new ATF ruling on PB silencers

[craltal]

http://www.atf.gov/alcohol/info/revrule/rules/atf_ruling2005-4.pdf

[geekwarrior]

so they're legal as long as they are fixed to the barrel?

[craltal]

that's what it says, as long as it can't be removed from the barrel, it's legal

another interesting tidbit:
"The paintball gun examined by ATF is not a “firearm” as defined, because it does
not, is not designed to, and may not be readily converted to expel a projectile by
the action of an explosive and does not utilize the frame or receiver of a firearm."

so much for gun-control laws being extended to cover pb, they will need to be rewritten to cover them...

[SlartyBartFast]

so they're legal as long as they are fixed to the barrel?

Actually, the document says the barrel was welded to the paintball gun.

Does the document apply to removable barrels? Becasue removing the barrel is what the ATF determined to be "making a silencer".

[craltal]

I'd imagine that the company that brought about the examination (and supplied the sample) was endgame:

http://www.endgameinc.com/Paintball-Products/Compression-Barrels.asp

That would imply that removing barrels from the PB gun are fine, just not the silencer from the barrel. Also at the end it states that any manipulation of said barrel will constitute a violation

[paullus99]

Doesn't really change much from the old rules.

[Doc Nickel]

No, silencers, even permanently attached to a removable barrel, are still illegal.

Note the wording in the PDF: It was fine when welded and nonremovable from the marker itself, but illegal when hacksawed off.

Nothing's changed, no law has been altered. It's just in this one situation, somebody apparently figured out a loophole by permanently attaching the silencer to the body of the gun. This is only a ruling on one specific silencer design on one specific marker.

Doc.

[MoeMag]

expel a projectile by
the action of an explosive

What about the tippy c3? That thing burns propane.

[siloseven]

No, silencers, even permanently attached to a removable barrel, are still illegal.

Note the wording in the PDF: It was fine when welded and nonremovable from the marker itself, but illegal when hacksawed off.

Nothing's changed, no law has been altered. It's just in this one situation, somebody apparently figured out a loophole by permanently attaching the silencer to the body of the gun. This is only a ruling on one specific silencer design on one specific marker.

Doc.

But I thoght part of that stament thingie stated that PAintball markers are not Firearms, so their for excluded from that clause. or maybe I am thinking somthing else. I can't think of a way that having a "silencer" welded to a paintball barrel can be used on a firearm and still work on a paintball marker.

they need to have collage classes for the avrage people to learn how to speak Lawyer and politition, or make it manditory for Lawyers and polititions to speak common English in laymanns terms. We need a translater or a few hundred posts to figure out what their saying most the time.

[VFX_Fenix]

I'd imagine that the company that brought about the examination (and supplied the sample) was endgame:

http://www.endgameinc.com/Paintball-Products/Compression-Barrels.asp

That would imply that removing barrels from the PB gun are fine, just not the silencer from the barrel. Also at the end it states that any manipulation of said barrel will constitute a violation

The BATF Actually tested Endgame's barrel and found that the barrel itself had no significant suppression qualities, and as Doc said, if you can remove it from the gun, it's still illegal. So those of you hoarding your BOA Consealer barrels, keep hidin' 'em, they're still fair game for the feds to snatch.

This ruling isn't all that suprising since an air rifle company called "AirForce" has sold pellet guns here in the states which have integral sound supressors for a number of years.


I can't think of a way that having a "silencer" welded to a paintball barrel can be used on a firearm and still work on a paintball marker.

Remove barrel of paintabll gun, slide barrel of paintball gun over barrel of firearm with either a stop or a threaded adapter on the barrel of the recieving firearm. Instant FIrearm silencer from a paintball barrel with perminently attached silencer.

[Army]

What about the tippy c3? That thing burns propane.
ATF does not consider propane to be an explosive. Legal to use.

[Hexis]

The paintball gun examined by ATF is not a “firearm” as defined...

That looks pretty specific to me, the paintball gun, not all. Thogh it would suggest that any paintball gun powered by HPA or CO2 would not be considered a firearm, but that has not ben legally tested yet.

[FSU_Paintball]

Hi craig

[Target Practice]

Here's a question...

Who gives a good goddamn?! I mean really, do you people honestly think that the BATFE hads nothing better to do than hang out at your backwoods crapeating field and bust you for having a PAINTBALL SILENCER?

Jesus.

Edit: I mean, seriously guys.

[VFX_Fenix]

We do care because some people REALLY want their silencer on thier paintball gun and look for loopholes that just aren't there.

The document states that a particular paintball gun is not a firearm, paintball guns in general (as well as air rifles) are not considered firearms by the BATF which is why there aren't the legal and paper work issues surrounding them and why people without an FFL can sell them.

The issue is that silencers which can be used on a paintball gun CAN also be used on a Firearm. This clarification, if you will, simply is saying that if your silencer is intergal and CANNOT be removed from the marker in any way shape or form then it's okay. It's like if you had a BOA Consealer and JB welded the barrel onto your Autococker.

The BATF doesn't care what the intended use of any silencer is, they only care that it works, and if it works and can be moved around functionally from gun to gun, then it's a Firearm Silencer, period, end of story.

[Target Practice]

They aren't going to hunt you down. They won't give a good goddamn. They will not seek you out and charge you with a crime.

[Lurker27]

They aren't going to hunt you down. They won't give a good goddamn. They will not seek you out and charge you with a crime.

Ding Ding. I wouldnt make a bunch and sell them online, but having a small sleeve around your porting...I doubt that's objectionable. Might even help in tourney play...

[OneEyedPimp]

We do care because some people REALLY want their silencer on thier paintball gun and look for loopholes that just aren't there.


Actually, two huge loopholes come to mind, The ninth and second amendments. I mean, both of those laws nullify every law made for and under the juristiction of the Bureau of All Things Fun and Exciting, the DEA, and any other law that has been made since 1912.

This should not be construded to be open for argument, everything I said above can be verified online and though common sense. Besides, I do not belive political discussion is allowed in this forum.

[SlartyBartFast]

Actually, two huge loopholes come to mind, The ninth and second amendments. I mean, both of those laws nullify every law made for and under the juristiction of the Bureau of All Things Fun and Exciting, the DEA, and any other law that has been made since 1912.

This should not be construded to be open for argument, everything I said above can be verified online and though common sense. Besides, I do not belive political discussion is allowed in this forum.

Wow, drive-by flippant opinion. The gun control act of 193~ has never been struck down.

Pretty much anything can be "verified" online, and common sense is a rare commodity that usually exists in inverse proportion to the quantity claimed.

And what does the Ninth have to do with anything?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

All that means is the constitution doesn't define ALL the rights to which a citizen is entitled. However, it does not in any way limit how unnamed "rights" might be affected by other laws.

You've got a long and difficult road to proove that first something is a right that deserves protection, then secondly that a law shouldn't affect that right.

[OneEyedPimp]

Wow, drive-by flippant opinion. The gun control act of 193~ has never been struck down.

Pretty much anything can be "verified" online, and common sense is a rare commodity that usually exists in inverse proportion to the quantity claimed.

And what does the Ninth have to do with anything?


All that means is the constitution doesn't define ALL the rights to which a citizen is entitled. However, it does not in any way limit how unnamed "rights" might be affected by other laws.

You've got a long and difficult road to proove that first something is a right that deserves protection, then secondly that a law shouldn't affect that right.


Actually, I'm tired. I am tired of arguing a mute point for the freedoms that I am entitled to, the ones that are PROTECTED under the first 10 amendments. I do not want to argue with anyone else about this. In the end, you will think I am a crazy libertarian and I will have a same level of respect for you as I have for anyone who believes that they know whats best for me. However, if you are truely interested in how any law made after 1912 is actually null and void, and any anyone enforcing such laws should be up for treason, I suggest you read "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega." Both are a compilation of essays on the freedom movement. Anything else you would like to say, feel free to pm me.

P.S. I referenced the ninth amendment because court systems have a growing trend in saying that the second amendment does not protect the individuals right to self-defense. If this is the case, the ninth amendment protects it quite well.

[SlartyBartFast]

Actually, I'm tired. I am tired of arguing a mute point for the freedoms that I am entitled to, the ones that are PROTECTED under the first 10 amendments.

Problem you're rights are null and void the instant they affect the rights of someone else. THat's what living in a society instead of a cave on top of a mountain is all about Bucko.

And it's a moot point.

And the fact that wako libertarians don't run the world is absolute proof the point is certainly not "moot"


However, if you are truely interested in how any law made after 1912 is actually null and void, .

Well, I suppose at least you're not one of the brain dead idiots that tries the same dumb arguments but backs up to the Magna-Carta. You're still pretty stupid though.


P.S. I referenced the ninth amendment because court systems have a growing trend in saying that the second amendment does not protect the individuals right to self-defense. If this is the case, the ninth amendment protects it quite well.

Don't get it do you. Determining YOUR right to "self-defense" is tempered by the alleged assailants rights to life and a fair trial.

The ninth protects absolutely NOTHING at all. It doesn't define other rights, how "rights" should be determined or defined, or how those "rights" are then to be treated by the law.

You claim a right, someone denies it's a right. If they (democracy) wins, the ninth does nothing to help you.

[OneEyedPimp]

Problem you're rights are null and void the instant they affect the rights of someone else. THat's what living in a society instead of a cave on top of a mountain is all about Bucko.

The only rights that I advocate are those that I am entitled to. No right that is enumerated in the constitution infringes on the rights of others. Go ahead, name one, I dare you.



And it's a moot point.

And the fact that wako libertarians don't run the world is absolute proof the point is certainly not "moot"



Well, I suppose at least you're not one of the brain dead idiots that tries the same dumb arguments but backs up to the Magna-Carta. You're still pretty stupid though.

Sir, I am not going to resort to bewidling you for the sake of my argument.



Don't get it do you. Determining YOUR right to "self-defense" is tempered by the alleged assailants rights to life and a fair trial.

No, I get it. I never advocated people to shoot other people. If someone is breaking into someone elses house, the owner of the house is having his life and property infringed upon, therefore he has every right to protect said rights, through whatever means necessary.


The ninth protects absolutely NOTHING at all. It doesn't define other rights, how "rights" should be determined or defined, or how those "rights" are then to be treated by the law.

The ninth amendment protects, well everything it says it does. This includes substance use, freedom of travel, and it also reinforces every other of the first 10 amendments.


You claim a right, someone denies it's a right. If they (democracy) wins, the ninth does nothing to help you.

Now it is my turn. You just dont get it. You do realize that if a million people vote against one person to take his rights, he is still entitled to it. It is the governments responsibility to protect that sole person's right, granted they have failed utterly at that task.

I believe that it was James Bovard who said: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" And Jefferson said this: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” This is true on so many levels. That is why the founding fathers tried to make it so that such a government would not come out of the woodwork. That is why we are a mix between a democracy and a Republic, a Democratic Republic.

I don't want to hijack this thread, so please pm me with any other comments. I will no longer respond in this thread unless you personally insult me again.

[SuiciDal Sn Y p ER]

thank you guys for a brief lesson on us history and our lovely constitution