CAVEAT EMPTOR: I am not an attorney and I am not qualified nor competent to have an opinion on this matter which would serve for any particular purpose.
TL;DR: The Appeals Court ruled that the words "intended" and "for" in the definition of a silencer as a firearm in the NFA was crucial because anything, even a potato, could be used as a silencer.
The pertinent wording from the statute:
NOTE: There is a whole lot of text between the above definition and the below finding which you should read carefully...
OPINION: This case protects the industry more than any other I've been able to find. It is natural for **The Agency Which May Not Be Named** to attempt to enforce the NFA as broadly as they can because this is essentially their charter. The widespread use of devices which can be adapted to illegal use, even though such devices may never have been designed or intended for such use, is naturally seen by them as a threat to their ability to enforce the statute. The airgun industry must POLICE ITSELF with respect to this problem so that we can continue to enjoy the use and proliferation of new capabilities and technology in our sport. Over time these restrictions will become less chafing for both the industry and those who are concerned about loosening their grip over a technology which does not fall under the purview of the statute. Adaptation of a STANDARD FITTING unique to the airgun industry would go a long way towards solving some of these issues because those who would deliberately violate the statute by misusing an airgun device via attaching it to a firearm would have to make a special effort to do that.
Move slowly and calmly but remain steadfast and resolute. Present a unified front if you wish to keep your rights.
DO NOT FEED TROLLS ON FORUMS.
THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR WILL BE USED TO INFLUENCE LAWMAKERS.
TL;DR: The Appeals Court ruled that the words "intended" and "for" in the definition of a silencer as a firearm in the NFA was crucial because anything, even a potato, could be used as a silencer.
The pertinent wording from the statute:
NOTE: Emphasis Added,
NOTE: There is a whole lot of text between the above definition and the below finding which you should read carefully...
NOTE: In short, the Court found the statute more constrained when applied to silencers than to automatic weapons because of the ease with which common household items might be adapted for use as silencers and the relative obvious intent when one posses an automatic weapon. You can't accidentally turn a potato into an Uzi. The court felt it pertinent to avoid an over broad interpretation of the definition in the case of a silencer.
OPINION: This case protects the industry more than any other I've been able to find. It is natural for **The Agency Which May Not Be Named** to attempt to enforce the NFA as broadly as they can because this is essentially their charter. The widespread use of devices which can be adapted to illegal use, even though such devices may never have been designed or intended for such use, is naturally seen by them as a threat to their ability to enforce the statute. The airgun industry must POLICE ITSELF with respect to this problem so that we can continue to enjoy the use and proliferation of new capabilities and technology in our sport. Over time these restrictions will become less chafing for both the industry and those who are concerned about loosening their grip over a technology which does not fall under the purview of the statute. Adaptation of a STANDARD FITTING unique to the airgun industry would go a long way towards solving some of these issues because those who would deliberately violate the statute by misusing an airgun device via attaching it to a firearm would have to make a special effort to do that.
Move slowly and calmly but remain steadfast and resolute. Present a unified front if you wish to keep your rights.
DO NOT FEED TROLLS ON FORUMS.
THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR WILL BE USED TO INFLUENCE LAWMAKERS.
Last edited:
