Is integrally supressed really an NFA item?

[IndyIN]

Excluding the rest of the sentance, yes. but the latter part of the sentence indicates the part to be attached to or part of the firearm. Earmuffs reduce the report reaching your ears but the report is still there outside of the firearm prior to the pressure wave reaching the earmuffs and is still present to passerby. The controlled silencer forces the sound through itself (thereby diminishing it) before releasing it to the environment. range baffles, a stack of tires, and ear-pro do not attach to the firearm and act upon the sound after it has been released to the environment in-full.

I am just debating this for kicks, so please take it as such.

Report might be defined within the law elsewhere ( I have not looked), but by common definition is a sudden loud noise or of like an explosion or gunfire. The NFA paragraph does not speak to when the the reduction must occur. I am not disagreeing with the interpretation, I just found it interesting that it is not more defined within the NFA.

I also do not see where it specifies that it must be attached to, or part of the firearm. It does state that it includes any combination of parts that are intended for use as a firearm silencer or muffler (broadly defined earlier), and that it is intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. I certainly get that it is implied that the assembly or fabrication applies to that of a portable firearm, but it does not exactly state it that way.

It just makes me think about the is it a brace or is it a stock debate that has gone back and forth (interpreted different ways as different times). I've also read about the oil filter thread adapters, and based on the language in NFA how the heck are people getting a tax stamp for just a thread adapter without the reduction of report?

Anyway... I'm really only half hearted arguing this, just that it was interesting.

 

[Seancass]

Reduced power ammo is specifically marketed as reducing the report of the firearms. Obviously each piece needs to be controlled by the NFA!

Also, if you are at an indoor range and you use a Ransom rest, that entire building is definitely a NFA device.

 

[Notalentbum]

I have pretty much zero knowledge on NFA stuff other than a few comments here on INGO. If I wanted to buy one of these integrally suppressed 10/22s, does it have to go to NFA jail? If so that pretty much means I’ll never see one in the gun case at Walmart?

Matt

 

[Bfish]

You know, I was thinking about this the other day. My guess would be because you can disassemble it perhaps but even the mono core barrels are which could be because you can take an outer sleeve off I don't know. However, SilencerCo was able to pass the sound "moderator" that is permanently attached to the end of the barrel because of the fact it's technically a part of it. The ATF did let that design pass but it's hard to say on others.

 

[russc2542]

I am just debating this for kicks, so please take it as such.

Report might be defined within the law elsewhere ( I have not looked), but by common definition is a sudden loud noise or of like an explosion or gunfire. The NFA paragraph does not speak to when the the reduction must occur. I am not disagreeing with the interpretation, I just found it interesting that it is not more defined within the NFA.

I also do not see where it specifies that it must be attached to, or part of the firearm. It does state that it includes any combination of parts that are intended for use as a firearm silencer or muffler (broadly defined earlier), and that it is intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. I certainly get that it is implied that the assembly or fabrication applies to that of a portable firearm, but it does not exactly state it that way.

It just makes me think about the is it a brace or is it a stock debate that has gone back and forth (interpreted different ways as different times). I've also read about the oil filter thread adapters, and based on the language in NFA how the heck are people getting a tax stamp for just a thread adapter without the reduction of report?

Anyway... I'm really only half hearted arguing this, just that it was interesting.

no problem and no offense taken.

It really comes down to, at some point, interpretation and intent. you can never completely plan for every eventuality (whenever you have it idiot-proof, they build a better idiot). The better defined any rule is, the easier it is to work around on technicalities.

I have pretty much zero knowledge on NFA stuff other than a few comments here on INGO. If I wanted to buy one of these integrally suppressed 10/22s, does it have to go to NFA jail? If so that pretty much means I’ll never see one in the gun case at Walmart?

Matt

Correct. 10/22 integral suppressor, maxim9, etc are NFA

 

[injb]

No. If the barrel itself is the suppressor, then it is a "device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm". Nothing in the definition states or implies that the "combination of parts" need to be separate and detachable. Anything designed into the firearm to make it quieter than it would be without that design falls under this definition.

Suppose you have a firearm with an integrally suppressed barrel. Remove the barrell/suppressor. Now how loud is the gun? It won't fire, so it has no report. Now put the barrel/suppressor back on. Is the gun now louder, or quieter? It didn't make any noise without the suppressed barrel, so if it makes any noise at all now, then it's louder. So, this device is not for "silencing, muffling or diminishing the report", since it makes it louder, not quieter.

Now, it may be that the gun is quieter than it would be if the barrel was designed differently, but that is true for virtually all guns. My point is that the definition strongly implies that the device must make the gun quieter than it would be without the device, hence implying that the gun must be capable of being fired without it. More than likely the idea of an integral suppressor never occurred to the people who wrote it.

 

[HoughMade]

I urge you to give it a try and send a video to the ATF. They don't make the law, but they can arrange to have a judge determine whether this argument is legally correct or not with plenty of chances for appellate courts to weigh in.