|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 28, 2014, 01:13 PM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Court rules ATF did not properly decide that Innovator muzzle brake is a silencer
SOURCE
SOURCE w/ PATENT DIAGRAMS The court found that the ATF designation of the Innovator as a silencer to be capricious based upon the agency's definition of a silencer based on physical characteristics of "known silencers." The agency stated that three physical characteristics found on silencers, which also exist on the Innovator muzzle brake, qualifies it as a silencer. The court also found that the agency did not perform any sound testing on the device even though the agency lab possesses equipment for that purpose. In calling the agency's comparisons of certain characteristics (three of which were enough to warrant the classification) capricious, the court gave the following comparisons of its own. From the article at Courthouse News: Quote:
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey Last edited by Frank Ettin; March 28, 2014 at 01:42 PM. Reason: clarify misleading title |
|
March 28, 2014, 01:23 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
The judge remanded the case back to the agency. A key portion of the opinion (according to the link provided by the OP):
Quote:
|
|
March 28, 2014, 04:28 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Can't happen.
The court ordered the BATFE to be rational. I don't think they can do that. |
March 28, 2014, 04:54 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
At the risk of asking the obvious, why not rely primarily on a test which determines the degree of sound suppression?
|
March 28, 2014, 05:01 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 720
|
I can't find these for sale online. How come? I can't even find the company that makes them (Innovator Enterprises).
Oh and, this was very funny Quote:
|
|
March 28, 2014, 05:21 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|
March 28, 2014, 05:42 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
|
|
March 28, 2014, 09:31 PM | #8 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
||
March 29, 2014, 12:34 AM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Quote:
Because of the specific wording of the law, it is the intent to silence a firearm (without prior Fed approval) that is the crime. SO, it is technically possible you could be convicted of violating the law even if the silencer doesn't work (reduce noise a measureable amount). it is also technically possible that someone building a muzzle brake type device, that unintentionally reduced the sound level could be found innocent of violating the law. (although how one could convince a court of this, I have no idea). Obviously, if you make a device to reduces the sound level, and it actually does to some measurable degree, your "intent" is clear. This case appears to be where a device was submitted for classification (prior to production and sale to the public), and the BATF ruled it was a silencer. The inventor disagreed, and went to court, where the judge looked at the BATF evaluation letter, and applied rational thought, which apparently, the BATF didn't do.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
March 29, 2014, 01:34 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
What a great answer. i have to take your explanation at face value, as I have no independent knowledge of how suppressor/silencer law works.
The disconnect between the purpose and intent of the law (to regulate devices that reduce the sound signature of firearms), and the effect of the law as you describe it (to regulate the design characteristics and intent of the designer) is rather abstract. Perhaps it's overly ingenuous to think so, but it would seem that the only test ought to be: Does the device reduce the sound signature by (x) decibels, or (x) percentage decibels? |
March 29, 2014, 02:02 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
|
March 29, 2014, 07:57 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 5, 2010
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 474
|
Hope the ATF rewrites things to say if a device reduces sound by X decibels, then it's a silencer.
|
March 29, 2014, 08:43 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
Last edited by Ruger480; March 29, 2014 at 10:28 AM. |
|
March 29, 2014, 05:09 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,607
|
Quote:
|
|
March 29, 2014, 05:52 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|
March 30, 2014, 01:48 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
|
March 30, 2014, 01:54 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
|
March 30, 2014, 12:29 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
Have you had anymore luck locating information about this company? |
|
March 30, 2014, 01:14 PM | #19 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Quote:
Or they may be making other things under a different name right now, I don't know. But if I were going to make something that required govt approval, I wouldn't open up shop until after ALL my legal concerns were resolved.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 1, 2014, 11:13 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
I agree with 44 AMP. Why do the start-up before you have your ducks in a row. That is likely the reason we can't find it yet. I haven't had any more luck at finding them than anyone else seems to be having.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
April 1, 2014, 11:37 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
It is interesting that intent is part of the muzzle brake vs silencer, but affect is seems to be used in muzzle brake vs flash suppressor (at least in non fed law)
flash suppressor regulatory rulings in California, which I stumbled on in trying to find some info on how this is looked at for my (non-Californian) jurisdiction that forbids flash suppressor but allows muzzle brakes, seem, in some places, to include any suppression of flash regardless of intent, design or name. EG here are California regulatory remarks on muzzle brake/compensator (legal) vs flash suppressor: Quote:
pages 9-16 here: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd.../regs/fsor.pdf Is there any actual case law on suppressor vs compensator/muzzlebrake or any other sources of info on how states that allow one but forbid the other specifically define and/or place probative burdens for what is what? |
|
April 2, 2014, 01:18 PM | #22 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Not being privy to the inner thoughts of the people who wrote the law, I can only guess, but here's my best guess...
Back when the big push was on to ban "assault weapons", based on certain features, that resulted in the 94 AWB and several similar state laws, anti-gun (and this includes party lockstep politicians) were given their marching orders from on high, that certain gun features were "bad" and to write a law that banned them, because of that. I rather doubt any explanation was provided to them WHY certain of the listed features were bad, beyond the nebulous "makes it easier to kill people". According to what I heard (no way to verify) flash suppressors got on the list, because the "standard" size would accept a rifle grenade, or so the anti's believed. It appears that this "logic" was not provided to the people who wrote the CA law you quoted, and they apparently believed that since flash suppressors are "bad" it must have something to do with the flash, and so wrote that crap into their law. Remember that the level of firearms technical knowledge these people have ranges from actually knowing the inconvenient truth (and generally ignoring it) to thinking a barrel heat shield is "the shoulder thing that goes up" and that magazines are used up when the ammo in them is fired. When it comes to guns, many/most of them clearly don't know much about what they are writing and passing laws to control (and seem to care even less), which makes me seriously consider what, if anything, they know about everything else they makes laws about.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 2, 2014, 02:17 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 2, 2014, 04:40 PM | #24 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Quote:
As ATF pointed out in its briefs for this case, a pillow may be effective as a silencer. Yet, because that was not the intent with which the pillow was made, it is not considered a silencer under the law. A potato can be used as a silencer (single use), but that is not its intended use. However, if you use a potato or pillow as a silencer, you could still be charged with illegal possession of a silencer (if it is not registered). On the other hand, making a part for a silencer, like a baffle, end cap, or tube, with the intent that it be used in a silencer is still covered even though it alone will not have any sound reducing effect. However, if you make a muzzle brake with no intent that it muffle the report, it will still be a silencer under the law if it has that effect. Lack of intent does not negate effect, unless the item has some common and unrelated use. The "solvent catch adapters" that allow you to screw a can or oil filter onto a barrel really push the line. The "other" use and intent is not strong on credibility. And once the can or filter body has an exit hole, it doesn't matter what you claim was your intent, the effect is there and you possess a silencer. The statute says: Quote:
The Judge explained: Quote:
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
|||
|
|