When is a "silencer" not a "silencer?

General non-specific firearm talk...
Post Reply
User avatar
ron
SGT Premium Supporter
Posts: 8835
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:31 pm
City: Cheney
State: WA
Favorite Firearm: G20SF
Next Firearm: Flintlock Rifle
Location: Cheney

When is a "silencer" not a "silencer?

Post by ron » Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:57 am

If it's a suppressor otherwise known as a "can", it's a "silencer" according to the BATF.

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.

But a "Blast regulator" is something else entirely because it doesn't reduce or suppress the noise, it re-directs the noise, concussion and blast forward away from the shooter.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015 ... Newsletter
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

lonegunman
Rookie Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:18 am
City: Spokane
Favorite Firearm: 1911A1
Next Firearm: Enfield
Location: Greater Spokane area

Re: When is a "silencer" not a "silencer?

Post by lonegunman » Fri Jun 05, 2015 9:08 am

Depending on how the BATFE works on the day you run into one of their agents, earplugs could be considered a silencer. They reduce the noise of the report of a firearm.

Remember a "shoestring" is a machinegun to these people. Their "technical branch" considers a broken firing pin a machinegun and they have arrested and taken to trial at least one person for shooting a broken firearm. They have also declared 1/2 of a gun a machinegun on more than one occasion. One in particular was a ruling against a person who made a semi-auto BREN gun. The ATFE declared that is was in fact a "machinegun" because when separated into two halves, "it could fire continuously". How?? Well Johnny, the disconnector was in the bottom half of the gun and the magazine is attached to the upper half (unlike an AR product) and thus nothing would stop the upper half of the gun from cycling until the mag emptied. Thus it was a machinegun.

NOW, the recoil is in the stock/lower 1/2 of the firearm as was the trigger, sear and hammer so no method existed for actually firing the gun. So the ATF strapped the upper 1/2 down and said that by beating the bolt with a claw hammer it would fire and they felt the recoil would not launch the bolt backwards out into space or the agents face. The bolt would magically return to the receiver and continue firing, thus is was a machinegun.

There are no limits when stupidity is your guide.

Post Reply