Pirate 4x4 banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,659 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
For those that don't know, here's the orig. story.


By Elizabeth Dinan
[email protected]
April 09, 2014 1:40 PM
NEWINGTON — Gun maker Sig Sauer has filed a civil suit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claiming the federal agency wrongfully classified a “muzzle brake” Sig designed to reduce recoil, as an item “intended only for use” when making a silencer.

Sig claims that gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting it to “economic injury.”

Related Stories
Sig Sauer names U.S. AG Eric Holder in 'muzzle brake' lawsuit
“If classified as a silencer, no market exists for the subject device given that it will not silence, muffle, or diminish the report of a firearm and yet it would still be subject to the burdensome requirements set forth above as if it really is a silencer,” Sig argues through Manchester attorney Mark Rouvalis and Virginia attorney Stephen Halbrook.

ATF Director B. Todd Jones is named as defendant in Sig's lawsuit and has 21 days, after being served, to respond to the civil action, dated April 7.

Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, it's not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act.

“Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit.

If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn't perform as a silencer, Sig claims.

Silencers are subject to specific marking, record keeping and transfer restrictions, according to Sig.

The Newington gun maker's suit, filed in the U. S. District Court of New Hampshire, states that it submitted a rifle, with its muzzle brake, to the ATF on April 4, 2013 for evaluation. The device is described as 9.5 inches long and permanently attached with a weld to a 6.5 inch barrel, making the overall barrel length 16 inches.

The ATF responded, by letter dated Aug. 26, 2013, that the device is constructed as a silencer component commonly referred to as a “monolithic baffle stack,” the suit states.
“Welding it to a barrel does not change its design characteristics or function,” Sig says it was informed by the ATF.

In a Sept. 6, 2013 followup letter, Sig asked the federal regulatory agency for reconsideration, while reporting that sound meter testing proved the device amplified, not muffled sound, when a gun with it was fired. It also included evidence showing the device offsets and corrects recoil of a firearm when attached, Sig claims.

By letter dated Feb. 21, the ATF stuck to its original finding, stating that Sig's device is a part intended only for use in making a silencer. In its subsequent lawsuit, Sig tells the federal court the ATF did not dispute its evidence showing otherwise.

Due to the ATF's “erroneous” classification of the device as a silencer, Sig has and will continue to suffer economic consequences, it tells the court. The ATF failed to “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its classification and “failed to examine the relevant data,” the suit claims.

The federal agency also failed to address Sig's contention that there are similar devices on the market that are being transferred without being treated as firearms, Sig claims.

Sig asks the court to set aside ATF's determination as unlawful, to declare that its muzzle brake is not a part only intended for use in silencers, and to award it costs and damages.


Today, Sig won a small victory in court. The BATFE has agreed to a re submittal for the 3rd time and a new evaluation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,282 Posts
Makes me want to buy a Sig, just for standing up to those unconstitutional cocksuckers.
 

·
nights end here
Joined
·
3,315 Posts
So this is why we have not gotten the MPX's we ordered in 2012
 

·
Fistful of Boomstick
Joined
·
45,473 Posts
this will open up the market for muti cal cans that are simple and affordable should it work out
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
They had a few different models of the MPX, I thought only one of them had that long muzzle brake that you could buy a "silencer" that was just a hollow tube that screws on to the "muzzle brake" and becomes a functional silencer and requires a Form 4. If that's what this court case is about I can understand the confusion about its status since it's a 6-8" long muzzle brake (monocore baffle stack) that is threaded for a metal tube you could buy with a Form 4 and turn it into a suppressor. But the ATF rules regarding this stuff are so retarded and arbitrary they need to be slapped in the dick given the chance. They are so worthless they create criminals where there were none just so they can justify their budget and existence.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,659 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
From my chair, thats the whole point.

Too make them clarify their positions.

This is not like people sending in letters for clarification ( Stupid idea imop ) These people have the smarts and the coin to see this through, thats a great thing for all of us.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,878 Posts
Yes, quit sending in "clarification" letters. Each one takes away freedom, that will take a huge effort to retake.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,659 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
They agreed to reevaluate for a 3rd time and that's a win? :confused:


Would it be better if I said the court told them the had a choice and this was it ?


Absolutely a win. They are going to force the BATFE to define in the courts what is and is not a suppressor. As of now it doesn't exist.

What does exist is a paper trail of historically asinine opinions on what it might be at that moment.
With any luck, this will stop that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
The welding it on part is just so it is not an SBR.

If the muzzle brake is made like the one below so that all it takes to turn it into a suppressor is a section of tube, they will lose again.



Remember the GSG fake cans that all you had to do was cut the barrel shorter and add baffles, they made them quit doing that too.

Same thing happens in reverse too. Like the AW Sim and Adkins accelerator, send them something that they can't make work and they approve it. Then put a functional version on the market and they get their hands on that one. At that point they decide it's illegal and force you to stop production.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,762 Posts
The welding it on part is just so it is not an SBR.

If the muzzle brake is made like the one below so that all it takes to turn it into a suppressor is a section of tube, they will lose again.



Remember the GSG fake cans that all you had to do was cut the barrel shorter and add baffles, they made them quit doing that too.

Same thing happens in reverse too. Like the AW Sim and Adkins accelerator, send them something that they can't make work and they approve it. Then put a functional version on the market and they get their hands on that one. At that point they decide it's illegal and force you to stop production.
If it doesn't reduce sound how is it a silencer? That is the Sig question.
I see a muzzle brake in that picture :evil:
Defining separate parts that "might" possibly be modified into a silencer as silencers individually is a slippery slope that the ATF takes full advantage of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,689 Posts
The welding it on part is just so it is not an SBR.

If the muzzle brake is made like the one below so that all it takes to turn it into a suppressor is a section of tube, they will lose again.
But if you take pretty much any large brake and attach some tube to the outside, it WILL reduce the sound signature even if only slightly. This is a ballsy move by SIG, and if it goes bad it could make things a bit hairy. But if they can pull it off, the benefits will be fantastic.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,659 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
But if you take pretty much any large brake and attach some tube to the outside, it WILL reduce the sound signature even if only slightly. This is a ballsy move by SIG, and if it goes bad it could make things a bit hairy. But if they can pull it off, the benefits will be fantastic.
Exactly.

SIG has been pushing the limits for a while now and I for one like to see the bear get poked by those that can see it to the end

At this point we as consumers have nothing to loose really. Meeter most muzzle devices and they will absolutely change the db, depending on where you're measuring it at.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,529 Posts
The "poking the bear" thing is the best part to me. I wish I had the money to stand up for us.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top