About those (ahem) "solvent traps"

[Aguila Blanca]

The ATF is after them. Be aware:

https://www2.nssf.org/e/127421/file-...hmADLywt9M_ajQ

[Sharkbite]

Wow!!!

You cant even do a form 1 to register one as a real suppressor.

[44 AMP]

Can of worms, 1 each, ....

Ok, so it seems that anything, any part, that the ATF deems "intended" to be used as/in a silencer is under the law a silencer part.

because the ATF says so...

apparently it doesn't matter what the user uses it for, or what the maker says its for, it is within the authority of the ATF to determine what the part is intended for. Does that sound right, to you???

You cant even do a form 1 to register one as a real suppressor.

under the law as it currently exists only the manufacturer/vendor can register it. The end user/owner cannot.

[Metal god]

apparently it doesn't matter what the user uses it for, or what the maker says its for, it is within the authority of the ATF to determine what the part is intended for. Does that sound right, to you???

Yes it does . we've all had this discussion but about other parts . To sell muzzle devices banned in CA manufactures will just change the name of something from flash hider to compensator or other . Then claim it does "B" while completely omitting the fact that it does "A" better then B . This means we buy it for "A" but say we are buying it for "B" .

I believe we talked about this as it relates to pistol braces . There's a "theory" out there that guys would buy an AR pistol and put a pistol "brace" on it and never actually use the brace as designed . Resulting in them legally owning an SBR without all the please may I paperwork .

I think the simple way to determine if the object is a solvent trap or a silencer is simple . Where did you buy it , Hardware store or a gun show/shop ? How's that for deciding the intent on this subject ?

[Spats McGee]

Didn't we all see this coming? For as long as I've been hanging out here, there have been cautionary remarks about solvent traps.

[JohnKSa]

Pretty logical progression that if they are trying to restrict 80% receivers, they would want to restrict 99% silencers too.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Didn't we all see this coming? For as long as I've been hanging out here, there have been cautionary remarks about solvent traps.

If we didn't see it coming -- we should have.

This latest move by the BATFE in re solvent traps is hardly a surprise. The cautionary lesson, IMHO, is that this shows they are in no way deterred by all the legal questions raised by their recent rule-making, and they are continuing to make new rulings and determinations that are not based on the letter of the law. Which means we have to be careful.

[44 AMP]

The real surprise to me is that it has taken them this long to put something in writing about this.

The root cause of the issue goes back decades to the language of the laws themselves. And the underlying concept goes back to the middle ages, or perhaps earlier.

More specific to this matter, the law says that they get to determine what a part is intended to be, and only that matters. Whether or not said part is actually used in an illegal manner doesn't matter. Whether or not said part will actually WORK doesn't matter. It's deemed illegal because they say its intended for illegal use.

This is yet another case of being guilty until proven innocent (if you even can be) just because the law was written to allow it, or even encourage it.

Its also an example of the govt assuming intent in general and punishing people in specifics not because they should, but because they can.

And applying that concept unevenly and unfairly.

Nearly every household in the country has things in it that COULD be made into a bomb. Every car with airbags has a detonator in it. You can make deadly toxins from dead animals. You can kill someone with anything, including your own body. Etc.,etc.,etc.

Generally speaking, its not criminal to have these things until you actually try to do something illegal with them.

But not gun parts, oh no. Make no mistake silencer parts are treated as gun parts, they are covered under gun laws.

Constructive possession (for one example), and determining you are guilty of some legal violation without actually attempting or doing a criminal act, is a long standing, and I feel flawed tradition in our system.

Sure, I'm aware of people intentionally skirting (or breaking) the law for profit (actual or perceived). But lumping everyone together doesn't seem right to me, common though it is.

There is an old joke that has some very valid points in it, about a ranch hand who stops into the saloon for a drink while he has fence post pliers in his back pocket.

The Sherriff comes in, sees the wire cutters, and arrests the guy for cattle rustling. Says, "Sorry Slim, I gotta take you in, fences been cut, cattle been rustled, and you got the tool for it in your back pocket..."
Slim replies, "ok Sherriff, I'll go peaceable, but I didn't do it."
"Don't matter, Slim you got the tools for it right there!"
"Well, in that case, you better arrest me for rape as well, cause I dang sure got the tools for that, too!!"


I hope you can see my point.

[FrankenMauser]

Ok, so it seems that anything, any part, that the ATF deems "intended" to be used as/in a silencer is under the law a silencer part.

My lawyer friend in Florida is trying to figure out how best to challenge all of this "solvent trap" crap that the ATF came up with to make Form 1 suppressors difficult for anyone that doesn't own a machine shop.

He has a client (with a garage machine shop)) that applied for a Form 1 before the first crackdown.
They made him resubmit in the new format, with a document laying out build method, materials, and details (like caliber and OAL) already on the F1; and the required photographs.
They denied the new F1, because he said he would be using stainless steel tubing for the suppressor body, but there was a piece of clearly-labeled chromoly tubing in one photo. Unrelated to the project, but visible.
They are now denying every F1 that he submits for a suppressor, without giving reason. They are simply being returned with the "disapproved" stamp and, occasionally, the reason section reading only, "incomplete".

He's really hoping that it will get smacked down by the current cases challenging the ATF's lack of regard for the law, before he has to find a new approach.

[44 AMP]

Your friend may have a different landscape to navigate in the future. Upcoming SCOTUS cases might change things more than a little bit.

Particularly if the court focuses on the path they laid out in Bruen. And, by that I mean the requirement of historical precedents, from the founding era on...

1934 has passed beyond living memory, but 1968 and 1986 have not, yet.

IT is not beyond the realm of possibility that the high court could rule parts of those laws invalid.

We'll have to wait and see what the actual outcome is, but it would certainly cheer me up to see some of the crap that is federal firearms laws reduced or eliminated.

[FrankenMauser]

He is part of the crusade. Has written briefs for SCOTUS cases that we all know, and was in the hot seat for several cases in lower courts over the last few years (as well as some controversial media appearances).
But he is no longer associated with a major 2A organization*, so there is no point in name dropping.

*Except when they want to name drop to get attention from 'his' crowd.