spare or replacement silencer parts and tube replacement

[John Titsworth]

Spare silencer parts have always been considered silencers by ATF. As idiotic as that sounds its true. The only ones who can be in possession of spare parts are 07/02 FFLs. In every letter I have ever seen written that related to the subject ATF generally states the definition of a silencer and then says parts of a silencer are subject to regulation under the NFA and GCA. This is why manufacturers don't sell spare silencer parts such as end caps.

Tactical Innovations offers these and prices them but clearly states that one must return the suppressor for repair

http://www.tacticalinc.com/replacement- ... 1_757.html

This letter from 2006 on the first page of the ARFCOM thread shows that ATF classifies baffles and end caps as silencers. On page two is reads that component parts of a silencer are silencers themselves and must be registered.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html? ... 0&t=242056

Perhaps someone can direct me to a new ruling from the ATF that says spare parts are indeed legal for unlicensed individuals to own?

Manufacturers that mark end caps with the serial number/other required information and then claim that if your tube is destroyed it can then be easily replaced because the registered part is unharmed is false. While its legal to mark the end cap, replacing the tube requires a new transfer tax as per ATF.

The term “repair” does not include replacement of the outer tube of the silencer. The outer tube is the largest single part of the silencer, the main structural component of the silencer, and is the part to which all other component parts are attached. The replacement of the outer tube is so significant an event that it amounts to the “making” of a new silencer. As such, the new silencer must be marked, registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA.

[rimshaker]

As mentioned from another post, just design a muzzle brake that happens to use the same endcaps/mounts as their silencer lineup... and voila, instant legal "accessory." Or not?

http://www.store.silencerco.com/products/octane-brake

[Historian]

As mentioned from another post, just design a muzzle brake that happens to use the same endcaps/mounts as their silencer lineup... and voila, instant legal "accessory." Or not?

http://www.store.silencerco.com/products/octane-brake

Perhaps Boston College Jesuits Legal advisers can help untangle this?
Easier than determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If components are also deemed silencers then do each K-baffle, each spacer, each
separable cap, then has its own serial number and $200.00 paid
on each?

When President Rubio is blessedly sworn into Office, an honest man who will honor his oath,
then there will be a chance for finally getting 'paper reduction' in Government
that we were ordered to institute starting in 1983, starting with leaning
out out dated regulations, and SES staff. Phew!

[RJT]

Instead of complaining about what others are doing, why don't you just do the same? I see a lot of 02/07s crying that so and so get to do this, but I was denied a variance for the same thing. Maybe y'all just need to learn how to articulate what you want to do better.

[jdasilva]

Instead of complaining about what others are doing, why don't you just do the same? I see a lot of 02/07s crying that so and so get to do this, but I was denied a variance for the same thing. Maybe y'all just need to learn how to articulate what you want to do better.

+1

[YugoRPK]

Always is a strong word. Since 1981 is not always.

Marc Rubio? Seriously. Good luck with that. I wish him and some of the other fringe guys ( Hillary included ) would stop wasting everybody's time and money so we can get on with a real election with electable candidates. Drop Iowa off into the ocean!

[John Titsworth]

Instead of complaining about what others are doing, why don't you just do the same? I see a lot of 02/07s crying that so and so get to do this, but I was denied a variance for the same thing. Maybe y'all just need to learn how to articulate what you want to do better.

Are you suggesting that all 07/02 FFLs break the law just because someone else does it? Selling spare silencer parts to individuals is not only stupid, but it could result in ATF making more and more arbitrary rulings (mark every silencer part with a serial number of its own, weld it all together with one serial number, etc...). It puts the entire industry and the industry consumers at risk.

[sillycon]

As mentioned from another post, just design a muzzle brake that happens to use the same endcaps/mounts as their silencer lineup... and voila, instant legal "accessory." Or not?

http://www.store.silencerco.com/products/octane-brake

Per ATFs own rules, it would be a legal accessory as it is not exclusively designed for use as part of a silencer.

It will be interesting to see how the Sig muzzle brake ruling impacts all of this.

[T-Rex]

As mentioned from another post, just design a muzzle brake that happens to use the same endcaps/mounts as their silencer lineup... and voila, instant legal "accessory." Or not?

http://www.store.silencerco.com/products/octane-brake

Per ATFs own rules, it would be a legal accessory as it is not exclusively designed for use as part of a silencer.

It will be interesting to see how the Sig muzzle brake ruling impacts all of this.

I have to disagree.

There is nothing in ATF's definition of a silencer which denotes the necessity for exclusivity of design or intention.

The Octane end cap is, was and always has been designed for a suppressor. It just happens to fit their new muzzle brake.

Had they made a new style end cap, which fit both, but intended for the brake, I could see their case holding water, maybe.

Believe me, I wish there were no ridiculous regulations, but this is not the boat we are in.

[HansohnBrothers]

Below are the laws for clarification. And by those definitions, a piston would qualify as a part solely intended for use in a suppressor. Do we really want to poke the bear on this?


TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44

§ 921 Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—

(24) 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.

TITLE 27 CFR CHAPTER II

§ 479.11 Meaning of terms

Muffler or silencer.

Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

[Historian]

Always is a strong word. Since 1981 is not always.

Marc Rubio? Seriously. Good luck with that. I wish him and some of the other fringe guys ( Hillary included ) would stop wasting everybody's time and money so we can get on with a real election with electable candidates. Drop Iowa off into the ocean!

I have seen the light, brother. I have seen the ... wow, what a great image!!

Anyone with that such refined and selective taste in women
in such enticing garb has my vote.

And I second your including 'Miss Piggy' Clinton in the 'fringe guy' category.

[sillycon]

I have to disagree.

There is nothing in ATF's definition of a silencer which denotes the necessity for exclusivity of design or intention.

The Octane end cap is, was and always has been designed for a suppressor. It just happens to fit their new muzzle brake.

Had they made a new style end cap, which fit both, but intended for the brake, I could see their case holding water, maybe.

Believe me, I wish there were no ridiculous regulations, but this is not the boat we are in.

Specifically (as noted/quoted above) the law states "intended only for use in a suppressor", not designed. My apologies on the incorrect wording I used above, but the end result is the same -- following the letter of the law, due to the creation of the muzzle brake the end cap is no longer "intended only for use in a suppressor", therefore it is no longer a "suppressor part".

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the ATF has been known to rule/prosecute however they want - regardless of the law.

Though I agree that poking bears is not a good idea, I suspect that in this instance the bear has already been poked (further poking of said bear, however, should be still avoided).

Then again, all one needs is a non-suppressor muzzle device which uses said "pistons"/thread adapters...

[rimshaker]

Didn't even notice SS posted this last week:

viewtopic.php?f=135&t=132923

[T-Rex]

Not to argue for the sake of arguing, but it comes down to the definition of a "silencer".

The issue is, you're misreading the GCA's definition.

Quoted in whole for clarity:

Silencer
18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24)

The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

Commas are what's keeping the interpretation easy. So, let's do this.

Silencer
18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24)

The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.

Reading this part, alone, clearly defines the end cap as a silencer part, because it has been proven to diminish the report, when the 45 cap is removed and the 9mm put in its place.


The commas separate the definition into inclusive parts.
So, when comparing the Muzzle Brake end cap to the Octane end cap, is it:
1. any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm? Yes
2. a part designed or redesigned for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler? Yes
3. a part intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler? Yes
4. any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication? No

If it falls under any of these descriptions, it IS a silencer part.The end cap satisfies 3 of the 4 criteria.



Yes, the bear need not be poked further, for the forest creatures re the ones who suffer.

[dullh]

I bought a Warlock II. The dealer must have used it as a demo, and some schmuck tried to murder the thing onto a barrel, because I bought it knowing the threads were boogered-up...anyhoo, once I took possession of it I called SiCo and they gave me an RMA to return the boogered-up endcap. Once received they mailed me a new one no problem.

Point is, with awesome customer-oriented guys like SiCo around there's no reason to carry spares - plus since the endcap is a regulated part they couldn't send me a new one without receiving the old one first...to do so would, I guess, avail me of "spare parts"...