Sig Sues ATF Over Silencer Ruling

HT4 · Apr 10, 2014

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...alling-muzzle-brake-silencer/#comment-1697275

The gun has a huge welded muzzle brake to bring it up to the required 16″ in length. Sig has proof that it makes the gun louder and is also functional as a brake. Sig also plans to sell a shroud on a form 4 that turns it into a silencer. Very cool...

I will watch this case with interest.

630x421xP1210453-900x601.jpg.pagespeed.ic.K6vX5QWtK7.jpg

Personally, after parsing the language of the NFA's definition of silencer, I think they have an OK shot at winning. Good luck!

teratos · Apr 10, 2014

They should win.

bobthefisher · Apr 10, 2014

I have my doubts, as the break could be construed as a silencer part, which is illegal under NFA laws. I'm guessing the ATF will designate the entire rifle or pistol as a potential silencer part, even if it's permanently attached to the firearm. Here's hoping that it will get approved. Either rate, two cheers for SIG and pushing the ATF on the SIG brace and now this... bravo! I'll support their efforts, as a company, by buying another SIG pistol.

livefast1 · Apr 10, 2014

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....

smokey · Apr 10, 2014

bobthefisher said:
I have my doubts, as the break could be construed as a silencer part, which is illegal under NFA laws. I'm guessing the ATF will designate the entire rifle or pistol as a potential silencer part, even if it's permanently attached to the firearm. Here's hoping that it will get approved. Either rate, two cheers for SIG and pushing the ATF on the SIG brace and now this... bravo! I'll support their efforts, as a company, by buying another SIG pistol.

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.

FrankOceanXray · Apr 10, 2014

They will do whatever they can to win. Gubmint is not to be reckoned.

I like Sig for trying. Wish them the best.

Abacab · Apr 10, 2014

Wow. I can't believe the number of people siding with the ATF on this. It is a baffle stack when you add the tube. Otherwise it is a brake. The Sig tests demonstrate it increases noise and decreases recoil. The brake by itself isn't a combination of parts to construct a silencer. It isn't a silencer. Your steel wool stash and two liter soda bottles might be a combination of parts though. Watch out for FEMA!

teratos · Apr 10, 2014

Abacab said:
Wow. I can't believe the number of people siding with the ATF on this. It is a baffle stack when you add the tube. Otherwise it is a brake. The Sig tests demonstrate it increases noise and decreases recoil. The brake by itself isn't a combination of parts to construct a silencer. It isn't a silencer.

The tube is always the suppressor. If you can buy a tube without a baffle stack (there are lots of fake cans being sold), why can't you have baffles without the tube?

Abacab · Apr 10, 2014

teratos said:
The tube is always the suppressor. If you can buy a tube without a baffle stack (there are lots of fake cans being sold), why can't you have baffles without the tube?

Agreed. It is a part - not a combination of parts. Not a silencer. You got me thinking - is there any instance of a registered baffle stack?

teratos · Apr 10, 2014

You'd probably know better than I, but I've never heard of it.

HT4 · Apr 10, 2014

bobthefisher said:
I have my doubts, as the break could be construed as a silencer part, which is illegal under NFA laws. I'm guessing the ATF will designate the entire rifle or pistol as a potential silencer part, even if it's permanently attached to the firearm. Here's hoping that it will get approved. Either rate, two cheers for SIG and pushing the ATF on the SIG brace and now this... bravo! I'll support their efforts, as a company, by buying another SIG pistol.

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....

I hear what you are saying, and that was my first impression as well, but why? Because the ATF says so? They have a long and storied history of overreaching. Let's look at the actual law. For NFA purposes, silencer is defined as follows:

“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.”

Thus, under my reading, there are three categories of objects that qualify:

(I) any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a firearm;
(II) any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer; and
(III) any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

The Sig barrel does not diminish the sound of a gun (indeed, it amplifies it!) so it doesn’t qualify under (I).
The Sig barrel is not "parts" (plural) and, in any case, does not have sufficient parts to assemble into a silencer, so it doesn’t qualify under (II).
The Sig barrel is not intended ONLY for use in the assembly of a silencer (it is also intended to be a brake), so it doesn’t qualify under (III).

The biggest question in my mind is whether you need sufficient parts to assemble a full silencer to qualify under (II). I think the better answer is “yes” because such a reading would render (III) useless and excess language. A well-established maxim of statutory interpretation is that you should read a statute in a way that gives all parts meaning.

In any case, that’s my initial impression based on a quick read of the law. I'm sure that Sig's counsel looked into this very closely before filing suit. They would not have done so if they didn't think they could win.

bobthefisher · Apr 11, 2014

Abacab said:
Wow. I can't believe the number of people siding with the ATF on this. It is a baffle stack when you add the tube. Otherwise it is a brake. The Sig tests demonstrate it increases noise and decreases recoil. The brake by itself isn't a combination of parts to construct a silencer. It isn't a silencer. Your steel wool stash and two liter soda bottles might be a combination of parts though. Watch out for FEMA!

I would agree with you on that reasoning, if it wasn't for the fact that the same manufacturer (SIG) is also selling the "tube" to make it a suppressor with no modifications to the "compensator". I think it would pass muster if SIG didn't offer that option, or even if a third party made an aftermarket tube. Although, I think HT4 made some good points when referencing part (III) of the test, being that the compensator has multiple uses. My two cents anyway.

IMBLITZVT · Apr 11, 2014

I have to say, I think a Sig needs to go to the top of the list of guns to buy. I have had my eye on one anyway. Now I think I will bump it a little higher on the list! The arm band and now the brake! Awesome.

I have often wondered what all could qualify to increase barrel length. A welded on bayonet for example? Would the bayonet blade not count? It can not be removed from the barrel but you are still able to retain the look while keeping above 16"s in some cases.

As far as the suppressor part of this... it will probably cause some issues down the road. The ATF's "any part of a suppressor" is regulated came from people buying all the hard to make components and then making the out tube at home, illegally. A suppressor is just not that hard to make is the problem (well for the ATF). In this case, say it does pass, do you know how many people will just have to buy a tube that Diameter and try it? Which will get some people arrested. This will likely force the ATF into some kind of action. That said, its clearly a violation of 2A in my book, so I am all for it, screw how the ATF will deal with it. If the law is not something that can be regulated, remove the law for yet another reason.

If Sig is going down the road of Suing the ATF to try and re-establish some of our long lost freedom... I will back them 100%. Its what needs to be done. Sue ATF for everything! Everything. Look how successful the ACLU is... most of the time people buckle without even the lawsuit being filed. Thats what we need!

livefast1 · Apr 11, 2014

Don't get me wrong, I hope Sig wins, I just think it unlikely. The dumbest part is that they've proven this brake increases the report and still caught hell over it, but if my memory serves me, a kx3 on a full length upper does in fact reduce the report a couple dBs but was approved by the atf to sell. Someone correct me if im wrong.

teratos · Apr 11, 2014

IMBLITZVT said:
I have to say, I think a Sig needs to go to the top of the list of guns to buy. I have had my eye on one anyway. Now I think I will bump it a little higher on the list! The arm band and now the brake! Awesome.

I have often wondered what all could qualify to increase barrel length. A welded on bayonet for example? Would the bayonet blade not count? It can not be removed from the barrel but you are still able to retain the look while keeping above 16"s in some cases.

As far as the suppressor part of this... it will probably cause some issues down the road. The ATF's "any part of a suppressor" is regulated came from people buying all the hard to make components and then making the out tube at home, illegally. A suppressor is just not that hard to make is the problem (well for the ATF). In this case, say it does pass, do you know how many people will just have to buy a tube that Diameter and try it? Which will get some people arrested. This will likely force the ATF into some kind of action. That said, its clearly a violation of 2A in my book, so I am all for it, screw how the ATF will deal with it. If the law is not something that can be regulated, remove the law for yet another reason.

If Sig is going down the road of Suing the ATF to try and re-establish some of our long lost freedom... I will back them 100%. Its what needs to be done. Sue ATF for everything! Everything. Look how successful the ACLU is... most of the time people buckle without even the lawsuit being filed. Thats what we need!

I hope the MPX-C will be GTG in MD, but with recent discussions it looks bleak.

TxAggie · Apr 11, 2014

teratos said:
I hope the MPX-C will be GTG in MD, but with recent discussions it looks bleak.

Maybe not, but I'm encouraged that the Sig M400 pistol apparently has made the handgun roster!

Even if Sig expects to lose, I'm encouraged to see a manufacturer coming to the fight and bringing it directly to the GOV.

I've liked Sig ever since I carried a P226 in Iraq. I think my next purchase will be a Sig .45.

HT4 · Apr 11, 2014

teratos said:
I hope the MPX-C will be GTG in MD, but with recent discussions it looks bleak.

Can you give me the short version? I have not been following the discussions on this.

clandestine · Apr 11, 2014

I hope SIG wins the case but based off pervious ATF stuff, that wont work.

Its a suppressor core.

I think it will just give us some bad ruling that allows more ATF power. I hope Im wrong.

FWIW, Suppressor Manufacturers used to be able to replace damaged suppressor tubes until 2 manufacturers got into a pissing match with BATFE. Now if a suppressor body is damaged it cant be replaced, which means another $200 stamp, serial #, etc...

I could offer to help ATF win this case because I hate SIG products.

NateIU10 · Apr 11, 2014

IMBLITZVT said:
I have often wondered what all could qualify to increase barrel length. A welded on bayonet for example? Would the bayonet blade not count? It can not be removed from the barrel but you are still able to retain the look while keeping above 16"s in some cases.

I am not sure for barrel length, but I think it should count for OAL (it definitely extends the, "extreme ends of the firearm.") Now if only someone would ask FTB. Oh, wait, that is the letter I wrote to FTB :innocent0

.

ThawMyTongue · Apr 11, 2014

clandestine said:
I hope SIG wins the case but based off pervious ATF stuff, that wont work.

Its a suppressor core.

I think it will just give us some bad ruling that allows more ATF power. I hope Im wrong.

FWIW, Suppressor Manufacturers used to be able to replace damaged suppressor tubes until 2 manufacturers got into a pissing match with BATFE. Now if a suppressor body is damaged it cant be replaced, which means another $200 stamp, serial #, etc...

I could offer to help ATF win this case because I hate SIG products.

Just write a letter to the ATF asking for clarification... Then they will ban all suppressors, ban all SIGs and kill a puppy.

:lol2:

Sig Sues ATF Over Silencer Ruling

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Dum spiro spero.

My hair is amazing

Durka ninja

Active Member

2A TEACHER

Ultimate Member

Member

My hair is amazing

Member

My hair is amazing

Dum spiro spero.

Durka ninja

Ultimate Member

Active Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Dum spiro spero.

AR-15 Savant

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics