Silencers for Air Guns-Are they Legal?? - Page 2

**JohnKSa** · March 8, 2007, 12:27 AM

Quote:

The good news is, if I had a silencer welded to my pellet gun then it's legal!

As you point out, that's only AFTER it's attached.

Quote:

A "prohibited person" (18 usc, sec 922) ends up being denied the ability to do something that is perfectly legal (that is... have a perminently afixed suppressor on an airgun).

No, they're only denied the right to MAKE one and afix it themselves. They can have an integrally silenced airgun from one of several vendors.

tatera · March 8, 2007, 06:48 AM

Or they could gather all the necessary components and use a construction method that begins by welding the first components (washers i.e., baffles) to the barrel then the subsequent components to it. You'd have to be certain of your design and technique.

Rediculous - how did the laws come to this place?

EJJR · March 8, 2007, 12:13 PM

Slopemeno · March 9, 2007, 12:07 AM

For paintball, use a Smartparts barrel. Not "silent" but from being on the receiving end I can tell you its very hard to figure out where those shots are coming from.

And airguns, I think people get too hung up on high power. An R-7 can be shot all day in your backyard, and unless someone sees you they'll never notice. Shoot a 1000 fps aigun and they'll notice. Frankly, you'd be better off shooting CB longs.

**JohnKSa** · March 9, 2007, 01:40 AM

I've had someone ask me if I were shooting a .22rifle on one occasion while I was sighting in my R1 air rifle. For urban environments, the less powerful airguns tend to be a better choice for unsilenced work.

And if you want silenced performance, there are a few manufacturers out there who will oblige with integrally silenced airguns.

tatera · March 9, 2007, 10:55 AM

The bottom line legally - airgun owners are denied the ability to engage in a perfectly legal activity (sound suppression of airguns) because that activity is surrounded on all sides by a legal mote with little real due process to assist them. A legal island in the middle of a sea of laws.

There are some routes to remedy. The first is case law. One would have to draw the federal government into a legal battle and have them lose and lose badly. The precedent would essentially melt the draconian laws. This would require an individual with extraordinary financial means and intestinal fortitude. This isn't very attractive to anyone, I'm sure.

Anonther would be to engage in legislation reform; repeal of the federal and state laws restricting the use of suppression technology. This is first a cultural and educational effort to turn the public's opinion of the technology and its benefits. The reformation of the law itself would likely take the form of an intense punitive threat to anyone using suppression technology in the course of a crime while generally allowing manufacture and ownership to take place legally.

If making the legal leap to firearms is too extreme for the public to digest, then perhaps a more defined measure of control of suppression technology should be designed. This might involve protecting your rights by means of putting a heavier burden evidence on the government to prosecute airgun owners with suppression technology. Changes to the laws should include the obligation of the prosecutor to demonstrate both means and motive defined in the law as "readily adapted" and "intent to adapt" the silencer to a firearm.

The "intent to adapt" would mean evidence of some kind supporting the defendent's motive to suppress a firearm under their control instead of the federal free-for-all prosecution for anyone suppressing an airgun that exists today.

The "readily adapted" would mean the construction and form factor of the device would have to, with very minimal effort, be adapted to a firearm under control of teh defendent or of reasonable means to be obtained.

A "demonstrated affixed dependency" would provide legal protection from the "readily adpated" clause. I.e., the only removable portion of the device renders it useless for suppression and only by taking actions to modify a firearm or the construction of the device could someone restore suppression capability. This would prevent a silencer free-for-all by would-be makers from claiming their designs are for airguns. Owning a firearm anmd a device modified to adapt to one another in order to complete the function of suppression would be a crimal act (I know there are already some laws restricting threaded barrels on firearms for this reason).

Who's for legal reform?

FirstFreedom · March 9, 2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

It's not illegal for a company in England to sell to you. The BATF can't enforce any U.S. laws against them.

The importer will be the one who is prosecuted.

How so, if the only "importer" is UPS?

**JohnKSa** · March 9, 2007, 09:13 PM

The importer is you. UPS is the common contract carrier.

Quote:

Anonther would be to engage in legislation reform; repeal of the federal and state laws restricting the use of suppression technology. This is first a cultural and educational effort to turn the public's opinion of the technology and its benefits. The reformation of the law itself would likely take the form of an intense punitive threat to anyone using suppression technology in the course of a crime while generally allowing manufacture and ownership to take place legally.

A huge effort. You'd have to re-educate an entire generation or two. And when you were done, you could do what you can already do. (Have a silenced airgun.)

You'd just have a wider selection. (Assuming there's enough market to make it worth the manufacturers' while.)

Johnc · March 9, 2007, 11:06 PM

Something that really needs to be considered is the effectiveness of a silencer on an air gun. Many of your more powerful airguns are "springers". These guns produce much of their noise from the mechanism (spring) releasing when the trigger is pulled. Anyone that has owned a powerfull springer will note that they are truly scope killers because of the violent recoil action that they produce which follows the forward lunge. Just put a $100.00 scope on a Chinese springer or a good German RWS springer and watch what happens. For these springers, it would be like putting a silencer on a revolver.

**JohnKSa** · March 9, 2007, 11:12 PM

Yup, I seem to recall reading that something approaching 40% of the "discharge sound" from a springer is mechanical noise and not muzzle blast.

tatera · March 11, 2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

A huge effort. You'd have to re-educate an entire generation or two. And when you were done, you could do what you can already do. (Have a silenced airgun.)

Except you could build the piece yourself for $12 in parts from a hardware store and outfit any and as many air rifles as you like.

What manufacturers currently offer suppressors on air guns? I've seen a thing on the end of Gamo models but this is explained as a handle to aid in the cocking of the break barrel - not to reduce the report of the discharge.

**JohnKSa** · March 11, 2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Except you could build the piece yourself for $12 in parts from a hardware store and outfit any and as many air rifles as you like.

The price of an integrally silenced airgun is usually commensurate with a similar quality non-silenced model. And the silencer along with the airgun is warranteed by the manufacturer.

So, considering that the only real benefit is being able to get a wider selection of silenced air rifles and factoring in the effort of re-educating 400 million people to your point of view I just don't see this as a cause anyone's going to take up. If I see it on the ballot, I'd vote with you, but IMO, even within the shooting community, you'd have a hard time getting a majority to agree...

Some makers that offer integrally silenced airguns:
Theoben
AirForce Airguns
Air Arms (Used to--may still)

tatera · March 12, 2007, 05:47 AM

Quote:

If I see it on the ballot, I'd vote with you, but IMO, even within the shooting community, you'd have a hard time getting a majority to agree...

I haven't heard anyone straightforwardly address the reason our government so intensely controls suppression technology. Is it purely a question of tactical advantage in a fire fight or other crimes?

Thanks for the manufacturer info. Pricey stuff but very cool.

Hkmp5sd · March 12, 2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Is it purely a question of tactical advantage in a fire fight or other crimes?

It is purely Hollywood. Suppressors aka Silencers are used by assassins and other would be murders to kill people without attacting attention. Based on this belief, they have no legitimate use and are regulated. Without this protection, the streets would be awash with blood.

**JohnKSa** · March 12, 2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

It is purely Hollywood.

Exactly what I was going to reply. Most people have their opinions of silencers formed for them by the movies.

tatera · March 13, 2007, 05:57 AM

A few years ago I had a conversation with a French national - explaining the wisdom of the founding fathers writing the right to bar arms in our country's constitution. That this was to guarantee our rights by offsetting the power of the government or worse, an invading force.

This was dismissed are pure illusary because of the might of our polioce and armed forces and the government's ability to deny basic facilities like water and power. My sense was then that out right to bare arms was still a prudent measure balance.

Now in Iraq we have seen just how effective an armed civilian population can be, even against the world's most powerful army. I contend my French friend was wrong. Don't get me wrong, I hate the war personnaly and it has taken a grave toll on my family. But it objectively demonstrates that any government should think long and hard before choosing an armed response to resolving conflict in an armed nation instead of diplomatic means.

Now we have arrived in this country to a place where we have all but given up our right to own a gun. My sense is these laws should be repealed. In the immortal words of Benjamin franklin - "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

The fact that the population could be duped into outlawing a threaded metal tube is an alarming indicator we are headed in the wrong direction.

FM12 · March 13, 2007, 07:23 AM

So air guns are firearms? I they wil shoot as automatics, dosent that make them subject to NFA rules then? Seems the supressor would be a moot point.

VUPDblue · March 13, 2007, 08:16 AM

No, airguns are not firearms as defined by ATF. There are full auto airguns that are legal to own.

FM12 · March 13, 2007, 11:43 PM

If they are not firearms, then how would a supressor for a non-firearm be subject to NFA regs?

**JohnKSa** · March 13, 2007, 11:54 PM

Suppressors are NFA items in and of themselves. Doesn't matter what you PLAN to use them on--only what they CAN be used on. That's why the only way to be safe is to make the suppressor integral to the airgun so that it can't be detached.

tatera · March 14, 2007, 05:31 AM

Yes. This is what I meant when I said it's an island of perfectly legal activity (having a supressor on an airgun) surronded by a sea of laws preventing yoo from getting there.

I suppose you could buy all the components and weld each one, one at a time to the barrel as you build it. That way you're never in possession of a silencer apart from the integral design completed in-place on the airgun.

tatera · April 5, 2007, 09:23 PM

Contruct the silencer from tape and paper products. They are durable for a reasonable amount of rounds.

There are two key factors for preventing violation of any law: First, contruct the device directly on the airgun (no complete structures can exist off the airgun, lest they present a possibility of being afixed to a firearm) and second, construct the device in such a way that will be totally destroyed at any attempt to remove it from the airgun (easy to do with tape and paper).

w_houle · April 6, 2007, 07:12 PM

Doesn't matter what you make it out of, if you put a potato on the end of a muzzle you have to register it. http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/20...ng_my_fingers/

tatera · April 7, 2007, 08:29 PM

The loop hole is not based upon the materials themselves but the combined effect of the process and materials.

Any substance concerntrated at the muzzle that will slow the release of gas without detrimental degradation of the projectile's trajectory will effectively supress any firearm - no doubts paper and tape will do that. If you make one, you have yourself a serious "make firearm", NFA problem. Whether or not you agree with the law, there's little doubt you're breaking it.

The loop hole is made by two key distinctions that I believe place the process and its result outside the qualifying description: 1 - at no time is a suppressor constructed apart from the airgun and 2 - that by no means could the completed design be removed from the airgun without completely destroying its construction.

You'd end up with a wod of paper and tape - as likely a suppressor as any other collection of gas permiable, low density objects you find in your house - socks, toilet paper, dish rags, etc.

So it's the process and the materials. The process avoids the existence of a suppressor apart from the airgun, the material prevents its in-tact removal, Combined they make it impossible to be used on any firearm.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer. If it does violate the law, I'm interesting in learning how.

douglasschuckert · May 6, 2007, 11:02 PM

There are several high-end pellet guns that have intrigal suppressors in them. You can order these guns right online and they ship directly to your door. I dont know how these are ok, and home-made units for the same are not...???

HOWEVER...

My cousin's friend got nailed to the wall for making a silencer out film canisters for his pellet gun, and another one out of PVC pipe for his paint-ball gun. He did get off on the charges with a severe slap on the wrist... because his attorney was so damn good. (thankfull this kids parents were well-to-do).

I seriously do not know what in the hell the BATF&E was thinking? Witch-hunting a child like that? Granted this happened during the Clinton administration timeframe, when the ATF prosecuted law-abiding citizens more harshly than criminals (and sometimes they still do...), but for legal *risks* I wouldn't try it. I know there is a LOT of ways the manufacturing law can be interprited, its not a wise decision to make that choice on your own.

If you really want to know, write the question down and mail it to your local ATF office.... then call them and ask. (You want to write them because they are legally REQUIRED to respond to all written coorospondance reguarding clarification or verification of laws/regulations.. this way you have the SAIC's written response). When push comes to shove, it comes down to that Field Office's views and interpretations of the laws that will direct your local DA to file a motion for arrest, and if they are unwilling to, the ATF will get a Federal Judge to sign off on the motion. The ATF will always wait for the judge or DA to sign off on their request before they perform the actual arrest... they cannot just come onto your property at will nor can they search your premisis without your consent or warrant. That is if you own the property.. If you rent... I hope you are friends with your landlord... because if he gives permission for them to enter your place, your hosed.... so if you rent... HIDE your $hi*! :-)... Even with the landlords permission, they cannot search. they can only file charges on what is out in the open.

Play is safe! DO NOT SPECULATE or INTERPRET THE LAW YOURSELF. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, IGNORE THE FORUMS AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE BATF&E! Its just my 2-cents worth.....

March 8, 2007, 06:48 AM	#27
tatera Member Join Date: March 6, 2007 Posts: 58	The means Or they could gather all the necessary components and use a construction method that begins by welding the first components (washers i.e., baffles) to the barrel then the subsequent components to it. You'd have to be certain of your design and technique. Rediculous - how did the laws come to this place?

March 8, 2007, 12:13 PM	#28
EJJR Senior Member Join Date: March 3, 2007 Posts: 153	__________________ Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. Thomas Jefferson Want to learn how to shoot well? http://appleseedinfo.org/

March 9, 2007, 01:40 AM	#30
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,974	I've had someone ask me if I were shooting a .22rifle on one occasion while I was sighting in my R1 air rifle. For urban environments, the less powerful airguns tend to be a better choice for unsilenced work. And if you want silenced performance, there are a few manufacturers out there who will oblige with integrally silenced airguns. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

March 9, 2007, 10:55 AM	#31
tatera Member Join Date: March 6, 2007 Posts: 58	Conclusions The bottom line legally - airgun owners are denied the ability to engage in a perfectly legal activity (sound suppression of airguns) because that activity is surrounded on all sides by a legal mote with little real due process to assist them. A legal island in the middle of a sea of laws. There are some routes to remedy. The first is case law. One would have to draw the federal government into a legal battle and have them lose and lose badly. The precedent would essentially melt the draconian laws. This would require an individual with extraordinary financial means and intestinal fortitude. This isn't very attractive to anyone, I'm sure. Anonther would be to engage in legislation reform; repeal of the federal and state laws restricting the use of suppression technology. This is first a cultural and educational effort to turn the public's opinion of the technology and its benefits. The reformation of the law itself would likely take the form of an intense punitive threat to anyone using suppression technology in the course of a crime while generally allowing manufacture and ownership to take place legally. If making the legal leap to firearms is too extreme for the public to digest, then perhaps a more defined measure of control of suppression technology should be designed. This might involve protecting your rights by means of putting a heavier burden evidence on the government to prosecute airgun owners with suppression technology. Changes to the laws should include the obligation of the prosecutor to demonstrate both means and motive defined in the law as "readily adapted" and "intent to adapt" the silencer to a firearm. The "intent to adapt" would mean evidence of some kind supporting the defendent's motive to suppress a firearm under their control instead of the federal free-for-all prosecution for anyone suppressing an airgun that exists today. The "readily adapted" would mean the construction and form factor of the device would have to, with very minimal effort, be adapted to a firearm under control of teh defendent or of reasonable means to be obtained. A "demonstrated affixed dependency" would provide legal protection from the "readily adpated" clause. I.e., the only removable portion of the device renders it useless for suppression and only by taking actions to modify a firearm or the construction of the device could someone restore suppression capability. This would prevent a silencer free-for-all by would-be makers from claiming their designs are for airguns. Owning a firearm anmd a device modified to adapt to one another in order to complete the function of suppression would be a crimal act (I know there are already some laws restricting threaded barrels on firearms for this reason). Who's for legal reform?

March 9, 2007, 11:12 PM	#35
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,974	Yup, I seem to recall reading that something approaching 40% of the "discharge sound" from a springer is mechanical noise and not muzzle blast. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

March 9, 2007, 12:07 AM	#29
Slopemeno Senior Member Join Date: January 19, 2007 Posts: 2,663	For paintball, use a Smartparts barrel. Not "silent" but from being on the receiving end I can tell you its very hard to figure out where those shots are coming from. And airguns, I think people get too hung up on high power. An R-7 can be shot all day in your backyard, and unless someone sees you they'll never notice. Shoot a 1000 fps aigun and they'll notice. Frankly, you'd be better off shooting CB longs.

March 9, 2007, 11:06 PM	#34
Johnc Senior Member Join Date: November 21, 2006 Location: Long Island NY Posts: 566	Something that really needs to be considered is the effectiveness of a silencer on an air gun. Many of your more powerful airguns are "springers". These guns produce much of their noise from the mechanism (spring) releasing when the trigger is pulled. Anyone that has owned a powerfull springer will note that they are truly scope killers because of the violent recoil action that they produce which follows the forward lunge. Just put a $100.00 scope on a Chinese springer or a good German RWS springer and watch what happens. For these springers, it would be like putting a silencer on a revolver.

March 13, 2007, 05:57 AM	#41
tatera Member Join Date: March 6, 2007 Posts: 58	The constitution A few years ago I had a conversation with a French national - explaining the wisdom of the founding fathers writing the right to bar arms in our country's constitution. That this was to guarantee our rights by offsetting the power of the government or worse, an invading force. This was dismissed are pure illusary because of the might of our polioce and armed forces and the government's ability to deny basic facilities like water and power. My sense was then that out right to bare arms was still a prudent measure balance. Now in Iraq we have seen just how effective an armed civilian population can be, even against the world's most powerful army. I contend my French friend was wrong. Don't get me wrong, I hate the war personnaly and it has taken a grave toll on my family. But it objectively demonstrates that any government should think long and hard before choosing an armed response to resolving conflict in an armed nation instead of diplomatic means. Now we have arrived in this country to a place where we have all but given up our right to own a gun. My sense is these laws should be repealed. In the immortal words of Benjamin franklin - "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither." The fact that the population could be duped into outlawing a threaded metal tube is an alarming indicator we are headed in the wrong direction.

March 13, 2007, 07:23 AM	#42
FM12 Senior Member Join Date: February 5, 2007 Location: Monroeville, Alabama Posts: 1,683	So air guns are firearms? I they wil shoot as automatics, dosent that make them subject to NFA rules then? Seems the supressor would be a moot point.

March 13, 2007, 08:16 AM	#43
VUPDblue Senior Member Join Date: December 18, 2005 Location: Central Indiana Posts: 1,981	No, airguns are not firearms as defined by ATF. There are full auto airguns that are legal to own. __________________ Silencers have NEVER been illegal !

March 13, 2007, 11:43 PM	#44
FM12 Senior Member Join Date: February 5, 2007 Location: Monroeville, Alabama Posts: 1,683	If they are not firearms, then how would a supressor for a non-firearm be subject to NFA regs?

March 13, 2007, 11:54 PM	#45
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,974	Suppressors are NFA items in and of themselves. Doesn't matter what you PLAN to use them on--only what they CAN be used on. That's why the only way to be safe is to make the suppressor integral to the airgun so that it can't be detached. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

March 14, 2007, 05:31 AM	#46
tatera Member Join Date: March 6, 2007 Posts: 58	Yes. This is what I meant when I said it's an island of perfectly legal activity (having a supressor on an airgun) surronded by a sea of laws preventing yoo from getting there. I suppose you could buy all the components and weld each one, one at a time to the barrel as you build it. That way you're never in possession of a silencer apart from the integral design completed in-place on the airgun.

April 5, 2007, 09:23 PM	#47
tatera Member Join Date: March 6, 2007 Posts: 58	solution Contruct the silencer from tape and paper products. They are durable for a reasonable amount of rounds. There are two key factors for preventing violation of any law: First, contruct the device directly on the airgun (no complete structures can exist off the airgun, lest they present a possibility of being afixed to a firearm) and second, construct the device in such a way that will be totally destroyed at any attempt to remove it from the airgun (easy to do with tape and paper).

April 6, 2007, 07:12 PM	#48
w_houle Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2007 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,391	Doesn't matter what you make it out of, if you put a potato on the end of a muzzle you have to register it. http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/20...ng_my_fingers/

April 7, 2007, 08:29 PM	#49
tatera Member Join Date: March 6, 2007 Posts: 58	The loop hole is not based upon the materials themselves but the combined effect of the process and materials. Any substance concerntrated at the muzzle that will slow the release of gas without detrimental degradation of the projectile's trajectory will effectively supress any firearm - no doubts paper and tape will do that. If you make one, you have yourself a serious "make firearm", NFA problem. Whether or not you agree with the law, there's little doubt you're breaking it. The loop hole is made by two key distinctions that I believe place the process and its result outside the qualifying description: 1 - at no time is a suppressor constructed apart from the airgun and 2 - that by no means could the completed design be removed from the airgun without completely destroying its construction. You'd end up with a wod of paper and tape - as likely a suppressor as any other collection of gas permiable, low density objects you find in your house - socks, toilet paper, dish rags, etc. So it's the process and the materials. The process avoids the existence of a suppressor apart from the airgun, the material prevents its in-tact removal, Combined they make it *impossible to be used on any* firearm**. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. If it does violate the law, I'm interesting in learning how.

May 6, 2007, 11:02 PM	#50
douglasschuckert Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2007 Location: Pensacola, Florida Posts: 141	Silencers on Paintball and Pellet Guns There are several high-end pellet guns that have intrigal suppressors in them. You can order these guns right online and they ship directly to your door. I dont know how these are ok, and home-made units for the same are not...??? HOWEVER... My cousin's friend got nailed to the wall for making a silencer out film canisters for his pellet gun, and another one out of PVC pipe for his paint-ball gun. He did get off on the charges with a severe slap on the wrist... because his attorney was so damn good. (thankfull this kids parents were well-to-do). I seriously do not know what in the hell the BATF&E was thinking? Witch-hunting a child like that? Granted this happened during the Clinton administration timeframe, when the ATF prosecuted law-abiding citizens more harshly than criminals (and sometimes they still do...), but for legal risks I wouldn't try it. I know there is a LOT of ways the manufacturing law can be interprited, its not a wise decision to make that choice on your own. If you really want to know, write the question down and mail it to your local ATF office.... then call them and ask. (You want to write them because they are legally REQUIRED to respond to all written coorospondance reguarding clarification or verification of laws/regulations.. this way you have the SAIC's written response). When push comes to shove, it comes down to that Field Office's views and interpretations of the laws that will direct your local DA to file a motion for arrest, and if they are unwilling to, the ATF will get a Federal Judge to sign off on the motion. The ATF will always wait for the judge or DA to sign off on their request before they perform the actual arrest... they cannot just come onto your property at will nor can they search your premisis without your consent or warrant. That is if you own the property.. If you rent... I hope you are friends with your landlord... because if he gives permission for them to enter your place, your hosed.... so if you rent... HIDE your $hi*! :-)... Even with the landlords permission, they cannot search. they can only file charges on what is out in the open. Play is safe! DO NOT SPECULATE or INTERPRET THE LAW YOURSELF. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, IGNORE THE FORUMS AND GO DIRECTLY TO THE BATF&E! Its just my 2-cents worth.....