We can't talk about these items, yet they come on a large percentage of every pcp out there.
Quote from: LEE IN VA. on February 26, 2016, 11:30:01 PMWe can't talk about these items, yet they come on a large percentage of every pcp out there.They are integrated into the gun with a shroud or can not be removed = no problems.
Quote from: Craymar on February 27, 2016, 03:40:12 AMQuote from: LEE IN VA. on February 26, 2016, 11:30:01 PMWe can't talk about these items, yet they come on a large percentage of every pcp out there.They are integrated into the gun with a shroud or can not be removed = no problems. There's no problems even if it can be removed, so long as there is no proof of intent to use on a firearm. ATF's website info is inaccurate if not a purposeful misttatement of the law. ATF's policies on airgun suppressor regulation were thrown out by the federal courts in 2010 and the guy they sentenced to hard time (Crooker) got released and awarded $172k for wrongful conviction. The courts have held that so long as there is no evidence of intent to use on a firearm, it doesn't matter if the suppressor can theoretically be fitted to one. However, owning a firearm with the same threadings as the suppressor could possibly be evidence of intent. I have no problems with GTA's policy. Congress could easily amend the federal laws to include airgin suppressors. Better to not draw attention to the subject. But it does make me mad that airgun blogs have been spreading ATF's website info around as if its the law when ATF has been overruled on the subject for nearly 6 years now. If you Google "airgun suppressor" you'll find lots of links that hold to ATF's position without acknowledging that ATF is overruled. One site even mention's Crooker's conviction as a scare tactic and doesn't acknowledge the overtturning of Crooker's case. ATF wants your money and they want to know and regulate what weapons you own. They have an agenda. That agenda may contradict the law. You CANNOT trust that ATF's statement of the law is in fact the law. The COURTS determine what the law is and isn't. 9 times out of 10 the courts will back ATF up. But in the instance of airgun suppressors, the courts did not. So to state the law as it stands at the date of this post, ATF has NO AUTHORITY over airgun suppressors. It does not matter if they can be removed and modified to fit a firearm. However, ATF does have authority over any suppressor that is intended for a firearm. Evidence of intent could include (but is not limited to) the suppressor having threads that match a particular firearm in your possession. Intent could also be proved with emails, texts, statements, anything that tends to show you intend to use the suppressor for airgun use. Obviously, gun powder residue on the suppressor would be strong evidence of intent. But the simple "it could possibly be fit to a firearm" argument was completely and expressly rejected by the courts.
Quote from: Bullfrog on February 27, 2016, 09:46:52 AMQuote from: Craymar on February 27, 2016, 03:40:12 AMQuote from: LEE IN VA. on February 26, 2016, 11:30:01 PMWe can't talk about these items, yet they come on a large percentage of every pcp out there.They are integrated into the gun with a shroud or can not be removed = no problems. There's no problems even if it can be removed, so long as there is no proof of intent to use on a firearm. ATF's website info is inaccurate if not a purposeful misttatement of the law. ATF's policies on airgun suppressor regulation were thrown out by the federal courts in 2010 and the guy they sentenced to hard time (Crooker) got released and awarded $172k for wrongful conviction. The courts have held that so long as there is no evidence of intent to use on a firearm, it doesn't matter if the suppressor can theoretically be fitted to one. However, owning a firearm with the same threadings as the suppressor could possibly be evidence of intent. I have no problems with GTA's policy. Congress could easily amend the federal laws to include airgin suppressors. Better to not draw attention to the subject. But it does make me mad that airgun blogs have been spreading ATF's website info around as if its the law when ATF has been overruled on the subject for nearly 6 years now. If you Google "airgun suppressor" you'll find lots of links that hold to ATF's position without acknowledging that ATF is overruled. One site even mention's Crooker's conviction as a scare tactic and doesn't acknowledge the overtturning of Crooker's case. ATF wants your money and they want to know and regulate what weapons you own. They have an agenda. That agenda may contradict the law. You CANNOT trust that ATF's statement of the law is in fact the law. The COURTS determine what the law is and isn't. 9 times out of 10 the courts will back ATF up. But in the instance of airgun suppressors, the courts did not. So to state the law as it stands at the date of this post, ATF has NO AUTHORITY over airgun suppressors. It does not matter if they can be removed and modified to fit a firearm. However, ATF does have authority over any suppressor that is intended for a firearm. Evidence of intent could include (but is not limited to) the suppressor having threads that match a particular firearm in your possession. Intent could also be proved with emails, texts, statements, anything that tends to show you intend to use the suppressor for airgun use. Obviously, gun powder residue on the suppressor would be strong evidence of intent. But the simple "it could possibly be fit to a firearm" argument was completely and expressly rejected by the courts.My reply was about what we can discuss on the GTA. We can discuss the PCP's with shrouded barrels and barrel shrouds made for airguns. Other than that it reminds me of a movie title. What was that? "50 shades of Gray"
The Law not withstanding, a LOT of lawn mower mufflers are illegal devices according to the ATF. . As is a potato, pop bottle, pillow and a whole lot of others!. Remember, the ATF does not make the laws. Congress does. Nor do they decide the law,or it's ramifications. The Courts do. What is posted above is nothing more than their wishful thinking. NOT the LAW!!! The actual governing laws have to do with intent. Too many AG Forums run scared of the sky is falling syndrome, completely ignoring the actual Laws governing the use of the items being discussed. No purpose built for Air Guns LDC is illegal, "Unless" it can be adapted to firearm use, WITHOUT modification. This includes threading, or any dimensional changes made in order to make the device fit a firearm. Period!As for the design shown, it would require an adapter, ie; bbl. to adapter to device to be used on a firearm. If in possession, both the adapter,and then the device both would then be a controlled item, and hence, Illegal. If not in possession together, the adapter would still be illegal, and prosecutable. Knife
as as the S.Y does not use fire arm threading, this is perfectly legal. Good Deal! And we appreciate your efforts. Again, any possibilities for a .257 LDC in the future? .257, Talon/dor, with 26 5/8 bbl. Knife
Advertise Here
Share This!