Sig suspends muzzle brake lawsuit vs ATF

[BearTHIS]

I guess they're letting ATF reevaluate it again.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/ ... -140629921

[TROOPER]

This thread must be kept alive.

[este]

They wouldn't do this unless they struck a deal.

The ATF is going to OK it this time, and in return, SIG will drop the suit and not force the ATF to have to make determinations that in the end would just create competition for SIG.

This gives SIG double what they want, and the ATF still has authority to shut lesser folks down who don't have SIG-level money to fight them.

In the end, I suspect this is a win for us. If SIG fought and won, great, we'd get SIG and Other "muzzle brakes" that convert to silencers easily enough if the user legally sought to. If they tried and lost, we'd get nothing but a stronger ATF. At least this way, the SIG product goes through, and we don't have to gamble on SIG's ability to secure the market for everyone.

It still will set a precedent for others to follow SIG, but no protection from the ATF should it suffer the same classification.

[Bendersquint]

They wouldn't do this unless they struck a deal.

The ATF is going to OK it this time, and in return, SIG will drop the suit and not force the ATF to have to make determinations that in the end would just create competition for SIG.

This gives SIG double what they want, and the ATF still has authority to shut lesser folks down who don't have SIG-level money to fight them.

In the end, I suspect this is a win for us. If SIG fought and won, great, we'd get SIG and Other "muzzle brakes" that convert to silencers easily enough if the user legally sought to. If they tried and lost, we'd get nothing but a stronger ATF. At least this way, the SIG product goes through, and we don't have to gamble on SIG's ability to secure the market for everyone.

It still will set a precedent for others to follow SIG, but no protection from the ATF should it suffer the same classification.

Looking forward to the ATF signing off on the MPX-C 'muzzle brake'.

The precedence of them allowing a manufacturer to do it alone will be invaluable to the entire community!

[TROOPER]

Looking forward to the ATF signing off on the MPX-C 'muzzle brake'.

The precedence of them allowing a manufacturer to do it alone will be invaluable to the entire community!

^This! Even if the one-time-exception doesn't extend to everyone else, it still does! Sig is unusual in that its size allows for a very powerful crowbar. But this 'deal' - if that is what is happening - creates a crack that lesser crowbars can also exploit!

Frankly, the ATF might've lost by avoiding going to bat. They were afraid that the civil defeat would shift policy, but their opt-out is going to do the same thing in the long run.

Very excited to see this go the distance! Very, very excited about the possibility of an over-priced Sig MPX-C in my collection!

[este]

it still MIGHT!

ftfy

You really put it past the ATF that they would OK SIG on this and out right stomp all over a small shop that wanted to do the same? I don't. Small shop will be able to kick and scream about SIG, but might not be able to take the ATF to court over it. If the cause was truly noble, SIG shouldn't drop the suit. But the risk of losing is definitely there.

They were afraid that the civil defeat would shift policy, but their opt-out is going to do the same thing in the long run.

Yea... Well, whatever the cause. The ATF must have felt that losing in court (which they also must have felt was likely) would be far worse than just giving SIG a green light and being able to stay off smaller forces while they can. I agree with you about the long run, it just doesn't really make sense imo. Unless given the recent rulings against the ATF, they're just struggling to hold on to the power they do have - which means no more courts.

It does seem like an eventuality, and maybe they are just buying time for some reason. Not sure.

[TROOPER]

We're being overly wordy.

I believe the ATF will back down and allow Sig's design to go to market. I believe the ATF did this because they felt they were going to lose in court. I believe the ATF feared that a case loss would necessitate the defining of clear manufacturing guidelines which ALL manufacturers would benefit from. I believe the ATF is going to yield some victory to Sig to avoid the courts yielding a lot of victory to all.

However, if all of the above statements are true, I believe that Sig's product allows a circuitous route into the courts based on a much easier-to-prove-goal: that this manufacturer is doing it - so we should be able to as well. That lawsuit doesn't take deep pockets, and that's the 'crack' that 'a smaller crowbar' can exploit.

I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. I think the ATF will absolutely refuse to grant the same permissions to smaller firms and use the prohibitive cost of litigation as a means of enforcing their decisions. I also think that the courts take a dim view on such behavior, and especially recently, and especially with the ATF. As a result, the first small business who comes in with an easy-to-prove claim of, "They're doing it! The ATF is inconsistent!", will find a sympathetic judge who will look at the evidence and immediately understand the whole of the situation, get mad, then side not only with the plaintiff, but may specifically reduce the power of the ATF in addition to the inevitable reprimand.

[este]

We're being overly wordy.

I believe the ATF will back down and allow Sig's design to go to market. I believe the ATF did this because they felt they were going to lose in court. I believe the ATF feared that a case loss would necessitate the defining of clear manufacturing guidelines which ALL manufacturers would benefit from. I believe the ATF is going to yield some victory to Sig to avoid the courts yielding a lot of victory to all.

However, if all of the above statements are true, I believe that Sig's product allows a circuitous route into the courts based on a much easier-to-prove-goal: that this manufacturer is doing it - so we should be able to as well. That lawsuit doesn't take deep pockets, and that's the 'crack' that 'a smaller crowbar' can exploit.

I can't tell if we're agreeing or not. I think the ATF will absolutely refuse to grant the same permissions to smaller firms and use the prohibitive cost of litigation as a means of enforcing their decisions. I also think that the courts take a dim view on such behavior, and especially recently, and especially with the ATF. As a result, the first small business who comes in with an easy-to-prove claim of, "They're doing it! The ATF is inconsistent!", will find a sympathetic judge who will look at the evidence and immediately understand the whole of the situation, get mad, then side not only with the plaintiff, but may specifically reduce the power of the ATF in addition to the inevitable reprimand.

We agree, I just don't think small time Joe is going to have pockets deep enough to get the ATF to play along like SIG did. That's the only difference. Precedent is still going to require action.

All these games can backfire remember. I mean, look who is at SIG right now, advising them on the direction of how to F--k with the ATF.... Gem(t)AACs comes to mind.

[TROOPER]

All these games can backfire remember. I mean, look who is at SIG right now, advising them on the direction of how to F--k with the ATF....

Roger that.

[doubloon]

I would be happy to see my earlier misgivings about about this endeavor blown out of the water.

[kassenz]

Seriously, why isn't a gun muffler legal?!
Anyone else think the suppressor laws are outdated?
I'd say its safe to say suppressors have hit mainstream now.....
But I'd be interested in seeing how the market would fallow if Sig could ship from the factory with this "muzzle brake"

I'd think a slip-over would prevent hearing damage and lower noise levels around urban out door ranges.

I think a muzzle brake like this should be legal, and as common as a slip on motorcycle muffler, someday.

[Ben B.]

Incremental increases in liberty.

I'm in favor of them.

[Armorer-at-Law]

I think you are all reading too much into this. Sig filed a civil action based on the ATF's administrative ruling. Just a few days before, the ATF had been smacked by a different court for being arbitrary and capricious in how it determined whether a device was a silencer (which included no sound level testing). They already have to revise their evaluation process, so they are reconsidering the Sig device at the same time.

The ATF is now re-evaluating the Sig device under a new standard they must develop and follow. Since the agency is reconsidering its administrative ruling (on the Sig matter), it is common for a court to stay the civil case to wait and see what the agency does. ATF could try to come up with some other rationale or evaluation protocol that they believe is not arbitrary and capricious, but still find the Sig device to be a silencer. If they do, then the Sig civil case will likely start back up and move forward. If, of the other hand, Sig is satisfied with the new administrative decision, the civil case then goes away.

Is it possible there is a "deal"? Sure. Is that the most likely explanation? Not at all.

[Hauser]

So let's say the ATF issues a new ruling that is favorable to Sig. Are we also saying that since the Courts stayed out of the decision, that the ATF could issue a ruling that gives unfair trade advantage to one company, but deprives other companies not covered under the ruling? It sounds like that's what Estes is implying. I would think that would be an easy victory for any company with standing to mount a lawsuit.

Hypothetically, let's then say that, yes, the ATF's ruling favorable to Sig doesn't amount to tacit approval for other companies to build muzzle brakes similarly. Sig has the market cornered, until a court says otherwise, in this hypothetical. Then, how does this decision of the ATF's affect my ability to construct a barrel with an identical brake? Since under our hypothetical situation, the ATF says that Sig's barrel and brake are not NFA items, then how could identical items, including the one that I might construct, be considered NFA items? Both have the same construction methods, designs, characteristics, and more importantly, both share the same INTENT: To compensate for muzzle rise and make the weapon more controllable.

My hope is that this little dance routine that Sig and the ATF are involved in will ultimately result in a very slippery slope for the ATF. It could possibly pave the way for some common sense with regard to what is and what is not a suppressor. I'd love to see them forced to say that unless a device lessens the report of a FIREARM by a measurable and recordable amount then the device is not a suppressor. Period. A k-baffle is not a silencer. A threaded tube is not a silencer. A Maglight and a freeze plug is not a silencer. Until it diminishes the report. Sig's brake is not a silencer. This "could easily be converted" nonsense is just that.

[Joker31D]

Any government agency that is being used to regulate business practices and makes rulings on the legality of a specific product will always favor one company over another, its in their nature. If a dog has never bitten you and you have owned it for years, your likely to give it a measure of trust. The same thing is happening to Model aircraft pilots now. Sig got one by with the non-SBR brace, now the ATF is trying to slap their Pee-Pee's for it. They just picked the wrong time for it. Sig was waiting for it and had a good legal team waiting. Wait til next time when they try to get something by, it will be a huge fight. Lately some of the people in the industry have been able to get lawyers to help them get things by that would have never gotten by 15 years ago (Slide-Fire, 3 position selectors, Pistol Braces, OSS style flash hiders etc) The ATF was unprepared for it, now Holder is assigning enforcement lawyers to cases that there is no way they can win because the ATF is making arbitrary rules that cannot be enforced because they contradict each other. The Ares case is one of those cases. Unfortunately for the little guys, we cannot afford to defend ourselves against these charges so we will have to take plea deals or go broke trying to defend ourselves.

This is similar to the VA Second amendment cases that are happening every day. The VA wont comp you more than 50% for PTSD unless they take your 2nd Amendment rights away. The new law that was just passed says that if you cannot handle your finances, you cannot own a gun or vote because you are incompetent. NO Court Ruling, only a Doctor, Social Worker or Counselor is needed to make this determination. They send you a warning letter saying you need to turn in your guns and tell you not to try to vote. Your a felon by Service. So all of these things are adding up and being used against us, one way or another, Holder said he would take guns one way or another, he meant it. With 70% or OEF vets being diagnosed and 50% or OIF vets being diagnosed, he's hitting the largest group of gun owners, Vets... Its the big thank you, we could do without.