LDC for Benajamin 392 and 397, Interested?

[1377x]

Took it as I "wanted to"... I am well read on the BATF regs and the difference between the folklore on the web and reality.

And, "problems caused in the past"? Not by me, so you can take that however you want to.

fair enough
the problem was the fellas(yes more than one,not just the one everyone has heard about) who spent time in jail and money getting cleared of charges

just dont have any firearms threaded in that pitch
like a cz they come with that pitch from the factory
try to explain that to the alphabet people

[CharlieDaTuna]

This post was brought to our attention by other members by both PM's and emails realizing that it was very questionable.

This post and thread is very close to the edge and containing subject matter that this forum does not condone. There isn't a person in the world that knows anything at all about guns that doesn't realize what is being discussed. Unless Federal Government (ATF) approved for gun manufactures, making them, selling them, owning one or even having one on your property is illegal unless the proper legal steps are taken to do so no matter what gun they are applied to.

We may have to do something with this post.

CDT

[CharlieDaTuna]

For what it's worth


Reprinted, with permission, with updates and corrections, from Silencers on Airguns

*(It really doesn't matter if the sound reducing device is built in or attached, nor does it matter whether it is called a silencer, moderator, muffler, sound dampener, or whatever - or even if it was built so that a single discharge on a firearm will destroy it..  An airgun with a silencer almost surely is another arrest or lawsuit waiting to happen!  At best, the owner of an airgun silencer may come out of court with only a few thousand dollars in legal costs and a felony record for a suspended sentence!  The fact that many have been sold on the open market will not excuse the violation nor reduce the fact that the silencer user has given airgunning a bad name and a further push toward onerous restrictions!))

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

He's going to jail! (Origional Article & Copied from Tom Gaylord)


Sunday, July 16, 2006

He's going to jail!


Michael A. Crooker was found guilty on Wednesday, July 15, 2006 of illegally manufacturing a $ilencer. He faces a mandatory sentence of 15 years. This link has the report:

Airgun $ilencer case

Crooker made a $ilencer for a Korean Big Bore 909, a .45 caliber air rifle. In 2004 he sold the rifle and $ilencer to another party and he shipped it through the U.S. Postal Service, where it was intercepted.

When ATF tested the $ilencer on a firearm, it silenced the report. That is the legal definition of a $ilencer.

Making a $ilencer is a violation of several counts of the same law. Because a $ilencer is considered to be a firearm by federal law, the maker has just made a firearm without a license to manufacture - count one. Firearms that are sold are required to have serial numbers, and this one didn't - count two. And possession of an unregistered $ilencer is also a crime - count three.

The jury did ask for additional clarification on what constitutes a %ilencer, but the judge was unable to give them anything beyond the law. I have written an article about silencers for Pyramyd Air. It should be up on their web site soon. I included the definition of a $ilencer in that article, so you can read it for yourself. When it goes up, this is where it will be:

Articles

 People who play with the law open themselves to prosecution. Even if you win your case, the experience will not be pleasant. Now that BATF has a win under their belts, I expect them to prosecute other $ilencer violations more vigorously.

This was a jury trial.
posted by Tom Gaylord @ 5:51 AM 0 comments

[badredbird]

awww you sure know how to burst a bubble charlie lol ok everyone back to reality

[SAADE]

xx

[aack73]

what's the difference in a post about an ldc for 392 vs open discussion of tko for disco.? not being smart but genuinely want to understand??

[BenjiHunter]

Same here.
We are talking about a piece of metal that you can use to attach a TKO brake.
Is that illegal to make?

[CharlieDaTuna]

According to the law..... making them, selling them, owning one, having one in your possession or even on your property is illegal unless the proper licensing and legal requirements are taken to do so no matter what gun they are applied to and must have a mfg serial number. And even if they are not attached to anything, they are classified by the BATF as a firearm.

CDT

[BenjiHunter]

Edit/delete reason:
I'm not going to continue talking about this.

[Lambchops]

I recently did research, and it is not illegal to make or use an airgun $******* BUT, if it works or fits on any firearm, then it is illegal.

[CharlieDaTuna]

It is been brought to my attention that the case involving Michael Crooker, that he was acquitted on technicalities in 2010, four years later.

 I was not aware of the acquittal but it does not change the laws at all.... and does not change the fact that any device that can be used on an airgun and be removed and used on or adapted to any firearm and suppresses the report to any degree is still illegal and the law still stands. And just about anything that is made that suppresses sounds on an airgun can be adapted to a firearm. That's where you are unintentionally exposed to breaking the law. Regardless, you are breaking the law.

Can you imagine having to fight for four years in the courts and of all the expenses involved that he had to go through? Just ask yourself… was it worth it? Would it be worth it to you?

I realize of course that this is a very controversial subject and a lot of varying opinions. But I am of the opinion when it comes to the law or perhaps not understanding precisely what the law is or if the law is unclear, a person would be far wiser not to step on the wrong side and take a chance on the consequences.

There are a lot of other cases out there that have not been brought to light like this one with convictions. The only reason that this one got the attention that it has had is because Tom Gaylord had published a couple of articles on it and it got passed throughout the forums over the years. And the reason that he brought it up and made an issue of it is because it made owners of airguns very vulnerable to the laws regarding silencers and the repercussions involved.

I'll agree with most other people that this is an antiquated law and is ridiculous, however it is the law. At this point it is too easy for both local and federal governments to associate airguns with firearms. I am sure that eventually there will be changes that will be explicit and that there will be explicit language written in that will in some way remove airguns and distinctly have been set aside in their own, for lack of other words, classification without any association to firearms. The only real problem that I see here is the fact that you can take something such as a (suppressor) and adapted it to a firearm. And that's where we as airgun owners are susceptible.

I'll not take this any further and you can take it for what it's worth and do which you will but you need to take care not to expose yourself to what either state or federal governments would consider to be unlawful activity.

CDT

[Lambchops]

Thanks for looking out for us Bob..

[badredbird]

yes thanks , the shame of it is most of us would like one so we can be neighbor friendly, and everyone can live in harmony , we can shoot without being disruptive, isnt that ironic

[TimmyMac1]

My observations and experience.
I've been approved by the BATF for the Venom Brake with the flutes in the top. We sold it years ago and the BATF kept rejecting my designs till I did that. It made a rimfire scream which is changing the report but they said OK and we sold it.
In 2001 HW did the HW97 MKIII with a couldn't get it off brake. I followed that lead and made interference fit brakes so they would need to be destroyed to be removed. The BATF tested it and they let it go on the LD. I was onlyt doing what I saw others doing.
Integral to the design like a SS AirfForce got made and that was OK.
Then the M-Rod gt made and that was OK. Baffles that could not take Firearm breech pressures.
BATF is going to take whatever they can remove, unscrew etc and go test it.
If it reduces the report of a firearm with out blowing apart immediately it is a problem.
They have made it abundantly clear to me that as long as we follow the paths already established we will not have problems with them putting the stuff on a Firearm because they cannot get it off the Airgun without destoying it.
My Brakes are both permenetly attached to the barrel via interference fitment and they will not tolerate firarm breech pressures without blowinbg the front off the back.
For the same reason my brakes front end can be adjusted to line up with the pellets path is why it is not able to tolerate air volume and breech pressures beyond that we see in airguns in the 25 ft lb or below range.


Integral to the design like M-rod or Talon SS
Integral to the barrel like the HW77 MKIII or TX200 AA Hunter Carbine & pre 2004 LD's
Construction technique that will not tolerate Firearm breech pressures without failing structurally like Gen II Brake.

All three of these are ways in which an Airgun Brake/shroud is NOT considered a Firearm silencer. Gen II incorporates two of the three ways so it cannot possibly be considered an LDC as many have termed the devices we should not be dealing with. When you do my way there is NO INTENT to do anything but make Airguns friendly.

When I did the Venom Brake it was by suggestion of the BATF Director in DC who told me techinically you can't change the report but we don't mind it if the firearm actually gets louder with an airgun device attached. He told me we could put shrink tubing over the flutes and it would work great on an airgun but it would get fried off instantly on a Firearm. It shows considerate intent.

Nobody wants to get their customers in hot wter especially me as I have bricks and mortor. BATF doesn't seem to bother anyone who doesn't have a shop as they just don't have adequate representation to do what they are tasked to do.

They know whatever can be removed from an airgun will be fitted to a firearm. If those devices work to reduce the report on a Firearm they are silencers and they are clearly illegal in most states. I think 18 states allow licensing of class 3 devices but only those are where you an get the Fed Stamp

With that in mind I have always avoided Slip fit grub screw set-ups and threaded devices, expecially 1/2" UNF.
Doing that is asking for a visit.

BATF's motivation as far as I can tell is to make sure what is available for airguns all over the world won't wind up on Firearms in the USA. Understanding their motivation is paramount to understanding what they will allow.

Anything that will shut up a BIG BORE 44 and screw on the end is about as onerous as it comes. The guy is lucky he got freedom cause he was pushing his luck big time.

The number 1 thing you need to grasp is it doesn't matter what it is on. The issue is what it could be put on.

[VAFarmer]

Tim,

So......."what it could be put on"......that is awfully ambiguous if you ask me....

Almost implies intent.   

But my question is, if that is the case.....how can intent be proven?   Well, in my mind, what the heck it's already on implies its intent.   So if its on an airgun, then is it safe? 
And to what extent is it "easily tranferred" from airgun to firearm?   Again, it may not be easy for me to saw off an airgun moderator, and put it on a firearm.   But someone with access to equipment, and the know how could easily saw one off, say a .22, and put it on a .20 cal, maybe weld it or epoxy it, who knows?

I guess it is what it is, and for most I would have to agree with those who err on the side of caution......it cost the gubment nothing to prosecute you...in fact, you pay for them to.   And an acquital has no recourse, you cant sue the government for lost monies when defending yourself.

God bless,

Farmer

[CharlieDaTuna]

"What it could be put on" would certainly mean "any firearm that it could possibly be adapted to in any way possible no matter what it is" and "easily transferred to" would undoubtedly mean "anything that could be removed from an airgun (without totally destroying it and making it unusable) to adapting it to a firearm". Which in many cases can be done with little or no alteration.

The bottom line is that anybody that has or makes any such device that has not been approved is setting themselves up for some extremely severe penalties if caught and they elect to prosecute you.    If you do get caught and they prosecute, kiss your family goodby for a long period of time and prepare financially ahead of time to give them a big chunk of money for the fine so you and/or your family won't have to be paying them off the rest of your lives.  And don't forget... the sentences and fines are mandatory.

CDT

[Lambchops]

Are there any problems with having a TKO ldc, Bob?

[MustangMike]

id think that since the tko's on crosman barrels are to small to fit onto another barrel it should be ok... but im just assuming on that one

[Lambchops]

id think that since the tko's on crosman barrels are to small to fit onto another barrel it should be ok... but im just assuming on that one

Thanks Mike, that's what I think too, but i'd like to hear what CDT or Mac1 have to say.

[RedFeather]

Please bear in mind that the BATF is not concerned with the object installed on an air gun.  If you simply make it and it can be used to moderate a firearm, you now have an unlicensed firearm by their definition.  The law appears to center exclusively on the suppressor, not how it is attached.  A manufacturer such as Tim can fabricate and then install so that it can't be transferred.  An individual is probably in violation when he completes it on the workbench, before it is installed.  It's that test of what it can do on a firearm that is the determinant.  Doc Beeman has a very good discussion on his website.

BTW, you might go to court and then win your case.  Of course, lawyers don't work for free and employers don't like it when you have to take two/three years off.