Me using a lathe for you and you using a lathe for yourself is the difference between a form 4 and a form 1. It is literally not the same thing.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
The ATF responds to Solvent Traps Made by Diversified Machine
- Thread starter Longshot231
- Start date
Lol so then for the 9000th time, where is the fucking line Choid? You keep acting as though you have the answer when you're no different than the rest of us not knowing what the line is.
I am not the ATF, so I don't know where the line is. But the way it reads to me, is that when you are making a form 1 suppressor you are to start with non specifically made parts for your build. That is how the statute reads to me, and that is how the enforcement reads to me. I think where people are going wrong is in thinking that if you call an undrilled baffle a "container" it then becomes a container and by considering it a baffle the ATF is changing the meaning of the word. Laws simply are not that malleable from the consumer point of view, and quite honestly we don't want them to be. What we want is not to have these laws on the books at all.
But your refrain here is a lot like the old "what is pornography?" We know it exists, that is clear, but trying to pick it by coming up with some perfect bright line obscures the meaning of the word rather than clarifying it.
So, to answer the question best I can, I think there are a number of things that exist in the gray area of these laws. They might be, and might fairly be, deemed OK or not OK. These would be forced reset triggers, pistol braces, solvent traps. I actually think bump stocks were clearly OK, and not in the gray area at all. I also think constructive possession is outside the gray area. My solution is to stay outside the gray area, because it is easier for me, I sleep better. But if you want to play in that zone, I think you are always at 50-50. Many laws have these gray areas, so it isn't really unusual.
Allow me to propose what could be a constructive way forward for the Form 1 crowd:
NOTE: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
The issue seems to be that there is a problem with the ATF's opaque approach to the cottage industry that has sprung up around Form 1. OK.
If you're not really doing Form 1 for the joy of manufacture but because you don't want to wait for a Form 4 suppressor, then it might be possible to:
1) Contact a SOT. I'm not part of the Form 1 crowd, so ECCO Machine is all that comes to mind. Ask them what are the minimum parts that qualify for a "recore" -- maybe it's a tube ("apropo of nothing, what manufacturer's tubing do you make your own suppressor tubes out of"), some freeze plugs drilled and stuffed down it, and drilled wooden plugs for end caps (I don't actually know and it probably depends on the SOT).
2) Complete and submit a Form 1, and if your SOT has a big backlog you might get on that wait list.
3) When you get the approved Form 1 order the minimum parts and then get the tube appropriately engraved. Assemble to the minimum as described by the SOT.
4) When your spot on the wait list comes up, send off your frankenmuffler and wait patiently to get a better mousetrap back -- this whole process may still be quicker than waiting on a Form 4, with any luck.
None of your original components were single use "supressor parts" purchased from a gray market cottage manufacturer.
Just thinking out loud...
It really is. According to the ATF I have the parts and ability, so therefore they are suppressors.
To the agent reading this, they are still flashlights, I have not made any modifications to them.
But there is a clear defining line here that is going over your head. Undrilled bbq sauce containers can not in any way shape or form be used in a suppressor. THAT should be the line in the sand. Can a bullet pass through and have sound be muffled. There is no other definition that is not grey and wonky and open to interpretation.
You are more than welcome to think that, just as people are more than welcome to think that identifying as a woman makes you a woman. I mean, it is a clear dividing line, so it has to be the right definition.
Playing devils advocate.
I understand what you're saying and I agree with your interpretation.
For some reason, many on here conflate understanding the ATF with condoning the ATF.
Yeah, I honestly have no skin in the Form 1 game, but I think it is important to understand what is likely to happen, and what is pretty easily justified, even if I think the entire NFA edifice should be struck down. I'm not really keen on good people losing their cans, or worse their rights, over a naive understanding of how the system works.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,682
- 20,315
Honestly I do hope that this makes it all the way to an actual court of law. ATF looses on your logic
I'd argue further that the fact the guy had the barrel and gun and not put them together shows definitively that his intent, at least for the time being, was not to combine them.
As far as "knowing" intent, though, we do it all the time. We convict people of various levels of murder that require intent, of drug crimes with the intent to distribute etc. And therein lies the problem for group #3. Even though they thought they were acting in the spirit of the law, their filing of the form one and construction of the silencer definitively shows their intent in buying the parts. So it comes down to whether the purchase of silencer parts with a form 1 is legal, or whether anybody is stupid enough to believe they bought them as sauce cups and then, inspired by the great spirit, decided to turn them into a suppressor.
It’s not hard. It’s wide open. Even non members can read forum posts just by doing a search and getting a hit on the internet. Lock the site down better.
Last edited:
Should be “interpret them as you go”
It’s like all things legal
Depends on the times you are living in and
the dominate argument towards them in those times. Eg. segregation, landownership and sodomy (I haven’t look in awhile but in the 2000’s but sodomy was still punishable for up to 10yrs in prison in Ohio and Texas) you want a blowjob in Texas you must do the time for the crime. The fact that laws are subjectively enforced at this point should not come as a surprise to anyone with a brain or over 15 years old.
Those things never were named right . “Solvent trap”?? it was a “dipshit trap”. I assume @Choid was just being polite this whole time. And yes the NFA should be repealed but until it (never) happens don’t play stupid games with your “freedom”. Some Americans would like to restrict that as well.
You know, when I first saw these devices which appeared to me clearly kits to build silencers advertised as "solvent traps" the part of the whole scheme I saw as most bizarre was the "solvent trap" naming. I mean, what the fuck is a solvent trap. I think I have figured the origin out though. Within benchrest, and probably other shooting sports, it is actually rather common to use a device that might rightly be called a "solvent trap" when cleaning your rifle. The device is a large mouthed, transparent, cola or juice bottle. You slide the bottle over the muzzle while you clean the rifle and all the filthy patches just fall into the bottle as you retract your cleaning rod. Most of the excess solvent also drips in the bottle instead of on your bench top and the nasty solvent and crud spray that comes off the brushes as they emerge from the bore is also trapped in the bottle. It really does serve as a "solvent trap" and when your done you just cap it and either toss it out or use it again later. Either way, the mess and smell stays in the bottle. Best cleaning idea ever.
I suspect that since pop bottles have been associated with inexpensive, short lived, silencers, someone who cleaned their rifle thus and called the bottle a "solvent trap" may have made the association with silencers and chosen the name. Ironically, the silencer kit sold as a "solvent trap" would actually suck at the job. Being non-transpanrent, it would need to be removed frequently to check cleaning progress. Furthermore, the user would need to drill through the baffle stack.... er solvent cups in order to get the device to have enough clearance to allow the jag and cleaning rod far enough into the unit for the patch to be properly shucked or the entire brush to emerge before reversing. At least, by that logic, drilling a hole in all those little cups would not count as making a silencer, it would just be improving a shockingly poorly designed and very expensive solvent trap. Heck, maybe even drilling that hole in the end is just to provide a line of sight to check how cleanly the patches are coming out. Maybe they aren't making a silencer at all, just improving the worlds worst solvent trap design.
Something for the "you should know better" scolds to consider - if we are going to classify a generic part like a threaded tube or undrilled cup as a regulated item because it's "any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication", then what are we to make of a commercially-available accessory like a booster piston or taper mount adapter? I guess it's time to do Form 4s for every one of those items as well since they are undoubted intended only for use as a suppressor part.
This isn't even the dreaded "slippery slope" logical fallacy; it's a direct result of the interpretation that some of you are advocating.
This isn't even the dreaded "slippery slope" logical fallacy; it's a direct result of the interpretation that some of you are advocating.
Soooo, I’m not going to address the legality of this discussion. But, I am going to point out that there is a precedent. Polymer 80 had a “kit” they were selling called the Buy, Build, Shoot kit. It had everything you needed to build a pistol; 80% frame, slide, barrel, trigger, small parts, and jig. The ATF got wind and said “That’s a pistol.” Slapped Poly80 pretty hard, but they’re still making their 80% frames. There IS a line. But, typical for the ATF, they’re not telling anyone about it until they cross it…
I'm just wondering, but do you only have access to the one clause in the definition you are deliberately trying to make unclear? Because the previous clause mentions "any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler." And as I mentioned above, it is nearly impossible to show intent in owning a bunch of those parts, unless, they were 1)advertised wink-wink as a suppressor kit, or worse, they were bought along with a form 1 filing, which is definitive proof of intent.
The government can have a lot of shitty laws without them being incomprehensible or vague, and a lot of people end up in bad situations because they pretend not to understand what the law says. Or put another way, I don't know anybody truly dense enough to think this was a non dangerous situation, but I see a lot of people playing dumb about it. I think that is foolish, but what do I know, risk management is a profession for me.
What you say is true, see my comment about kel-lights.
Again, though, explaining their position is not advocating it.
It's really not the same, though. Maybe people need to ask lawyers before they act if they don't understand it themselves, but I pretty much guarantee you if you call the lawyer who made the video and ask if his legal opinion is that flashlight ownership and having a kit from Diversified Machine put you in the same legal position, he will tell you that they do not.
I’d say we don’t actually KNOW the intent, but can reasonably infer the intent by various means. Intent to distribute for example, you have 20 kilos of cocaine, I think it’s reasonable to infer you did not buy that for personal use.
Filing a Form 1 and then buying manufactured parts to assemble a suppressor is going to be a problem. We know suppressor parts are regulated. Trying to evade the law by doing 99% of the work and then selling the part is silly.
Yes, the law regulating a suppressor is idiotic on its face. It is however the law, and until you get it changed you either abide by it or deal with the consequences when you get caught violating it.
This is my point in a nutshell. The law may be idiotic, and I personally think it is, but pretending it is less clear than it is is not a defense, it is setting yourself up for problems.
Yes, I agree, that lawyer will tell me that, but we are talking ATF here, not real people.
Yeah better hide all those Flesh lights too.
What you are getting at is as silly an argument(with all due respect) and as convoluted the laws are around our hobby/interest/collections.
To be surprised Daddy is clamping down on the children action up is plain disingenuous. This could be seen coming from a mile away they want to restrict more and more not look the other way when work arounds are tried. Fight the existing vague laws/rules first. Don’t make easy wins (political/MSM news worthy) for them.
Not really though. There are F4 manufacturers who sell different caliber end caps for their cans. So one can lessen the report when firing a smaller caliber projectile, through a larger bore can. Cool, I guess, if you want to swap the can on your own weapons. Until that caliber specific end cap, is a suppressor part. Different bore than what's engraved, so.....
Same thing would apply to pistons, that were of a different bore/thread pattern. Or the adapter to go from booster on your favorite handgun, to direct thread on your PCC.
I've said before, I'm not, and never will be, a fan of "kits". But the cup thing isn't much different than 80% anything. And reclassification of some parts, is a slippery downhill ice luge.
I think you are missing a key distinction when arguing from the 80% kits. Firearms are defined, somewhat clumsily, as the receiver, so while we all acknowledge that barrels are firearm parts, we also acknowledge that barrels are non themselves firearms. With suppressors it is different. They don't need to show anything but that it is a suppressor part, and with the dimpled baffles, that is pretty simple. I realize that people here have convinced themselves that they are not parts until drilled, but that won't pass the scrutiny of any reasonable reading. It is better to argue what a bad law it is than that you really just bought a bunch of BBQ sauce cups.
I think if they really wanted to they could probably fuck with endcaps, and be within the letter of the law. But the juice probably is not worth the squeeze there. They almost certainly could not do the same with flash hider/brake mounts.
What is constitutes a suppressor part?
How about I buy a titanium/steel/aluminum tube ?
Is it designed to be a suppressor part? No.
Did I manufacture the tube? No.
Someone else machined this tube.
Can I use this tube for a form 1?
Is it a suppressor part ??????
Can it be redesigned to be a suppressor part? Yes.
Do I need to machine threads or any machining of the tube to make it a suppressor? No.
Is it a suppressor part ???????
Many BATF regulations are intentionally vague.
If this is how you reason, let me make the suggestion that you should consult a lawyer before you do anything that comes within five miles of law.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 9,682
- 20,315
So doing a form 1 build should consist of buying bar stock and boring the inside to our desired internal dimensions? Don’t start with tubing because someone as already done the “work” and that is easily considered a suppressor part. Sounds an awful lot like “they” want manufacturing back into the hands of the people with big money invested towards “them” and scoot the little guy out of the picture all together. Maybe they would bet more money if they gave up and said fuck it, 200 bones is 200 bones. If we get that from x amount of people, if will offset the manufacturers fees we collect.
I doubt there would be hardly any interest in F1 stuff if the stupid ATF actually stopped being idiots and processed F4 applications in a quick, timely manner, like sub one month. I'll bet a lot of the F1 interest was to not have to wait a year for your F4 to get approved.
Carbon Capturing Device for firearms .The design and function is to capturing carbon from the burning gunpowder.The reduction is sound decibels is the filter performing the removal process of the carbon. The reduction of sound decibels is not a direct design nor function of the device but merely an effect of collecting the carbon during the firing process. EPA should issue carbon credits to the persons and companies who implement these devices in use with firearms. Devices are reusable since they can be accessed for carbon removal and disposal .
Similar threads
