the prosecution will be able to prove functions as a firearm silencer. It's going to be up to the defendant to convince them that although it is clearly a silencer and clearly functions as a firearm silencer that it's really not a firearm silencer.

And THAT is why the question is important and anyone interested in this issue needs to consider it carefully. Given that easily anticipated state of affairs, anyone who wants to own a detachable airgun silencer needs to have some sort of strategy for dealing with such a predicament. Or, alternatively, they need to take steps to prevent themselves from ever becoming embroiled in the first place.

Outside of a classroom, the point of discussing these laws is to insure we don't end up in jail, or in a legal predicament. That makes it important to not just KNOW the legal definitions or to be able to cite a case, but to also UNDERSTAND the practical ramifications--the actual real-world considerations we need to take into account if we want to avoid looking down the wrong end of the justice system.

 

[JRH6856]

No, that's not what I'm asking at all.

OK, sorry I misunderstood you question. I agree with the rest except:

In this case, the defendant will not start out innocent. The defendant will be guilty from the start and will have to prove innocence.

The defendent always starts with a presumption of innocence. The burden in on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, it probably will be relatively easy to prove that an airgun silencer is a silencer and can be used to silence a firearm, but it is further necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used or intended to use it as a firearms silencer. This will not be easy because due to Crooker, an airgun suppressor is the equivalent of a potato and mere possession does not equate to intent.

 

[Jaymo]

The Fed Gov has ruled that LDCs, Moderators, Muzzle Brakes, whatever you want to call them, for air guns are NOT suppressors/silencers.
The law is very clear.
The ATFs opinion was shot down by the courts. End of story.

You could attach a lawn mower muffler to a firearm, if you had the intent and materials to adapt it to said use.
However, a lawn mower muffler is NOT a suppressor UNLESS you actually adapt it to and install it on a firearm.
The legal definition of silencers clearly states that they are designed and intended to reduce the report of a FIREARM.
Not being a FIREARM, the ATF has NO AUTHORITY over ANYTHING airgun related.

Is that clear enough for you?

BB Pelletier's OPINION of the legality of LDCs is just that, an OPINION.
It is also an opinion he formed BEFORE the courts put this subject to rest.

BY LAW, and LDC is NOT a silencer unless and until someone adapts it to and installs it on a firearm.
That's one reason the thread-onLDCs don't use 1/2"-28 threads. It's so you can't take it off your Sam Yang .45 and install it on a .45 cal firearm.
The intended use of the object is one of the reasons it got shot down.
LDCs are intended to be used on air guns only.
Silencers are intended to be used on firearms only.

There is a company making oil filter adapters that let you use an oil filter for a suppressor.
That's an NFA item.

There is also a company making oil filter adapters that let you use an oil filter as a solvent trap for cleaning your firearm.
It has ATF approval, because it is not INTENDED to be used as a suppressor, therefore, it
does not meet the legal definition of a hush can.

Could you use it as one?
Dunno. I supppose.
If you did, you'd be in violation of NFA.
If you use it as a solvent trap (it's intended use) you are not in violation.

2 and 3 liter Coke bottles and duct tape can be used for suppression.
Neither item is illegal to possess, even together.
It's when you assemble them on the gun AND use them as a suppressor (you could be using them as a solvent trap. INTENT, remember?) that you run afoul of the law.

If LDCs were illegal, the ATF would have been all over the makers by now.
Who knows, they might want to, but they can't because they don't have
a case.

JohnKsa, it's not hard to prove that an LDC is NOT a silencer.
You CAN'T remove one from an air gun and install it on a firearm without making adapters.
Plus, you'd have to have it on a firearm to be in violation.

 

[JohnKSa]

The defendent always starts with a presumption of innocence.

In this case, the prosecution will have ample evidence to show possession of a silencer and it will be the defendant's burden to prove that it's not a firearm silencer. We could claim that there's a presumption of innocence, but since we know that the prosecution already has sufficient evidence to convict in the absence of an effective and reliable defense, that presumption is already nullified in this situation.

Plus, you'd have to have it on a firearm to be in violation.

We know that's not true. You don't even have to own a firearm to be charged with illegally owning a silencer. A silencer itself is the regulated item. It doesn't need to be attached to anything for a violation to occur.

You CAN'T remove one from an air gun and install it on a firearm without making adapters.

I agree, that's a step in the right direction, but I think that's a thin strand from which to suspend your continued freedom.

By this logic, a silencer that hasn't been threaded for attachment isn't a silencer. That would mean that anyone could make a fully functional silencer and simply leave out the step of cutting the attachment threads and that would make the device not a silencer.

...it's not hard to prove that an LDC is NOT a silencer.

So far I haven't heard any strategies that would prove effectively and reliably that a detachable airgun silencer is not a firearm silencer.

You could attach a lawn mower muffler to a firearm...

That's already been covered adequately. A thing that is not a silencer is not a silencer until there's some additional evidence that it has been repurposed to be a silencer.

That's not the topic under discussion. In this case, the item in question IS a silencer and we know that it can be proven that it will function as a firearm silencer. That's a very different situation than having a common everyday item that COULD be repurposed into a silencer.

If LDCs were illegal, the ATF would have been all over the makers by now.

Here's a project, requiring only minimal effort. Contact all these makers and ask them if they have proper federal paperwork for making firearm silencers. When they answer in the affirmative, ask them why they would go to the trouble since they're only making airgun silencers.

...the courts put this subject to rest.

That's a simplistic view of a topic which is quite complex in practice.

I'm not telling anyone what they can/can't, or should/shouldn't do, but I do think it's important for everyone to understand that there are pitfalls here that we need to be aware of.

 

[Jaymo]

Ok, you don't listen.
You know everything.
Have fun with that.
The law has been very clear.

Why would LDC Mfrs have a license to build silencers?
It wouldn't protect them, if LDCs were considered silencers.
They would still be in violation of NFA because of selling to people without a tax stamp.
Did you consider that?

The law has been made very clear.
LDCs are NOT silencers.
Therefore, ATF has NO AUTHORITY over them.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Watch out for the black helicopters.
I'm done with this.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ok, you don't listen.

I read what you posted, and I think that an objective read of my last post makes that clear. I just disagree with your oversimplification.

LDCs are NOT silencers.
Therefore, ATF has NO AUTHORITY over them.

LDCs clearly are silencers. They just aren't firearm silencers. They are airgun silencers.

You are correct that BATF has no jurisdiction over airgun silencers, but your claim oversimplifies the actual situation.

Before that fact does a defendant any good, they have to have some reliable and effective means of proving that their airgun silencer isn't a firearm silencer. Until that has been established then the BATF is definitely in the driver's seat.

I'm done with this.

 

[JRH6856]

Before that fact does a defendant any good, they have to have some reliable and effective means of proving that their airgun silencer isn't a firearm silencer. Until that has been established then the BATF is definitely in the driver's seat.

Yes, given the overwhelming number of people being prosecuted for this, it certainly appears that BATF is definitely in the driver's seat.

OK, maybe they are in the driver's seat as you say, but the court took the keys away so it's a non-starter.

 

[JohnKSa]

...given the overwhelming number of people being prosecuted for this...

Everything we do in our lives is an exercise in risk assessment. The number of prosecutions (assuming someone can provide an accurate figure--and no one has so far) should probably figure into the risk assessment, but the chances of being caught is only one factor in the assessment. The potential damages resulting from being one of the few who runs afoul of this issue is another important consideration.

...the court took the keys away so it's a non-starter.

You think so?

So how do you envision an encounter with LE progressing when an airgun silencer is involved? It sounds like your general idea is that it will go something like this:

Officer: "What is that thing there on your airgun. Can you remove it for me?"
Citizen: "Why sure--here it is."
Officer: "This looks like a silencer. Do you have the proper paperwork for it?"
Citizen: "No, you don't need paperwork for it because it's an airgun silencer."
Officer: "Oh, sorry to have bothered you. I'm just going to take your word for it and let you go your merry way because citizens never claim they're innocent when I catch them doing something that appears to be illegal."​

Do I need to explain why that is an incredibly unlikely exchange?

I really don't understand why this very basic concept seems to be a sticking point. I find it surprising that I'm having to work this hard to convince people why a simple claim of innocence isn't really an effective strategy for avoiding arrest and prosecution.

 

[JRH6856]

Do I need to explain why that is an incredibly unlikely exchange?

Yes, you do, because it is an incredibly unlikely exchange.

I find it surprising that I'm having to work this hard to convince people why a simple claim of innocence isn't really an effective strategy for avoiding arrest and prosecution.

And I don't know why I'm having to work this hard to convince you that a claim of innocence is something you present in court. If a LEO decides to arrest you, a claim of innocence will not stop the arrest. But just how likely is it that a LEO is going to arrest you for an act that the courts have already ruled to be legal? And if arrested, how likely is the DA to prosecute a case that the courts have already ruled to be legal?

Hint: It won't be a state or county DA making the decision. They don't prosecute federal violations (nor do local police usually enforce federal laws), it will be a AUSA who makes the decision and they generally are versed in federal court rulings.

Yes, one must assess the risk involved in any action, but if I were worried about this degree of risk, I wouldn't leave the house for fear of a lightning strike.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yes, you do, because it is an incredibly unlikely exchange.

You want me to explain it even though you agree with me?

And I don't know why I'm having to work this hard to convince you that a claim of innocence is something you present in court.

What gives you the idea that I don't understand that? And what gives you the idea that it's even relevant?

No matter where you present it, if your only strategy for defending yourself is claiming that "No, it's not illegal, it's something else other than what you think it is." things aren't going to go very well for you. It's going to take more than that to achieve a favorable outcome.

But just how likely is it that a LEO is going to arrest you for an act that the courts have already ruled to be legal?

Don't you see how circular this is? You're assuming that he is going to automatically agree that it's legal because he's going to simply accept your claim of what it is at face value . He's not--he's seen criminals attempt that kind of thing before. If LEOs were that gullible they'd never arrest anyone for anything at all. They aren't going to let you walk away because you come up with the creative strategy of simply claiming that item X (which is illegal) is really item Y (which is legal).

...it will be a AUSA who makes the decision and they generally are versed in federal court rulings.

It doesn't matter who it is. All of them are well-versed in criminals trying to claim innocence without being able to provide concrete evidence to support their claim.

What you're suggesting is like saying if you write "Airgun Silencer" on the side of the device you're home free. Because once they see it says "Airgun Silencer" they're going to realize it's legal because airgun silencers are legal and so they'll let you alone.

Stop for just a second and look at this from the LEO's/court's perspective. They aren't going to accept that it's an airgun silencer just because you write it on the side or just because you tell them it is. If it were that simple, no one would ever be prosecuted for anything. You're going to have to actually come up with a coherent argument and reasonable evidence to prove your case or they're going to go on believing that it's NOT an airgun silencer.

Your entire premise is based on the idea that it's self-evident to everyone involved that the item in question is an airgun silencer. In reality, convincing everyone of that fact is going to be your job.

 

[JRH6856]

What gives you the idea that I don't understand that? And what gives you the idea that it's even relevant?

I don't know. Maybe it's becasue you keep asking about avoiding arrest. like:

I find it surprising that I'm having to work this hard to convince people why a simple claim of innocence isn't really an effective strategy for avoiding arrest and prosecution.

Since there are a lot of people with airguns that have these devices, and there is not any indication that they are being arrested in droves, it really appears that arrest is a highly unlikely (though remotely possible) event.If there is no arrest and/or charge, it make the possibility of prosecution even more remote.

 

[JohnKSa]

Maybe it's becasue you keep asking about avoiding arrest.

There is nothing about wanting to avoid arrest that would preclude understanding the general principles of how trials work. So yes. I want to avoid arrest. And yes. I understand how a trial works.

Since there are a lot of people with airguns that have these devices...

I'd actually be interested to see some data relating to how many people in the U.S. have detachable airgun silencers.

there is not any indication that they are being arrested in droves, it really appears that arrest is a highly unlikely (though remotely possible) event.

I think we've already touched on this at least once in this thread. The probability of being caught is a factor in risk assessment, but it's not the only thing to consider. If the odds were all that mattered, no one would buy lottery tickets. Clearly what's at stake is also very important.

 

[JRH6856]

If the odds were all that mattered, no one would buy lottery tickets. Clearly what's at stake is also very important.

No, adds are clearly not all that matters. What also matters is the value of the possible loss vs the valie of the possible gain. If my odds of winning are over 10million to 1, and all I stand to win is $1 for a $1 ticket, that is a certain loss of $1 vs a 10million:1 chance of breaking even. With no chance of gain, no reason to take the risk.

OTOH, if a $1 chance gets me a certain $100 reward with a 10million:1 chance of having to pay an additional $10,000, many people might take that risk every day.

(above numbers are for illustration only. I make no claim that they represent any real world scenario).

The point is, it is highly unlikely that local LEOs and DAs will be enforcing this law and no evidence has been presented that BATFE or the FBI has attempted since Crooker, to do so in the manner you describe. But yes, one should be aware that there is a remote possibiltiy that some LEO somehwhere, sometime, might try.

 

[Kernel]

The TKO muzzle device (silencer) is plastic (except for the set screws that hold it on the barrel). Maybe that's part of the reason why the ATF isn't to concerned. They know it would melt, or blow apart, if used on a real firearm. The inside is a labyrinth of baffles & air chambers. Just like a real silencer. But they're all plastic.

 

[JRH6856]

The inside is a labyrinth of baffles & air chambers. Just like a real silencer. But they're all plastic.

Oh. A model.