Airgun Moderators.....What’s the Legal Issues??

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
So when my state (Socialist NY) says an airgun shooting over 600fps is considered a firearm for hunting, and in another section of the hunting regs says the use of a silencer is illegal. Is hunting with a LDC legal? The two are not tied together in the same sentence but would a rabbit cop give me a ticket? I still hunt with PCPs that are shrouded and have LDCs but conscious of where I do so. Federal laws dont mean diddly in this state to the liberals so for me I'm on a slippery slope everytime I pull the trigger on feather and fur.
Click to expand...

Hookster,

This is where govt' needs to stay out of our business, as they are vague, and often contradict themselves..
Especially here in Socialist-New-York. I'm originally from 'Central NY', and now in 'Upstate NY'...
Last year, I figured I'd finally take my hunter safety course so I could 'legally' hunt small game... 
When reading up on rules/regs/laws, and chatting with others, I learned something interesting..
I took a pause from the powder burner side, and brought up airgunning [Hunting with an airgun] 

I was told by the instructors at my sportsman's club that in NY - we can hunt with air rifles so long as they are .22 cal or larger. 
They did not specify anything about fps over 600fps being considered a firearm - so that is new to me 
[Unless you were using that as an example not an actual fact]

Either way - Nothing was mentioned regarding LDCs either, because again, airguns are not regulated 
[Unless NY-City is involved, because of course that's the part of the state we need to chisel off and sink]

I spent a LOT of time trying to find info on the specifics, and after hours and hours of searching, 
and not coming up with much of anything, I gave up..

General thoughts - NY just sucks!

1f642.svg


Sam -
Click to expand...

Sam,

Look under the NYS Dec definition of an Air Gun. Right out of the gate they call it a firearm and then go on to say over .177cal traveling at least 600 fps, spring or compressed air. Gotta love how a state can call an airgun a firearm. This is my concern living here. I need to move is the end result. 
 
Upvote 0
Hookster,

Wow! Unreal.. I'm surprised that the people involved with the safety courses didn't know that! 
And what surprises me even more is that a state can actually have people stupid enough to do something like that.. 
Wait, it's NY . . . Never mind. *sigh*

Well, I guess we'll just be 'felons' now, since thanks to the SAFE act, most of us are now anyways.. 

I lived in TN last year, and absolutely loved it! I hate the fact that I had to move back to this wretched place! 

Sam - 

PS: Everyone I know and/or talk to gets sick and tired of NY's ridiculous rules/regs/laws, 
and either moves away or talks about wanting to..

Why though? Because people keep voting for their 'parties' vs. voting for a Person who would make a difference!

Again - I hate things like religion and politics because they're both bastardized, corrupted, and no one wins..

But, in the case of NY - We had a chance.. King Cuomo could have been dethroned! 
Larry Sharpe would have been Amazing, but, too many people thought that by voting for him, 
they would just be throwing their vote away, and giving it to Cuomo.. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard..

So basically, NYC and some other NYers voted for Blowmo, 
and instead of voting for Larry, the Reps voted for Marcus Molinaro instead.. What happened in the end?
Larry got shafted, and, so did everyone who lives here in NY.

Again - This is Exactly why I hate politics and parties.. All involved are completely ruining Everything..

[/rant] 

Sam -


 
Upvote 0
Outside of the legal issues, keep in mind that all of the companies who build an LDC for airguns only, make some attempt to weaken the baffles and the can to prevent mis-use by PB shooters. In 99% of these attempts the can will split and blow the baffles out on the ground. Airgun companies keep this in their back pocket to counter any legal confusion. We may also see more over-moulded plastic units in the future, much to the dismay of Urban owners.
 
Upvote 0
Don't try it here in socialist NJ. ALL air guns are considered firearms here by the libs. And ALL powder burner laws apply. Any sort of sound suppression is deemed illegal by the Gestapo. This includes any type of barrel shroud, which greatly reduces the number of rifles to choose from that you can own here. Can't wait to leave this libtard utopia. 
 
Upvote 0
The DEC classifies airguns as firearms “when used for hunting” according to my read on it. If I’m plinking or target shooting on my property or club, the State law considers it an airgun.
Click to expand...

L.Leon, thanks for posting that!
From now on, this will be my exact same 'interpretation' of that, since it makes the most sense..
I still think it's an absurd re-classification, but, I guess it is what it is..

Also, with 'life' getting in the way, chaos as usual, etc. 
I wasn't able to take the hunter's safety course, so, 'hunting' is out for me anyways

That said, as a target shooter / plinker, who shoots in designated areas, I'll consider myself good to go.

👍 

Sam -
 
Upvote 0
Locker50,

Man, that bites! As your 'neighbor', I feel your pain..
Not as much with the ridiculous airgun reclassification to firearms, but guns in general..
Our NY-SAFE-Act is such a joke, and the 'SAFE-ACT-2' is even worse..

Yup, our two states are right up there with CA as the laughing stocks of the nation..
It's pretty pathetic and beyond depressing and frustrating..

🙄 

Sam -
 
Upvote 0
Guys, this is just my opinion but just discussing this here is detrimental to our sport. The day is coming when what we love to do will be under attack.
Click to expand...

I understand your sentiment, but I do not agree.

Now more than ever, "not exercising a right is a right that is lost." There are times when discussion, education, and use of these matters is important to keep things relevant and useful. Granted, there is no specific right that guarantees ownership or use of airguns, but there is a lot of legal landmarks from the past that suggests that airguns are a far "lesser threat" than a typical firearm is, true or not.

Just my opinion, FWIW.
 
Upvote 0
And this is what happens when millions of people watch a "Super Bowl" instead of what their local, county, state and federal legislator are up to.

When I ran for Congress in 2010, I was amazed that so many people hadn't read the Constitution to even know what their rights are, let alone know if they were being restricted. UGH

Leaving the Socialist/Communist California soon, already have property on the water in SC. Get the house built and I'm gone.

California adds specific language to the laws to cover airguns, replicas, etc. etc. No night sites either. Common Sense has left the state.

Smitty
 
Upvote 0
https://www.pyramydair.com/article/Airgun_silencers_What_s_the_big_deal_August_2006/32

From the above...........

"SO WHAT? We're talking about airguns here!
Yes we are, and most airgunners know that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has jurisdiction over firearms ONLY. In 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.

At this point, I will cut directly to the chase. When you are tried for owning an illegal silencer, the federal government will vigorously prosecute their case against you. A court case uses a lot of resources, and they don't like to lose. The decision usually comes down to the judge after both sides have presented their case. You probably know that there are some judges who see their duty as interpreting the law, and there are other activist judges who see their duty as rectifying the current social situation - "putting things right," as it were. If you happen to draw the latter kind of judge, the outcome could be devastating. Even if you do happen to win, the time, money and heartache of preparing for a trial isn't pleasant for most people."


 
  • Like
Reactions: scubajeeper
Upvote 0
As I understand moderators - in the National Firearms Act of 1934, anything that can be used to reduce the sound of a firearm (defined as using something explosive to propel a projectile) may be covered by the restrictions on moderators. There is no law covering "airgun Moderators" as they are not for firearms.

The tricky part is that if you construct a moderator for an airgun, that can be used on a firearm, it's covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The definition used in the National Firearms Act of 1934 is very broad, and since there are no laws covering airgun moderators, it's a gray area.

If you look at the best quality moderators for airguns, they might last a couple rounds with a .22 short, but a long rifle or .223 would destroy the moderator, then it's "Probably" legal.

The definition is so broad that pillows could be covered, if they could be used to reduce the sound of a gunshot, so there is some reasonable checks.

I'm not a lawyer, but did quite a bit of research a while back. BATF won't give an opinion on airgun moderators because the National Firearms Act of 1934 doesn't cover airguns, and airguns are outside of their jurisdiction.

Presently, States can be more restrictive than federal law, and since each state is literally a "Nation" with some autonomy, it depends on the state. Utah (where I live) is very gun friendly and has virtually no airgun restrictions, or firearms restrictions for that matter. California is about as different as you can get, so do research your local laws. 

Local laws really do count.
 
Upvote 0
https://www.pyramydair.com/article/Airgun_silencers_What_s_the_big_deal_August_2006/32

From the above...........

"SO WHAT? We're talking about airguns here!
Yes we are, and most airgunners know that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has jurisdiction over firearms ONLY. In 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.

At this point, I will cut directly to the chase. When you are tried for owning an illegal silencer, the federal government will vigorously prosecute their case against you. A court case uses a lot of resources, and they don't like to lose. The decision usually comes down to the judge after both sides have presented their case. You probably know that there are some judges who see their duty as interpreting the law, and there are other activist judges who see their duty as rectifying the current social situation - "putting things right," as it were. If you happen to draw the latter kind of judge, the outcome could be devastating. Even if you do happen to win, the time, money and heartache of preparing for a trial isn't pleasant for most people."

Click to expand...

That article predates the Crooker case. Not only did Crooker get his case overturned, he was able to turn around and sue the Feds and win a lot of money against them. 

There must be actual intent to use the LCD on a firearm, not just the mere possibility that it will fit a firearm. 

The Crooker case is the only appellate case that addresses this issue, therefore it is the law of the land.

One thing to remember when looking at old articles from the airgun community is that there was a lot of arguing in the airgun community about the state of the law and a lot of people put their personal pride on the line in the stances they were taking, mostly against the notion that removable LCDs were not under Alphabet org's jurisdiction. When the Crooker case came out, they had to eat some crow, and that never did sit well and that's the reason many sites never updated their info to reflect the Crooker decision. You'll actually see many of the same sites celebrate Crooker's conviction, and then never mention that his conviction was overturned. It didn't sit well with Alphabet org either, and to this day they've never updated their website materials in light of the Crooker case. 

Not only did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, I've been a licensed and practicing criminal law attorney for a decade in the good state of Florida. I'm confident that Crooker holds that LCDs are totally legal under Federal law so long as there is no evidence of intent to use on a firearm. But your state law will vary as most of you already know. 
 
Upvote 0
The tricky part is that if you construct a moderator for an airgun, that can be used on a firearm, it's covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Click to expand...

That's Alphabet org's argument, and that's the argument the courts rejected in the Crooker. It doesn't matter if the LCD can be used on the firearm for 1 shot or 1,000 shots. What matters is whether the person in possession of the LCD intends to use it on a firearm. If there's no intent, then Alphabet org has no jurisdiction over the airgun LCD, no matter how much they may contend that they do.

Crooker won $172k for his wrongful conviction. Alphabet org will get slapped that hard or harder next time they try that again, absent a change in the law from Congress. 
 
Upvote 0
When did the SCOTUS rule that airguns are not firearms? Does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to bear arms or only firearms? What happens in the future when everyone is using energy weapons?
Click to expand...

That's kind of my point, the SCOTUS ruled that firearms are "arms" under the the terms of the 2A, in their 2008 ruling, Scalia made it more clear than ever that anyone had a qualifying right to own a firearm. They did not specify "any" arms in this regard, only firearms, which makes this more important to airguns.

There's also the the 1968 ruling:  Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)

I can't ready find the more-recent ruling by the feds, but I am sure that a google search for Crooker or other related keywords will find it in there.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS did later rule that the 2nd Amendment protects arms besides just firearms. At least stun guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts


 
Upvote 0
SCOTUS did later rule that the 2nd Amendment protects arms besides just firearms. At least stun guns.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Click to expand...

Yes, but there is no current ruling that protects airguns.

Here is an interesting read published by the Alphabet org in 2005 (before the Crooker case)... They obviously had some time on their hands in attaching their "silencer" and justifying the means, considering that they utilized a device that was previously PERMANENTLY attached to the paintball gun that they destroyed whilst removing the "silencer."

https://www.Alphabet org.gov/file/55371/download

Bullfrog, I also agree with you (although I am not a lawyer) that the Crooker case was a huge victory against what the Alphabet org was trying to "justify" with their actions described in the above link. It is a precedent in regards to the fact that the judges argued definition and intent, which flies in the face of the Alphabet org insisting that intent was previously a non-issue to interpretation.


 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu