There was a similar case in Mass since then involving a similar premise where the prosecutor kept arguing that airguns were firearms, it ended up getting overturned as well. That's all I was asking. I was not aware of this particular case.
Upvote 0
Massachusetts airgun silencer laws?
- Thread starter R_M_F
- Start date
There was a similar case in Mass since then involving a similar premise where the prosecutor kept arguing that airguns were firearms, it ended up getting overturned as well. That's all I was asking. I was not aware of this particular case.
It all seems like it could fall either way in future, although it seems that the law thus far has fallen on the side of the defendants, especially the Crooker case from reading. It does seem like there is the possibility to argue that something like a DonnyFL product could be used on an actual firearm and as it, in itself isn't an airgun but an independent item then where is that line of separation drawn. On the other hand something like the FX Crown's retractable shroud, which has sound dampening qualities too, is more integral to the air rifle itself and wouldn't really mount on a firearm (although I'm sure I can be proven wrong there). I just don't want to be the person that gets mentioned on this forum in a couple of years as being the guy that managed to buck the trend and get sentenced for it. I'd love to get something official in writing that draws a clear line but seems like there isn't anything out there to reference. Thanks all for the input and thoughts though, it's interesting to figure out and plan to do a little more digging to see what I might unearth.
Upvote 0
Kind of a side note. You can't get a hunting license without a FID card. There are a few animals you can hunt legally with an airgun but you must have a hunting license.
Upvote 0
Hi @bogview, thank you for the heads up and I was aware of that but appreciate the note. It was more for backyard target shooting purposes rather than hunting.
Upvote 0
The BATFE actually gave me back the air gun silencer and the Sam Yang air rifle in 2012 after the case was no longer active but I had to move for and be granted a court order first which Judge Patti Saris granted. They also had to give back my laptop, camcorder and other items seized with the air rifle and silencer back in 2004. When they gave back the silencer in 2012 one agent said, "Don't call it a silencer, it is an air rifle moderator." I don't know if that was a joke or if the agent was just being a wiseass.
Upvote 0
I saw your screen name and I had to click on this thread again. So you are the famous Michael Crooker? I am surprised that the BATFE not only had not destroyed the moderator before 2012, but actually gave it back to you. Was the mod damaged in any way from them firing hot loads through it?
Upvote 0
Hi @MikeCrooker43,
Thanks for taking the time to write on here, nice to get your first hand perspective on this and interesting to hear that they gave it back to you after all that time, with a little fight from yourself. You were Massachusetts based as well when this all happened, that's correct right? Moderator it is then I guess. Thanks again for the input.
Thanks for taking the time to write on here, nice to get your first hand perspective on this and interesting to hear that they gave it back to you after all that time, with a little fight from yourself. You were Massachusetts based as well when this all happened, that's correct right? Moderator it is then I guess. Thanks again for the input.
Upvote 0
FWIW, I ordered a custom airgun mod from Poland a couple months ago. When it shipped and went through customs, I was curious what the declaration description said because it was advertised as "silencer." When it arrived, I inspected the package, and sure enough... The customs declaration said it was a "Vacuum Pump Muffler." I got a good chuckle out of that.
Upvote 0
It was banged up more than it was when I had last seen it. But I can't say it was damaged. They fired through it about 6 times with high velocity .22 long rifle ammunition, using a Ruger pistol with a special threaded barrel supposedly not commercially available, attached to an adapter from an array of adapters that they have in their kit, then my device was threaded onto their adapter. They used a sound meter and measured the sound of the pistol without the silencer first and recorded the results, then they assembled all of the above and fired three more times through it and got results of a 22.2 decibel drop which the agent testified was a decrease of "a hundredfold." The also testified that there were no burn marks inside of it before they got it and they admitted that they performed no gunshot residue test which they said they used to do in all cases but no longer do. (I had demanded at my first court appearance on the day of my arrest that they do a gunshot residue test and the government attorney objected, stating that those were no longer done because it is not an element of the offense that the device was ever actually used on a firearm). My lawyer (who was gun savvy and has a machinegun collection) tore this Alphabet org silencer expert up on cross-examination. Turns out this guy, Richard Craze, has testified 223 times in like 50 different courts as an expert in silencer cases all over the country and had worked for Alphabet org for like 30 years and was now retiring. But he had no education, had never been to college, and his only expertise was working in the Alphabet org Firearms Technology Branch. He told my jury that a pillow or a towel could be used as a firearm silencer but if handed a towel alone would not be able to call that a silencer. My lawyer accused him of being the one who made the silencer by his assembly of all those parts but he denied that was the case. It was a complete frame job but not from a factual perspective. It was what the lawyer's call intellectual dishonesty. The government lawyer and the judge were corrupt and together schemed that they would instruct the jury that the word for in the first part of the silencer definition meant to be capable of and not to mean intended for. Then to make things worse, the judge completely omitted and refused to give the jury the second and third parts of the silencer definition which deal with a combination of parts or a single part designed and intended to be used to make a firearm silencer. The defense argued that the court's instructions would make every bed pillow in the District of Massachusetts an unregistered firearm silencer based upon the capability criteria. The court called that reducio ad absurdam, a Latin term, and said that the government could be trusted not to bring such absurd cases (except in my case of course). The defense argued that if anyone made a firearm silencer it was Mr. Craze who did so by creating his assembly of parts, and not me, the defendant. Since the word intent is in that definition we would win the case had the jury been given the definition written by Congress because there was no evidence that I ever used the device on a firearm or ever intended to. The judge and prosecutor knew this so they refused to give the jury the whole definition. While deliberating on the second day, the jury came back with a request to the judge to give them a better definition of what a silencer was. The judge refused. I could not believe the corruption in all of this, the federal courts are more corrupt than anything, that's why they have a 98 percent conviction rate. The guy who made the silencer, someone from South Carolina whose name I forgot, was not prosecuted. A person named Martin McLaughlin who I purchased it from online (and who had the South Carolina guy make it for me special to fit the threads of the Sam Yang) also was not prosecuted. And the guy I sold it to, a person in Ohio named Paulus, he was not prosecuted. And Paulus got caught with 4 silencers on four different air rifles when they did the controlled delivery of my package to him, one of those four also originated from McLaughlin. He was not even arrested. They just took his 4 silencers and said they were illegal and he could not have them. So out of four people involved in this, I was the only target for prosecution.
Upvote 0
Yes, this occurred in Agawam, Massachusetts. I suppose it is better not to call it a silencer. The federal definition uses silencer and muffler. So moderator or noise reduction device sounds better and less sinister.
Upvote 0
Hey Mike, thanks for taking the time to write that all down and give some insight as to what actually happened to you in this case. It does indeed sound like you got the short end of the stick with all that. I think your case has got the most attention and so having yourself actual comment on it and the process is exceptionally helpful for anyone interested, just rough that you had to go through all that. Amazing that none of the other parties involved were pursued as part of this case, given their obvious intent to get someone for it. Sorry that you had to go through all of that, I can only imagine that wasn't the best of times and massively aggravating given everything you wrote! Thanks for sharing again, much appreciated!
Upvote 0
Mike, thanks for sharing this with us as R_M_F stated. I've seen my fair share or prosecutors and judges that can be very biased and overzealous for all the wrong reasons. The only thing I can say is thank you to your lawyer for not laying down, following through with the appeal until until the end. Your case (especially the appeal) has brought some much-needed clarity to the moderator issue for many of us, and hopefully has set a precedent for any future situations like the one that you faced in court.
Upvote 0