Sig jumps into the ring.....

[RJT]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... ore-310167

[a_canadian]

When I read about this suit in the news last week I thought to myself 'good, the government is getting too aggressive about this stuff and it seems they're pushing too hard on this one' or something along those lines. Now that I see a picture of the so-called muzzle brake... well, um, no. That's a suppressor monocore guys, let's admit it and move on. The law is quite clear about suppressor parts, and that's most of a suppressor right there. It's a stupid law, but saying that to a judge isn't going to get any end user anywhere. Remember, a guy was recently nailed for duct taping a pop bottle onto his rifle. If that's a suppressor, this is much, much more a suppressor.

[BearTHIS]

When I read about this suit in the news last week I thought to myself 'good, the government is getting too aggressive about this stuff and it seems they're pushing too hard on this one' or something along those lines. Now that I see a picture of the so-called muzzle brake... well, um, no. That's a suppressor monocore guys, let's admit it and move on. The law is quite clear about suppressor parts, and that's most of a suppressor right there. It's a stupid law, but saying that to a judge isn't going to get any end user anywhere. Remember, a guy was recently nailed for duct taping a pop bottle onto his rifle. If that's a suppressor, this is much, much more a suppressor.

Huh? Well if it doesn't make the gun any quieter it ain't a silencer. Might as well classify every QD muzzle device as "silencer parts" by your logic. Let's hope Sig wins this in court.

[a_canadian]

Huh? Well if it doesn't make the gun any quieter it ain't a silencer. Might as well classify every QD muzzle device as "silencer parts" by your logic. Let's hope Sig wins this in court.

Well by your logic it's cool to make a few K baffles, is that right? They're not silencer parts if they're not in a tube screwed to a gun barrel, correct? Just paperweights? Or more directly related, what about screwing on a Silencerco Sparrow core onto a barrel and shooting that without a tax stamp? It's got no tube, so it's not a silencer part, right? Come on. We're not children here are we? Sig has made an obvious suppressor core and has even promoted it as such, but now they're trying to pretend otherwise.

[Conqueror]

The truth is, almost every rifle muzzle brake can be made into a silencer if you enclose it in a tube. It might not be super effective, but I bet a JP muzzle brake with a tube over it would shave a couple dB off the report. I like this lawsuit. Sig claims to have meter data showing that it amplifies the report and reduces recoil, which would support its claim that the device functions as a muzzle brake when not enclosed. I don't like the whole "it looks like baffles so it's a silencer" thought process, since that could be true of many muzzle brakes.

[a_canadian]

Oh I certainly agree that it's good to see this getting an airing in court. The whole situation with suppressor law variability throughout the world is bizarre to say the least. What is thought to be polite noise reduction in the UK and New Zealand is outright criminalized in so many other countries, and regulated with absurd delays and a cash grab 'tax stamp' in the US. Someone's got to shake things up. I'm just saying that this is an obvious monocore, probably a reasonably efficient one at that, and capable of providing effective sound suppression with the simple addition of a tube. Wouldn't even have to be threaded. Just slip it on and weld it in place and presto, instant suppressor.

[holdemcyclist]

Huh? Well if it doesn't make the gun any quieter it ain't a silencer. Might as well classify every QD muzzle device as "silencer parts" by your logic. Let's hope Sig wins this in court.

Well by your logic it's cool to make a few K baffles, is that right? They're not silencer parts if they're not in a tube screwed to a gun barrel, correct? Just paperweights? Or more directly related, what about screwing on a Silencerco Sparrow core onto a barrel and shooting that without a tax stamp? It's got no tube, so it's not a silencer part, right? Come on. We're not children here are we? Sig has made an obvious suppressor core and has even promoted it as such, but now they're trying to pretend otherwise.

Even if these are suppressor parts, why should suppressor parts be illegal is the question I ask? I like that Sig is challenging this law. The way the law is now, it is not a stretch that the ATF could say, "You have an AR-15 with a 16" barrel and you also own a hacksaw. This could easily be used to construct a SBR."

[este]

Oh, This doesn't look like the start of another GemTAACs at all

Although it looks like a tough sell, I don't mind Sig trying IF the blowback when it's unsuccessful would be minor. But I certainly have no issue with the ATF being sued on their bullshit.

[a_canadian]

Sure, it's great that someone who can afford lawyers is going up against unfair and stupid laws. But it'll fail because it's a stupid challenge of a stupid law. This isn't a hacksaw and some potential, any more than a garden is a potential grow-op making the gardener a drug dealer by default. What Sig's done is provide a complete suppressor monocore with obvious features designed to provide decent efficiency. If the ATF is going against that exact thing with the law on suppressors, then Sig is going to lose, as a judge is going to go with both the letter and the spirit of that law. If Sig were on the other hand going up against the ATF on the grounds that prohibition of sale of suppressor parts was unconstitutional, or even a safety hazard for the ears of shooters and their friends and family members, then they might have a better chance. There's no way this monocore is going to get anywhere with a judge.

[TROOPER]

Even by that thin logic, a flash hider is a silencer part since it is the blast baffle for certain cans. Flat washers are silencer parts.

No one is suggesting that Sig's muzzle brake is an unfinished suppressor, but that's the thing... it's unfinished... and it does NOTHING to silence a shot in any way until that final part is added. You saying that we ought to go ahead and pump out some k-baffles for funsies is a ridiculous analogy meant to make your point by causing the opposition to look silly.

Except that muzzle-brakes COULD have a sleeve put over them, thus making them into little silencers.

... so no, it isn't far-fetched for Sig to push back. More so, the ATF sets out rules, Sig didn't violate those rules, and now the ATF is getting pissed. TFB. If their stance is that there is "intent", then so damn what? The Sig muzzle-brake is not illegal, they arbitrarily do not like it.

I, for one, am eager to see these arbitrary rules codified for a change instead of this constant guessing game which can be altered at whim instead of at law.

[a_canadian]

How about this 'thin' logic then. What would happen if a new forum member posted a first thread with a picture of that exact monocore muzzle brake, prior to everyone here knowing about the Sig part, as something he'd whipped up? You know from experience of this forum that everyone and their smelly uncle would jump down the guy's throat about FORM 1! FORM 1!, EMERGENCY, EVERYBODY SCOLD THE NEW GUY! It's happened a thousand times or more, when folks come along and even just ask a question, not yet having touched metal with 'intent' to build a suppressor. Now along comes Sig with a finished, marketed product which is in essence identical to many of the monocores being marketed by suppressor manufacturers and monocores being cranked out by Form 1 (or is it Form 4 - sorry, I'm not a US citizen so I'm not all that familiar with the difference) submitting tax stamp holding members here. Lots of variations in shape, but it's essentially a multi-cell slant baffle suppressor monocore.

Again, I do appreciate there being an engagement with the ATF on this, and the fallout may or may not be useful in furthering the arguments around suppressor legality and access. But my feeling is that Sig's stating that this is not a suppressor part is disingenuous. Any individual in the USA without the proper paperwork making that exact same part would be faced with the potential for prison time. Why is Sig any different when they try to sell such a part to those same unlicensed individuals? I agree, things can get a bit fuzzy with shorter flash hiders/muzzle brakes, but there comes a point where common sense would seem to make it obvious that this is no such thing.

[holdemcyclist]

This isn't a hacksaw and some potential

What could be done more easily by a common individual, turn a standard 16" AR into a SBR, or turn Sig's baffle stack into a suppressor? I know what would be a lot easier for me to do.

the spirit of that law. If Sig were on the other hand going up against the ATF on the grounds that prohibition of sale of suppressor parts was unconstitutional

The spirit of the law, in my eyes, is that this device does nothing to diminish the report of the rifle. That is the definition of a suppressor. And you are correct, they should probably argue this aspect, that parts alone do not equal the sum and are therefore not illegal.

[TROOPER]

If a new member did that, we would quickly tell him that he was begging for ATF trouble.

And?

You can't seem to tell the difference between a prediction and an ideal; anyone could've predicted that Sig was going to catch some flack for that design. I never once suggested that they wouldn't, I suggest that they shouldn't, because they did not breach codified law. I point out the thin logic of calling that a baffle stack -- and therefore a silencer part -- but NOT pointing out the same as it pertains to the myriads of "silencer parts" available at Home Depot, or how many types of muzzle-brakes can be converted into miniature silencers now by simply insleeving them (that isn't a word).

The point of my analogies were to illustrate the fickle nature of the ATF's rulings, and how it is refreshing to see someone push back on the law-making that the ATF is doing --- and that is what they are doing. What piece of legislation defined what Sig did as a silencer? When was this legislation passed? The ATF made it up on their own by taking existing law and defining it how they saw fit over time until a shoe-string is "intent", and a muzzle-brake --- which is what that is --- are designs that will land you in a federal penitentiary. And yes, that is absolutely a muzzle-brake, because it makes it louder, redirects the gases, and does nothing to slow the rapid decompression of exiting gas.

It isn't a silencer until it has a serialized sleeve on it. It won't perform any function of a silencer until it has a serialized sleeve on it. It can't perform any function of a silencer until it has a serialized sleeve on it.

[a_canadian]

It isn't a silencer until it has a serialized sleeve on it. It won't perform any function of a silencer until it has a serialized sleeve on it. It can't perform any function of a silencer until it has a serialized sleeve on it.

So what next? By saying this, are you suggesting that any individual is free, or ought to be free, to manufacture any number of monocores, test them on firearms for alignment and wear, and generally just shoot up a storm with them while refining them, adding material back, scrapping them and making new ones... until their ideal monocore is achieved, and only then need they consider applying for a tax stamp in order that they may proceed to cut a section of tubing and put it in place? Again, what's the difference between Sig and any individual doing this? Whether or not the ATF is making it up as they go along (I agree, heartily), what's to stop them arresting whoever they like at Sig for making these things and attempting to market them?

[Emilio]

Remember when the ATF went after the early GSG 22's because of their fake cans? They made them send recall notices because the fake cans where not tubed to the barrel and "could" be converted to silencing the gun.

The way they think, this one is a no brainer and easy to sleeve or even wrap.

[TROOPER]

I do not understand your questions.

Should a person be able to make a monocore and test it for alignment. Yes. A monocore is not a silencer because a monocore does nothing to suppress a shot in any way.

If a person makes a monocore to test it for alignment, will the ATF bring grief to that person. Yes.

A fake silencer is legal --- why? Because it LOOKS like a silencer, but does nothing to suppress a shot in any way.
A lone monocore is illegal --- why? Because it LOOKS like a silencer, but does nothing to suppress a shot in any way.
A lone monocore is illegal --- why? Because it COULD be made into a silencer.
Flat washers are legal --- why? Because they COULD be made into a silencer.

We're not debating, because you keep trying to get me to admit the same thing again and again, and I do. Here it is again, because you just aren't satisfied for some unknown reason. A person who makes a monocore without a form 4 will get into trouble. <---- that's me agreeing with you.

Now here is the area of thought you refuse to go to: a person who makes a monocore without a form 4 SHOULD NOT get into trouble.

You bring up words like "could", well ok then, so Home Depot sells tubes and flat washers which COULD be used to make a silencer. That is ATF logic. I keep bringing up that point because I keep assuming you're going to see the inconsistency with the ATF's rulings. Maybe I should just say it instead of continually leading you to the water --- the ATF's rules are fickle, and not codified, and not law -- although they have the force of law behind them, but most of all -- they are inconsistent with their logical tests.

I am glad that a big company with the resources to pursue this endeavor is asking a judge to make a ruling which causes the ATF's fickle and inconsistent rules to be put in black-and-white so that people can move forward with designs and commerce instead of the way it is now where a perfectly legal device or design is arbitrarily ruled as illegal in some instances.... but not illegal in others.

I do not encourage hobby-shooter to get on the wrong side of the ATF, and I will continue to warn those who make a monocore without paying the tax stamp of the imminent trouble that is awaiting them. It is not inconsistent of me to warn a sibling of when bi-polar mommy or daddy is in one of their moods.

[wacki]

This is why gun laws are stupid. If sig loses this then there are many muzzle brakes that might lose as well. Then there are oil cans.....

[Armorer-at-Law]

This will be interesting. 18 USC 921(a)(24) says:

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.

(Emphasis added) So ATF says that the part on the barrel -- what Sig calls a brake -- is a monolithic core intended "only" for use as part of a silencer. Sig admits that this is one of the intended uses -- Sig advertises that you can buy the tube as an add-on to make it a suppressor. But what if the part that becomes a monolithic baffle core legitimately has other uses?

[66427vette]

Their new employee knows a bit about winning lawsuits . This should be good.

[DMY]

Indeed. This is why Sig will prevail. If this is a functional muzzle brake, the ATF will have a great deal of difficulty shoehorning the device into any of the below silencer definitions.

For those of you thinking "come on guys, this is clearly a baffle stack" take a good hard look at the rule. The rule is what all potential silencers are measured by. Most of the time the rule is good for the ATF. Every now and then the public can sneak in a win.

This will be interesting. 18 USC 921(a)(24) says:

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.

(Emphasis added) So ATF says that the part on the barrel -- what Sig calls a brake -- is a monolithic core intended "only" for use as part of a silencer. Sig admits that this is one of the intended uses -- Sig advertises that you can buy the tube as an add-on to make it a suppressor. But what if the part that becomes a monolithic baffle core legitimately has other uses?

Also, think of all the other issues this is going to open up? Cores will be all over the place at bargain deals because the expensive means to produce, store, and ship them will be rendered ineffective. Suppressor manufactures could be someone that sells a registered and serialized tube. The Form 1 game will change in a big way. Interesting stuff ahead if Sig wins...

[telero]

Yep, would be interesting if manufacturers could sell the serialized tube and then you could buy as many mounts, endcaps, or cores as you want to swap between firearms and core designs...different designs for different applications (pistol vs. rifle, MG, etc.) Maybe wouldn't apply to cones that can't attach to the muzzle on their own as brakes though? Also, what about those oil filter adapters...have one side with the correct threads for the oil filter, and the other have replaceable mounts for different firearms.

[Armorer-at-Law]

Yep, would be interesting if manufacturers could sell the serialized tube and then you could buy as many mounts, endcaps, or cores as you want to swap between firearms and core designs...different designs for different applications (pistol vs. rifle, MG, etc.) Maybe wouldn't apply to cones that can't attach to the muzzle on their own as brakes though?

Sorry. That won't fly under the current law. Parts to make one complete silencer = one silencer. Any additional parts, even if they can't all be used at the same time, are each considered a silencer.

[whiterussian1974]

This will be interesting. 18 USC 921(a)(24) says:

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.

(Emphasis added) So ATF says that the part on the barrel -- what Sig calls a brake -- is a monolithic core intended "only" for use as part of a silencer. Sig admits that this is one of the intended uses -- Sig advertises that you can buy the tube as an add-on to make it a suppressor. But what if the part that becomes a monolithic baffle core legitimately has other uses?

Excellent point. Unless ATF claims that it isn't posible to use this as a muzzle brake, the Law clearly shows that it IS a dual use item and therefore NOT solely a silencer part.

This is why we don't pay $200 Stamps for pillows, coke bottles, oil filters, etc. Because even though they "may" be adapted for use as silencers, they clearly have other uses.

Automobile accidents and homocides kill thousands of people per 1 non-police firearm injury. There isn't any Amend declaring Freedom of Conveyance. So let's decriminalize firearms and charge $200 Stamp per Seatbelt, Airbag, Bumper, Rollcage (passenger frame), brake pads, drums and shoes. Then Gov't Tyranny would be felt by a greater # of people. Not just us observing our Constit Rights.

(I wouldn't want such a Bill to actually pass. Just bring it to the Floor for Discussion. It would highlight the disparity in Legitimate/Illiegitimte Laws.)

[telero]

Yep, would be interesting if manufacturers could sell the serialized tube and then you could buy as many mounts, endcaps, or cores as you want to swap between firearms and core designs...different designs for different applications (pistol vs. rifle, MG, etc.) Maybe wouldn't apply to cones that can't attach to the muzzle on their own as brakes though?

Sorry. That won't fly under the current law. Parts to make one complete silencer = one silencer. Any additional parts, even if they can't all be used at the same time, are each considered a silencer.

Exacly, under current law...but Sig's standpoint is that all those extra parts are just muzzle brakes, which is what this thread is all about.

[whiterussian1974]

Might as well classify every QD muzzle device as "silencer parts" by your logic. Let's hope Sig wins this in court.

Well by your logic it's cool to make a few K baffles, is that right? They're not silencer parts if they're not in a tube screwed to a gun barrel, correct? Just paperweights? Or more directly related, what about screwing on a Silencerco Sparrow core onto a barrel and shooting that without a tax stamp? It's got no tube, so it's not a silencer part, right? Come on. We're not children here are we? Sig has made an obvious suppressor core and has even promoted it as such, but now they're trying to pretend otherwise.

Actually, many muzzlebrakes are reversed K's and Cones.