230814 Bullies, 4152 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 16 of 16
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,285

    Posted On:
    1/15/2012 5:08pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Hmmm, wow, that sucks...
    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!
    http://www.beemans.net/silencers_on_airguns.htm

    (edit)
    Yet conversely:
    n fact, U.S. Code specifically prohibits any federal, state or local municipality from declaring an airgun to be a firearm. Not only do the federal firearms laws NOT apply to airguns, they CANNOT be applied by law! But that doesn't get us out of the woods.

    However...
    IF you have an airgun silencer, and IF it can be removed and installed on a firearm, and IF it then quiets that firearm - that silencer meets the legal definition and is subject to the law. However, in the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, so it is also necessary to prove intent, as in you intended to use the silencer in your possession on a firearm. Therein lies the problem.
    http://www.pyramydair.com/article/Ai...August_2006/32

    Sounds like a lot of gray area.
    Last edited by ChenPengFi; 1/15/2012 5:17pm at .
  2. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,285

    Posted On:
    1/16/2012 10:21am

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    So with this in mind:
    The BATF has ducked the airgun silencer issue by continuing to say that they have no jurisdiction over airguns - BUT they leave the matter open by pointing out that an airgun silencer that could be used on a firearm, even if it was necessary to destroy an integrated airgun to get it, is, by federal definition, A FIREARM
    (my bold)
    i think i will be re-evaluating this whole suppressor thing.
    Thanks again.
    I can see the logic somewhat, with access to a machine shop that suppressor could theoretically be mounted on a .22-250 or the like.
    Not sure how quiet it would be or how long it would last but apparently that doesn't matter.
  3. BadUglyMagic is offline
    BadUglyMagic's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    393

    Posted On:
    1/16/2012 9:45pm


     Style: slackerjitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    It appears that the issue is with suppressors that can be removed and placed on a firearm. What about an airgun with an integral suppressor. One that cannot be removed? iirc some of the european air rifles are made that way.
  4. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,285

    Posted On:
    1/16/2012 10:41pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    As i understand it, suppressors are "firearms" in the eye of the law, and
    an airgun silencer that could be used on a firearm, even if it was necessary to destroy an integrated airgun to get it, is, by federal definition, A FIREARM
    so it appears those may in fact be illegal.
    I'm gonna call HPD tomorrow and ask, but i'll probably get a different model anyhow seeing as it's also a fed issue.
    The Beeman and Pyramyd articles cover both sides of the argument pretty well.
  5. BadUglyMagic is offline
    BadUglyMagic's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    393

    Posted On:
    1/19/2012 12:05am


     Style: slackerjitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ChenPengFi View Post
    As i understand it, suppressors are "firearms" in the eye of the law, and

    so it appears those may in fact be illegal.
    I'm gonna call HPD tomorrow and ask, but i'll probably get a different model anyhow seeing as it's also a fed issue.
    The Beeman and Pyramyd articles cover both sides of the argument pretty well.
    Lazy me missed the legal citation which states that a sionic device is a firearm.

    Good luck with your search.
  6. ChenPengFi is online now
    ChenPengFi's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Hawai'i
    Posts
    3,285

    Posted On:
    1/19/2012 3:52am

    Join us... or die
     Style: Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    So now i find this.
    A case was overturned!

    The conviction of defendant Crooker for transporting a firearm in interstate commerce was overturned because the device was specifically an “air-gun” silencer and therefore not covered under the federal statutory definition of a firearm. Under the federal definition of firearm, a silencer or “muffler” is considered a firearm. In the case decided by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, however, the device used to muffle the sound of a gun was in fact built as an “air-gun silencer” and therefore not covered under the statute. Even though the device could easily be adapted to muffle an actual firearm.
    http://policelegal.wordpress.com/201...not-a-firearm/


    Where a defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for transporting a firearm in interstate commerce as a convicted felon, the conviction must be reversed because the subject item – a device designed to muffle the sound of an airgun – was not a firearm.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/33939121/U...rica-v-Crooker

    They even reversed it in spite of his status as a convicted felon.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.