Suppressor parts sourcing

[Ceros_X]

Obligatory preface: Do not build a suppressor unless you have you Form 1 tax stamp back, etc.

Assuming one has filed a Form 1 and gotten their stamp back, where is the line drawn between gathering materials for a suppressor build and buying unregistered suppressor parts?

For example, what's the legality of having http://www.emachineshop.com/ or some other service machine some starting points for a suppressor build? IE, have them do M-shaped baffles but with no bore hole. You can't use it to silence a firearm but it would take most of the hard milling work out of the process. Where is the line drawn with having others make parts for your Form 1 build and you getting components that individually or together don't reduce or diminish the sound of a suppressor without machine work?

I know a lot of you will probably say that the M-shaped baffle example above is illegal, but how is this different from buying a piece of bar stock that's already been turned down, or sending a piece of metal to have a bore hole wire EDMed before beginning construction? How is this different from ordering some freeze plugs off of Amazon?

To take this further, how is this different from a flash hider you intend to use for your welded on muzzle attachment device, as it's technically a suppressor component for your build? Or going to the auto parts store to purchase exhaust pipe tubing? Any references or case law would be great.

[doubloon]

A similar thread was tried once before http://www.silencertests.com/silencer-f ... &view=next

More or less you're talking about buying an 80% suppressor or 80% suppressor parts.

Some will argue Home Depot already sells 80% suppressor parts.

You can ask "When does a mag lite become a suppressor or suppressor part?" and some will answer when you acquire the item with "intent".

[Ceros_X]

A similar thread was tried once before http://www.silencertests.com/silencer-f ... &view=next

More or less you're talking about buying an 80% suppressor or 80% suppressor parts.

Some will argue Home Depot already sells 80% suppressor parts.

You can ask "When does a mag lite become a suppressor or suppressor part?" and some will answer when you acquire the item with "intent".

If I have an approved Form 1 then my intent is obvious, so what is the problem with assembling parts for the build? I mean, the difference between a freeze plug and an undrilled M-baffle is cost.

Thanks for the link - interesting read.

[Bendersquint]

As soon as you make or have something made with the intention of it to be used as a silencer part then it is a silencer part.

If you had Emachineshop make you a complete step cone minus the bore then they are making a silencer part because the intention of that part is to become a silencer part. Now, if they made a part that was identical to what you were looking at buying but you didn't commission(intent) them to build it then you are fine, since off the shelf parts aren't silencer parts until you do something to them that will make them used in a silencer.

Emachineshop COULD do that if you were standing there and grabbed it off the conveyor when completed.

As soon as you take a pre manufactured freeze plug and put a drill to it it is a silencer part until then its just a freeze plug.

There is no such thing as an 80% silencer part. If someone sells a maglite with 2 endcaps and all you need to do is punch holes in it to be a silencer, the intention is already there and you are buying silencers parts which is illegal, even with stamp in hand.

[Armorer-at-Law]

To add to what Bendersquirt said: Think of it as whether the piece of material or part has some other use/purpose. A piece of bar stock with a specific diameter could be turned into many things. An M baffle w/o a hole doesn't really have any other potential use. A freeze plug can be used as a freeze plug, until you drill a hole in it.

[Ceros_X]

To add to what Bendersquirt said: Think of it as whether the piece of material or part has some other use/purpose. A piece of bar stock with a specific diameter could be turned into many things. An M baffle w/o a hole doesn't really have any other potential use. A freeze plug can be used as a freeze plug, until you drill a hole in it.

It isn't an M baffle, it is a paperweight, a set of stackable children's toys for my daughter or a candle holder.

I get what you are saying though - thanks for the information. Probably better off finding a local CNC place and getting them to let me push the button.

(I'm also pretty sure the cost of doing it the Emachineshop way would be more than buying a professional can.)

[Baffled]

The whole notion just strikes me as odd, as if our mental energy waves ("I am making a suppressor! HAHAAhaaa!") literally transform an innocent and obscure object, like a tube, into an eeeevil silencer part.

Let's say I have a mental plan for a silencer. So I go metal shopping, buy a 6' length of Ti tube. Take it home. Is it a silencer part yet? How about when I polish the oil and grease off of it. I am working on it with the intent of making a silencer. Silencer part now?

I put it in my band saw, and saw off an 8" section. THERE'S my silencer tube! Oooops, I mis-measured, it's only 7". Apparently, I cannot legally cut a proper 8" piece from the mother stock without filing another form 1.

It's all too weird. I like the way so-called "80%" firearms work. It's either a firearm, or it's not. Black or white.

[eric10mm]

The whole notion just strikes me as odd, as if our mental energy waves ("I am making a suppressor! HAHAAhaaa!") literally transform an innocent and obscure object, like a tube, into an eeeevil silencer part.

True story, bro. Yesterday I was in the grocery store shopping for fatboy treats and ended up in the cleaning aisle looking for some Lysol disinfectant spray. Lo and behold I saw some Chore-Boy scouring pads and thought to myself "OMG! I could totally use those to scour my nasty cast iron frying pan, and I heard that one could possibly also use them as suppressor damping fill material."

As I turned to continue down the aisle looking for my Lysol I was suddenly tackled by two large undercover ATF Agents. I am now sitting in their local Field Office interrogation room and am writing this on the Agent's laptop while he's out taking a whizz. This may be my last post for a while.

Heed my warning. Don't even think about doing it!

[Bendersquint]

The whole notion just strikes me as odd, as if our mental energy waves ("I am making a suppressor! HAHAAhaaa!") literally transform an innocent and obscure object, like a tube, into an eeeevil silencer part.

True story, bro. Yesterday I was in the grocery store shopping for fatboy treats and ended up in the cleaning aisle looking for some Lysol disinfectant spray. Lo and behold I saw some Chore-Boy scouring pads and thought to myself "OMG! I could totally use those to scour my nasty cast iron frying pan, and I heard that one could possibly also use them as suppressor damping fill material."

As I turned to continue down the aisle looking for my Lysol I was suddenly tackled by two large undercover ATF Agents. I am now sitting in their local Field Office interrogation room and am writing this on the Agent's laptop while he's out taking a whizz. This may be my last post for a while.

Heed my warning. Don't even think about doing it!

You will be missed Eric, you will be missed.

[continuity]

As soon as you make or have something made with the intention of it to be used as a silencer part then it is a silencer part.

If you had Emachineshop make you a complete step cone minus the bore then they are making a silencer part because the intention of that part is to become a silencer part.


Now, if they made a part that was identical to what you were looking at buying but you didn't commission(intent) them to build it then you are fine, since off the shelf parts aren't silencer parts until you do something to them that will make them used in a silencer.

...

As a professional, low level initial legal system contact, I'm going to make a, who cares input. From an evidenciary standpoint, a complete step cone minus the bore is gonna have "0" evidentiary weight relative any "intent" charge.

from a practical standpoit, have yet to have anyone in possession of questionable items admit to personal ownership.

[eric10mm]

As a professional, low level initial legal system contact, I'm going to make a, who cares input. From an evidenciary standpoint, a complete step cone minus the bore is gonna have "0" evidentiary weight relative any "intent" charge.

from a practical standpoit, have yet to have anyone in possession of questionable items admit to personal ownership.

As a student of harsh reality, when has the ATF ever let logic dictate their witch hunts?

Shoe laces? Pistol primers in rifle rounds? Do these ring a bell?

[silencer_kid]

so i have a question. if form-1 doesnt need plans (BATF says the can is the single most important item which a silencer is based), then internal parts can be anything??

[Bendersquint]

so i have a question. if form-1 doesnt need plans (BATF says the can is the single most important item which a silencer is based), then internal parts can be anything??

What do you mean "internal parts can be anything"?

[silencer_kid]

so i have a question. if form-1 doesnt need plans (BATF says the can is the single most important item which a silencer is based), then internal parts can be anything??

What do you mean "internal parts can be anything"?

i honestly dont know how to phrase the question any simpler than i did. i'll give my BATF office a call.

[Kramer]

It isn't an M baffle, it is a paperweight, a set of stackable children's toys for my daughter or a candle holder.

Yeah a candle holder for birthday cake candles.

[continuity]

so i have a question. if form-1 doesnt need plans (BATF says the can is the single most important item which a silencer is based), then internal parts can be anything??

I'm calling this an intellectualy dishonest question/preposition. It stands to reason that an expansion chamber, the can, is the primary containment element relative muzzle blast signature reduction. Internal parts, intended to/by design, increase the cans efficiency, are by definition an element of the suppressor.

What's the hard part?

I absolutely salute creativity relative physical problem solving. However, creativity applied with the intent of circumventing established legalities, chaps my ass.

Go chew on rocks.

[JimB]

In the midst of all this fun, may I ask a serious question? (That was a joke)

An inanimate object does not have intent, it can only be evidence of someone's intent.

If I provide plans to a machine shop to produce a bunch of widgets, they produce the widgets and return them to me, then their intent was to make widgets. My intent was to make a silencer, and when they arrive I put them together with all the other parts that I've made or had made and now have a silencer. I don't believe that anyone has done anything wrong in this scenario.

If the order to the machine shop says something like "firearm parts" or even "suppressor parts" then the shop clearly has exposure because they know, or should know, better. Conversly, if the order form specifies that they do not accept orders for firearm parts, then their intent is crystal clear.

If I do the same but send the plans to an FFL who runs a machine shop, then the FFL is probably at risk given their level of knowledge and the ability of the ATF to mess with them where they don't have the same ability for a non licensee machine shop.

Some of you may recall that I work a lot with federal regulation, but I know little about routine enforcement. So, am I misunderstanding the rules?

[silencer_kid]

Some of you may recall that I work a lot with federal regulation, but I know little about routine enforcement. So, am I misunderstanding the rules?

JimB,
as others have said, depends on what the fed wish to do that day. the laws are open for wild interpretation, thus if BATF LEO (or his supe) feels they need to show "progress" to justify their taxpayer jobs, then thats what they will do regardless of the real facts of the matter. the problem for fed becomes a $$ battle between citizen and fed in court. if citizen has the $$ for a good lawyer (like i do, and apparently jack-arss Bieber does too) then LE needs to make damn sure they have a done case.

i dont think the law offers any liability verbiage onto any machine shop to question any part being made in their shop, but in same token nothing restricting shop to report what they believe is suspicious request, etc. after all, not too many shops would know what small parts are typically used only for uranium enrichment, or to stuff nuclear fuel pellets into a special hollow rod (i do though).

its an obvious bias here cause 07/02's need to protect themselves because by definition "07/02" are continuous subjects in eyes of BATF, etc. why is that you ask? because its easier for a 07/02 to hide certain illegal activity than it is for a non-07/02, etc.

EDIT: sorry, we need to allow the 07/02's here explain it all, some seem to think they are extensions of the BATF. so lets wait for a 07/02 to chime in.

[Bendersquint]

because its easier for a 07/02 to hide certain illegal activity than it is for a non-07/02, etc.

Please elaborate.

[silencer_kid]

Please elaborate.

because 07/02's would have easier access to certain things that non 07/02's do not. blending something illegal into a 07/02 operation is easier than say a non 07/02. having background noise is an advantage in some cases, etc. what more elaboration do you need?

[Bendersquint]

Please elaborate.

because 07/02's would have easier access to certain things that non 07/02's do not. blending something illegal into a 07/02 operation is easier than say a non 07/02. having background noise is an advantage in some cases, etc. what more elaboration do you need?

What accesses do you think we have?

We dont have any priviledges that allows us to break the law. We are under the microscope more than a Form1 builder.

I think the phrase should say...... Its easier for an Form1 builder to break the law than an 07/02.

[JimB]

I think the phrase should say...... Its easier for an Form1 builder to break the law than an 07/02.

I think that this is undoubtedly true, there is no doubt that the FFL is both under more scrutiny and is subject to enforcement action from ATF that a non-licensee is not. However, in my scenario, where the shop is delivering widgets with no intent to do anything else, I can't see how they can be breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but having no intent would seem to be a clear defense, and the burden to prove intent would be on the ATF.

Kid, I think that your characterization of some of the FFLs here as a virtual extension of ATF is unfair. The rules are vague and the punishment potentially severe. I am not one to live in fear, but in my real job I pay attorneys a ton to help me understand exactly how much risk I'm taking on something, and I get that for free here. Each reader may have a different tolerance for risk, the participants here seem pretty good at identifying the boundaries. While the FFLs here are sometimes frustrated by the unending, and often repetitive, questions about how to walk the line, I would likely be the same if the roles were reversed.

Jim

[continuity]

... Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but having no intent would seem to be a clear defense...

You are technically correct. One element of legal guilt is "Mens Rea", minds state of intent. It's not as clearcut as it might seem though, there is usually the accompanying area of grayness relative prudency. The question often becomes, if they didn't know, how reasonable is it that they should have known.

Lawyers get paid great piles of money to argue such things...

This is also the primary basis for the mental incompentency defense.

With the understanding that some hobbies are associated with highly regulated items, it's appropriate to be sensitive to whom one exposes risk to, in the furtherance of that hobby, without their knowledge.

Carry on

[silencer_kid]

Kid, I think that your characterization of some of the FFLs here as a virtual extension of ATF is unfair.

Jim

hmmm, in some cases, sure seems like it. all i can say is, go back and read some more posts and you might see it. some made statements only to be contradicted by the BATF LEO i spoke to. thats why i had warned readers early on that info here is not 100%, thus its best to talk to BATF directly, it was then said that i was claiming the 07/02's here and others didnt know anything, and that their years of experience in the industry was being questioned by me. so yep, i've seen it before many times, people who have years upon years in "the industry" suddenly find themselves spewing wrong information, which falls into same argument that has just been made, ignorance is not an excuse when you are knowingly involved in an area that has deep regulation, scrutiny, and open for interpretation.

example: my car has a OEM single stage white paint, yep, a 2010 car. while my lexus was being worked on at a big long-time body shop place my car was there, i told the service manager (who was in the business for 25 years) that my car had single stage paint and he couldnt believe it, said "no way". this guy called around to "buddies" asking how the OEM could use single stage paint. he lost my bet, dumbass had to buy lunch for me and the 4 other guys who were around my car from his place checking it out while scratching their heads.

so, being "in the business" for a long time has zero impression with me, none. i like to converse with these people, but dont bring the "been here forever" BS to the discussion, save it for the story telling around the camp fire, just like good 'ol Si.

[JimB]

my car has a OEM single stage white paint, yep, a 2010 car. while my lexus

We're way off topic here, but car manuf stopped using single stage in the US primarily because of the VOCs, I wouldn't be surprised if Toyota still uses it in some international facilities. Did you happen to just bring it with you when you moved to the US, or were you looking for single stage paint for some reason?

That aside, people with lots of experience can be wrong, and it's worth keeping that in mind, but I figure that if they were wrong more often than me that I wouldn't be spending any time reading what they post or responding to them, I don't have that much free time.

Jim