Paintball

[Bored383]

Originally Posted by James_Blond

ah yes, but that would be if it is considered a true silencer right? But if you had the official document stating that it is not to be considered a firearm silencer then you wouldn't need to pay any tax on it right?

so you want to ask a bureaucracy to authenticate your desired exclusion to their established regulations, and do it for free?

good luck with that!

simple fact is it is a pandora's box, that will not be simple, convenient, or free

[Deuce]

The new problem will be this. Whatever exclusion you can get from the ATF after submitting your raincover to them will apply only to that specific template. Any changes, including threading for different barrels will not fall under that exclusion, at least as far as I understand how they do their rulings.

So you'll likely want to decide how you want to thread them and stick with that.

[James_Blond]

Well, the obama administration is all about giving out free stuff so why not.

Not quite what I was asking, but I see your point about it not working out ideally in real life. Just thought that if they tell jcurt his suppressor is fine to produce and own and therefore isn't illegal(Correct me if I am wrong, they don't charge you anything to send them a one to get a ruling on, right?). Then they should give him a document stating that as such. Said document could then be included with the customer's purchase.

pandora's box sure, but if he can get a decisive, legal ruling for the exemption of his product or similarly made products then wouldn't that finally bring some resolve to this issue? I for one would be glad to see it legalized. If it's not possible to make it safe for manufacturer and consumer then I wouldn't get one.

Originally Posted by Bored383

so you want to ask a bureaucracy to authenticate your desired exclusion to their established regulations, and do it for free?

good luck with that!

simple fact is it is a pandora's box, that will not be simple, convenient, or free

[jcurt455]

Well the ATF was less then helpful on the description of what extent somthing needs to be modded before it the fault of the the operator.
I am going to sent the prints to them to get an approval or not so guess we will see.

[DocsMachine]

Originally Posted by jcurt455

Just a general question about a paintball suppressor that would not function with a real fire arm.

-Unfortunately, there's (probably) no such thing. If there's a passage big enough for a paintball and internal baffles, than all it takes is a bushing and a hose clamp to mount it to a firearm barrel. Who cares of the bores are a huge mismatch, it only has to dampen the sound of the shot by 1db, which is trivial. Hell, hang two bath towels between the muzzle and the meter and you'll probably get 1db of attenuation.

Talke to someone at the ATF and they said sounds fine but he will douible check.

-Do NOT "take their word for it". If an agent tells you, over the phone or by email, that, say, "paintball silencers" are okay to have, do not go right out and build one. Until they send you a signed and dated letter on official letterhead, like as shown in that airsoft finding I linked a few pages back, whatever they tell you is no more than advice, and has no legal standing.

If the agent says "yeah, they're okay", ask him, politely of course, if he could have that officially typed up, signed and mailed to you as a hard copy.

Well I kind of have to now. 20min after calling them I had 3 emails. So I'm on the radar now.

-You didn't give 'em a link to this thread, did you? After all, you still have CAD drawings up, descriptions of you testing a physical model, and links to a thread where you're taking orders for them.

Oh, and a link to Alpha's units as well, with evidence he's actually produced and sold 'em.

Like I said, if you're not confident enough in the legality of the product, as you were stating earlier, to undergo official scrutiny, then you shouldn't be building them.

I'm sensing a new niche market for a pod pack with a special waterproof compartment to carry your ATF tax stamp.

-I'm not sure, but I don't think you have to have the physical stamp with you, even for a firearms silencer. However, if we do get some kind of written okay for a certain class of silencer, it sure couldn't hurt to have a physical copy of it with you at the paintball field, or tucked into your gearbag.

pandora's box sure, but if he can get a decisive, legal ruling for the exemption of his product or similarly made products then wouldn't that finally bring some resolve to this issue?

-Certainly. And if pigs had wings...

That's the whole issue, a decisive ruling. As I said above, Crooker is a nice step in the right direction, but it's not decisive. Contrary to Justus' interpretation, the finding did not specifically exempt airgun silencers. At best all it did was declare the law vague, and set a precedent for future court cases.

What we need, ideally, is an official ruling by the ATF (which would be a procedural thing, basically the ATF saying 'we'll no longer arrest you for having one, or require you to buy a tax stamp to own one') or an actual change to the law that specifically exempts certain styles of silencers.

I very strongly doubt either one is going to happen, barring a new court case.

I for one would be glad to see it legalized. If it's not possible to make it safe for manufacturer and consumer then I wouldn't get one.

-Ditto. As I've said, I'd love to see some nice, well-made factory pieces for the sport. But until we get the official okay, you're risking fines and jail time just for owning one, let alone mass producing them.

Doc.

[DocsMachine]

Originally Posted by jcurt455

Well the ATF was less then helpful on the description of what extent somthing needs to be modded before it the fault of the the operator.

-I'm not surprised. Most of the Crooker finding was on that very subject, and even after fifteen paragraphs of thick legalese, didn't come up with a definitive answer.

I am going to sent the prints to them to get an approval or not so guess we will see.

-They cannot "approve" a print. The testing process requires a physical model for empirical testing. Even the pipe insulation guy had to send in an actual piece of pipe insulation.

Your drawing is essentially identical to an actual firearm silencer. Since "Freak" threading means nothing to them, and it and the bore diameter is irrelevant, they're going to come back and tell you that in order to build to your drawing, you'll have to fill out a copy of Form 1 (or whatever it is) pay the $200 tax, yadda yadda etc.

Doc.

[jcurt455]

One of the emails was directly from Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF. They were the ones that said to submit the drawings.

I am confident that I would win a legal battle over it. The only thin that worries me is I do not want agent breaking my door down, killing my dog and traumatizing my kid. If I were single I would for sure test the waters. If I could be convicted for this then there are tens of thousands of other company's that could also be prosecuted.

[Bored383]

how deep are your legal pockets vs the Fed Govts? judge your confidence on that, because besides the potential of SWATting you horribly is the more likely outcome you will be lawyered to death for years to come.

[DocsMachine]

Originally Posted by jcurt455

One of the emails was directly from Firearms Technology Branch of the ATF. They were the ones that said to submit the drawings.

-Yes, but they're still not going to "approve" it based only on your drawings. Well, I take that back- if you'd found some way to make a PB silencer that couldn't possibly be used for a firearm, like the core was curved like a Tippmann Flatline barrel (so a bullet couldn't pass through without wrecking something) then yeah, I could see them 'approving' a drawing.

I am confident that I would win a legal battle over it.

-Yes, but it'd cost you a minimum of $50,000, maybe closer to $200K by the time you're done. Buddy of mine just went through a not-really-all-that-messy divorce, and at the end, he owed better than $65,000 in legal fees.

The only thin that worries me is I do not want agent breaking my door down, killing my dog and traumatizing my kid.

-And that was exactly what I was trying to tell you a couple of pages ago, after you said you "didn't have much to lose".

If I could be convicted for this then there are tens of thousands of other company's that could also be prosecuted.

-Tens of thousands? Who else is even trying to make PB or airgun silencers? For PB, I think LAPCO makes a mock silencer, and for airguns... well, all the ones I know of are permanently attached. Who are all the others making or trying to make them?

Doc.

[jcurt455]

I'm sure a monkey could defend against that. I have yet to see proof of someone being convicted and it sticking for somthing similar. I would be happy to eat my
Words if I have missed it. Like I pointed out intent. Yea they can screw things up for me but in the end the system would take care of it. I'm no lawyer but the definition is clear.