Paintball

[WholemealDrop]

well duh on my part for not thinking of the silencer benefit but why a raincover? or is that just a term to keep the ATF at bay over it?

[jcurt455]

Yes it is all up to the BATF on where they want to go with it. For example with crooker he was a felon and shipping chemicals though the mail, also his home aea was questionable. They the law was after him for another crime and well just happened on the airgun suppressor. So they figure lets try to make this stick.

Now in my case there is lots of talk here about how these are meant for paintball gun use and I am not trying to push off something that is intended for other uses. The government can do as they wish but still have to look at the whole picture. Is it worth trying to prosecute a father of 4 that has no other proof of trying to build a real suppressor?

We understand that you our on our side and only trying to point out the the black and white legality of it, I appreciate it.

[BLachance75]

If you only want to do one threading it might be wise to go with the Flasc/Lapco threading. The can itself would require a female thread, I believe it is 7/8-20.

That was people can thread them onto many differet markers and the Flasc barrel seems to be pretty popular. I believe it is also the same thread as the Tiberius and the CCM SR1.

[jcurt455]

Not going to go with one thread type. I will do custom threads as long as the customer has the mating part for me to use as a gage.

[Deuce]

We can "what if" it all day. As previously stated, the ATF can make an issue where there is none if they so choose. All that matters is prior case law, of which the most recent cases support us.

I'm sure if they wanted to go after the evil paintball players with their silencers Carter Machine would've been paid a visit by now. Even more so since his shop is in California.

[Justus]

The interpretation of the Crooker case by some is still too conservative. It's on the safe side, but too conservative in my opinion. That case was decided on June 18, 2010 in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit by a panel of three Justices. What it effectively did was to send a message to the U.S. Attorney's office that prosecution under the current form of the U.S. Code with regard to silencers needed to be changed. The Court rejected the argument of the U.S. Attorney's office that Crooker's paintball silencer could be characterized as a firearm (or firearm silencer).

The main point of argument that the Court rejected is that the paintball silencer need only be adapted to be capable of being used on a firearm. First, the Court pointed out the differences between a firearm (combustion) and an air rifle, and stated that a silencer for an air rifle would not qualify as a silencer for a firearm. Then, they looked at the testimony of the expert witness, who stated that all the silencer needed was to be held up to the end of a firearm barrel to be adapted for firearm use. Of course, the exert also testified that it was too dangerous to do this by hand, and that when he conducted his testing he used an adapter from his own collection, and that was not part of the silencer. The Court noted that the U.S. Attorney had made allegations that Crooker knew how to adapt the paintball silencer to work on a firearm, but did not even suggest that Crooker actually intended to do so.

So, ultimately the case against Crooker was that he had a paintball gun silencer that 1) could be adapted to be used on firearms if more parts were used, and 2) Crooker knew how to do this. Crooker's defense was that 1) the paintball gun silencer could not be used as a firearm silencer without further adaptation, and 2) he never intended to adapt it.

With this in mind, the Court acquitted Crooker. First they said that, if the U.S. Attorney had presented any evidence that Crooker intended to modify the silencer for real firearm use, then Crooker would only be entitled to a new trial (due to the District Judge's instruction to the jury, stating that they need not even consider Crooker's actual intent or lack thereof). But because the U.S. Attorney did not even make that allegation, only that the silencer was "capable" of being adapted, Crooker was entitled to an acquittal.

Aside from a pretty good chastising of the U.S. Attorney's arguments, the Justices then went on to point out that the current form of the U.S. Code did not provide specific enough information as to what might be viewed as a silencer, and that one point of criminal statutes are to be specific enough to provide fair notice.

The Court's suggested "fix" comes from this quote:

As a practical matter, this leaves a loophole for other devices not so designed which we do not mean to minimize. Congress might well think that there are devices like airgun silencers that can be so readily adapted to use with conventional firearms that their possession by felons ought to be prohibited without regard to purpose. A conventional solution is to provide that the Attorney General can make regulations defining objectively the devices that pose enough of a danger to warrant banning.
...
But, given the statute's wording, the answer is not to stretch the present statute beyond its language but to amend it--if the government is so minded--to deal more effectively with home-made or adaptable devices.

So until the Code is amended to specifically ban the possession of paintball gun silencers, this Court has rejected the argument that the current form can be used to prosecute someone without showing an illicit intent to use the device on a firearm.


There comes a point when people need to be sure enough in what the law provides that they are not deterred from legal activities. Sure the BATF can come in and "make an issue" out of a paintball silencer. If there's no way they can win, though, (and the current case law suggests this), then there's the possibility of a malicious prosecution lawsuit. It's no different than someone saying they're not going to buy toilet cleaner for fear of being prosecuted for possession of bomb-making materials.

[Justus]

And FLASC threading is different from LAPCO/Tiberius.

LAPCO/Tiberius and other common paintball barrel tip threading is 7/8"-20 as mentioned.

FLASC uses m22x1 threads, first gen FLASC barrels has 18mm of threading, barrels made starting Jan 2010 use 12mm of threading

[Lohman446]

Justus that is all good and fine but what is the cost to appeal something to the US Court of Appeals on top of the cost of the first trial?

The problem is that even if you win you lose.

Edit: My unprofessional opinion is that you are fine as long as it does not match threads commonly found on firearms. My biggest concern if I were you would be offering the service to thread them to whatever threading someone wants. I would not have all the equipment to do the threading and unthreaded ones laying on the same bench.

[jcurt455]

Preorder thread started in dealers section.

[Justus]

I assume it would cost the same as if one were prosecuted for owning bomb making materials after buying some Works toilet bowl cleaner. Point being, people should be reasonably assured by this ruling that they will not be prosecuted in the first place, let alone actually indicted and the case even making it to trial. Rulings of the US Court of Appeals are controlling law in US District Courts.

All that said, the point about making sure to not thread these for actual firearm barrel threads (or offering the service for "any" thread) is well taken.