Sig Sues ATF Over Silencer Ruling

HT4 · Apr 11, 2014

clandestine said:
Its a suppressor core.

No doubt, this is true. It is a core. But is that the entirety of the inquiry under the law? I'm not so sure (see my post above). Much like a chore boy scrubbing pad, it is also something else. That may be legally significant.

We all should take care not to confuse the ATF's past positions with the law. Since no one wants to risk testing the waters, the ATF gets away with quite a bit without judicial scrutiny. Hopefully this case (and others like it) will mark the beginning of the end of the ATF's overly aggressive positions (i.e., chore boy scrubbing pads, shoelaces, etc.).

Catch-10-22 · Apr 11, 2014

Wouldn't this ruling put the ATF back on their heels a bit?

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/20/66348.htm

jrumann59 · Apr 11, 2014

livefast1 said:
Uh yea sorry they're gonna lose. Thats a monocore without a tube. A dumb concept to try and even implement in the U.S. where the ATF seems to just shoot from the hip and make up rules as they go. I'll add, if you've ever spent any time on silencertalk you'd know what im talking about. The atf could construe a maglite and a set of taps as a suppresser if they want to seemingly....

While you have point then the QD muzzle devices from YHM would also constitute a part of a supressor. I have YHM muzzle brake with QD for my blackout build that has the "protective shroud" that would make it a flash hider in the definition of the term. If the ATF wins here that will open the door for other things deemed "parts" of a supressor.

IMBLITZVT · Apr 11, 2014

KYFHO said:
Wouldn't this ruling put the ATF back on their heels a bit?

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/20/66348.htm

Yes and no... The ATF has been defeated in court several times for their improper methods. The once a MG, always a MG has been thrown out. They did not use to let you un-SBR a gun without demilling it.

The big problem is that even after a defeat, it doesn't always help. Sometimes they come down more strict. I think we will see this with the 80% receiver stuff. Not that 80% is in the law, but making the line much more of a grey area...

Its just so hard to say for sure. However the ACLU has shown one thing. Win, lose or Draw, if you keep on the attack, the barrage will start to take a toll and greatly discourage the enemy from engaging. Of course here the problem is that he ATF is using our money to fight us and has no budget.

balttigger · Apr 11, 2014

smokey0118 said:
Yup, I may have to pick up a sig down the road when money can be spent on "me" things again. They've got balls. I like balls. Good on them for straight up calling the NFA process unconstitutional and fighting to push the line as far as they can go for civvies.

This got me thinking. If you get an AR pistol (I am assuming they are still legal post SB281), can you legally swap uppers with similar length barrels between calibers like .300BLK or 6.8SPC???

Catch-10-22 · Apr 11, 2014

IMBLITZVT said:
Yes and no... The ATF has been defeated in court several times for their improper methods. The once a MG, always a MG has been thrown out. They did not use to let you un-SBR a gun without demilling it.

The big problem is that even after a defeat, it doesn't always help. Sometimes they come down more strict. I think we will see this with the 80% receiver stuff. Not that 80% is in the law, but making the line much more of a grey area...

Its just so hard to say for sure. However the ACLU has shown one thing. Win, lose or Draw, if you keep on the attack, the barrage will start to take a toll and greatly discourage the enemy from engaging. Of course here the problem is that he ATF is using our money to fight us and has no budget.

All good points. Just feel like they are a little vulnerable right now.

1time · Apr 16, 2014

KYFHO said:
Wouldn't this ruling put the ATF back on their heels a bit?

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/20/66348.htm

I don't really see that ruling as going against the ATF. The court decided that determining if it is a silencer is not the courts job. They didn't say it was not a silencer. They sent the case back to the ATF and told them to use more detail as to why it is a silencer.

jrumann59 · Apr 24, 2014

1time said:
I don't really see that ruling as going against the ATF. The court decided that determining if it is a silencer is not the courts job. They didn't say it was not a silencer. They sent the case back to the ATF and told them to use more detail as to why it is a silencer.

Yeah they are making the ATF dig their own grave. If they come back too detailed they will then pigeon hole themselves on other cases and ultimately cause other things to be made that fall just outside their interpretation. :party29:

BigSteve57 · Apr 24, 2014

1time said:
I don't really see that ruling as going against the ATF. The court decided that determining if it is a silencer is not the courts job. They didn't say it was not a silencer. They sent the case back to the ATF and told them to use more detail as to why it is a silencer.

That's my interpretation. Kind of like putting an "F" on their homework assignment and handing it back to them, all the while implying they are idiots.

But I don't think this is over.

Mike OTDP · Apr 24, 2014

Oh, no. And Sig just put http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/mpx-p-psb.aspx on their website. New! Improved! Pistol! With stabilizing brace.

NateIU10 · Apr 24, 2014

Mike OTDP said:
Oh, no. And Sig just put http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/mpx-p-psb.aspx on their website. New! Improved! Pistol! With stabilizing brace.

I'm not going to lie, that in 9mm may be the push to make me get my HQL.

Sig has been putting out some great gear, and the pushback against the ATF is just icing on the cake.

lee2 · Apr 24, 2014

well if sig wins, i want one.

BigSteve57 · Apr 24, 2014

lee2 said:
well if sig wins, i want one.

I want two.

doofoo · Apr 24, 2014

Mike OTDP said:
Oh, no. And Sig just put http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/mpx-p-psb.aspx on their website. New! Improved! Pistol! With stabilizing brace.

Hmm.. Legal to SBR in MD with all the recent bs changes? This is a nice one if so.

NateIU10 · Apr 24, 2014

doofoo said:
Hmm.. Legal to SBR in MD with all the recent bs changes? This is a nice one if so.

OAL would be the only concern (once it gets on the Handgun Roster.)

doofoo · Apr 24, 2014

NateIU10 said:
OAL would be the only concern (once it gets on the Handgun Roster.)

Adding this sucker to my list.

mtlcafan79 · Apr 25, 2014

BigSteve57 said:
I want two.

SigSauer said:
MSRP $2,328.00

Yikes.

erwos · Apr 25, 2014

NateIU10 said:
OAL would be the only concern (once it gets on the Handgun Roster.)

OAL is listed as 35" with the brace. Hard to believe it would be a problem with a collapsible stock.

The other problem is that it looks like the brace folds on that model - if you wind up with a folding stock, you might need to swap the muzzle device for a brake/comp.

Mike OTDP · Apr 30, 2014

Honestly, I just want one as a 9mm suppressed carbine.

HT4 · May 1, 2014

Mike OTDP said:
Honestly, I just want one as a 9mm suppressed carbine.

This...

I have no desire at all for a pistol version.

Sig Sues ATF Over Silencer Ruling

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Dum spiro spero.

Appleseed Shoot Boss

DILLIGAF

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Appleseed Shoot Boss

Ultimate Member

DILLIGAF

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Dum spiro spero.

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics