TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting. I wasn't aware that one could build things like supressors for sale without direct authorization from the ATF as a manufacturer. According to this case, the defendant is claiming that he had authorization to do so from the Navy. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this. Also, if his allegations are true and he had authorization from the Navy (and that can get around other regs), I wonder how the feds found out about it so they could bring it to trial....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/07/ju ... =obnetwork

Even the judge in the case is dubious about the prosecution.

If it is legit, that must be some nice hardware. Nearly $4900 each. Then again, it would have been a government contract.....

Well, first of all, suppressors should be legal and any regulation that attempts to restrict them is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Other than that, the question becomes whether a machinist should be held accountable for building something to a client's specification or whether the client who subcontracted the machinist should be held accountable. I am of the belief that the machinist should not be responsible for what a design for a client could possibly be used for. Let's say that someone wants to build a fully automatic firearm, so he decides to duplicate the parts from the M16. He makes careful drawings and sends these parts off to a machinist to be milled. The machinist might not even know what the parts are for or the guy might have told the machinist that they are just miscellaneous after market rifle parts that he is wanting to prototype prior to putting them on the market. The machinist should not be responsible for knowing every part of every possible firearm to see if the part that he is making might *possibly* be used to make a fully automatic weapon. It should be the responsibility of the person assembling the firearm to ensure that he is conforming to any (unconstitutional) regulations.

I would hazard to guess that many of us have the parts and tools necessary to make pipe bombs in our home shops since all it takes is some gunpowder and some plumbing pipe and fittings. Having the knowledge, tools, and supplies to do it should not be a crime. Last I heard, they require that you have at least the *intent* to create one before it would be considered a crime. In my opinion, it should be an "intent to do harm to others or the property or others". If you have a large piece of land and want to set off pipe bombs that do not endanger others, I think that it should be none of the government's business. Some people like firecrackers, some people like REALLY BIG firecrackers. I seem to remember that not too many decades ago, it was possible for farmers and such to be able to buy dynamite for getting rid of stumps on their property.

http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/11/14/5 ... n-november" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The pentagon official who awarded the contract was his own brother. Who sent him an email on how to construct the silencers

NavyVet1959 wrote:Well, first of all, suppressors should be legal and any regulation that attempts to restrict them is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

I am about the biggest Pro 2A guy you will meet. I have several suppressors as well as other Title II firearms, but I believe that suppressors are the ONLY part of the NFA not covered by the 2nd Amendment. Suppressors are not arms, they are an accessory. I don't think they should be regulated, but also don't think they should be protected by 2A.

Yes, you have to be licensed to build suppressors unless you are under some clandestine deal with the government.

NavyVet1959 - Why do you think they are illegal? Maybe you just were not clear but I buy and sell them and have government approval to do so. They are not legal in just a few states. Like you though, I think they should be legal in all 50 states. However, I can't see how you come up with that suppressors should be covered under the 2A?

But darn, I want in on his deal.... $1,700,000 to build 349 suppressors? I must be selling cheap suppressors....

RX8er wrote:NavyVet1959 - Why do you think they are illegal? Maybe you just were not clear but I buy and sell them and have government approval to do so. They are not legal in just a few states. Like you though, I think they should be legal in all 50 states. However, I can't see how you come up with that suppressors should be covered under the 2A?

I meant that they should be completely unregulated. Now, although I don't particularly have a desire to own one, I do not see any reason why they should be regulated. Now, if the suppressors were *truly* silent, then I might be inclined to buy one. I could possibly see a use for that when hog hunting and wanting to eradicate multiple ones that are standing near each other. The NFA of 1934 is what gave us the regulation of fully automatic weapons, suppressors, and such. Since it attempts to regulate firearms, it is in direct violation of the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" clause of the 2nd Amendment. As such, it's attempts to regulate suppressors is also an infringement of our rights to bear arms. You should be able to just go to Wal-Mart and buy a suppressor and it should be hanging on the rack right next to the scopes.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:I don't think they should be regulated, but also don't think they should be protected by 2A.

I agree on both counts. They should be unrestricted and encouraged in locations with local noise ordinances.

FML wrote:

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:I don't think they should be regulated, but also don't think they should be protected by 2A.

I agree on both counts. They should be unrestricted and encouraged in locations with local noise ordinances.

Just think how cheap they would be if they were unregulated. Firearms would all come with threaded barrels by default. Since there would be such a market for them due to them not being regulated, the prices would go down. If you really look at it, suppressors are a fairly simple design and when made in quantity, they should not cost very much. I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to be sold for $100 or less if they were being made in quantity. Firearm manufacturers might even sell integrally suppressed barrels on their rifles and the marketing claims would be who had less of a sound signature. A nice generic solution might be for there to be a few different can diameters and lengths and then an adapter that goes from the can diameter to the barrel diameter.

Technically, suppressors are illegal in Texas, having an NFA tax stamp is a defense to prosecution.

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:Technically, suppressors are illegal in Texas, having an NFA tax stamp is a defense to prosecution.

This is also the state that outlaws carrying Bowie knives. Too many Yankees and wanna-be-Yankees in Austin.

nightmare wrote:Too many Yankees and wanna-be-Yankees in Austin.

Truer words have never been spoken.

gthaustex wrote:Interesting. I wasn't aware that one could build things like supressors for sale without direct authorization from the ATF as a manufacturer. According to this case, the defendant is claiming that he had authorization to do so from the Navy. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this. Also, if his allegations are true and he had authorization from the Navy (and that can get around other regs), I wonder how the feds found out about it so they could bring it to trial....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/07/ju ... =obnetwork

Even the judge in the case is dubious about the prosecution.

If it is legit, that must be some nice hardware. Nearly $4900 each. Then again, it would have been a government contract.....

Federal agencies and their contractors can do many things that normal businesses or individuals can not. I would think that making most things under a federal contract could be done in ways that bypass many of the normal rules and restrictions placed on private companies and individuals.