Mass EF1 denials happening

Every Form 1 suppressor that wasn't machined from bar stock after the Form 1 was filed is an instant win felony case, if they can locate the suppressor and show that it is made of parts that were already a suppressor.
You going to include freeze plugs and valve spring retainers in the “already a suppressor” category? 🤔

They’re definitely not bar stock, or part of a solvent trap.
 
You going to include freeze plugs and valve spring retainers in the “already a suppressor” category? 🤔

They’re definitely not bar stock, or part of a solvent trap.
I think the ATF's interpretation would be that, unless you bought them for their actual use and not to use as suppressor parts, that they are suppressor parts, right? And if you actually made a Form 1 suppressor with them, well, that proves you bought them as suppressor parts beyond any doubt.

A shoelace is a machine gun if that's what your intent is. A freeze plug is a suppressor part if you intend to make a suppressor with it. Even if you Form 1 it after the fact.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully I'm wrong about this, and the ATF will never prosecute anyone for this, but as soon as some politician wants to do something about the evil suppressor owners, or wants to arrest some middle class white people, or "get tough on gun crime", or find something else to prosecute someone who used a weapon in self-defense but owns an unrelated Form 1 suppressor, they have a list of instant felons that is entirely composed of people they dislike.

I'm glad I was too paranoid to file a Form 1 can. I don't want to have that hanging over me. At this point, I think Form 4 and illegal suppressor ownership are both safer.
 
Last edited:
I dont think theyre going there with any of this. I do think Jim is right and theyre specifically going after solvent trap sales. Too much hassle to go after already approved forms.
 
That brace thing was a massive initial FUBAR ruling at the ATF. Just because they ALLOW something that shouldnt be allowed under the letter of the law there is nothing to stop them from going back to the old interpretation.
You know, the more you post, the clearer it becomes that as far as this NFA issue you care about only you and yours, the rest of the nation be damned.

A good summary of your arguments so far would be "I have my mill and lathe, so I'm glad the ATF finally shut the rest of you peons with your suppressor kits down. They never even should have let it get this far."

That's not exactly a "freedom" argument.
 
You know, the more you post, the clearer it becomes that as far as this NFA issue you care about only you and yours, the rest of the nation be damned.

A good summary of your arguments so far would be "I have my mill and lathe, so I'm glad the ATF finally shut the rest of you peons with your suppressor kits down. They never even should have let it get this far."

That's not exactly a "freedom" argument.
Oh No. I spent 20 years as an 02-07 SOT. It became very clear to me early on that my personal opinions on what the law should be mean squat. I think it would be great if we could just build whatever we want free and clear . That is not the case. I like consistency and clarity in the law. Ive know many people who's live have been ruined and who have gone to jail over NFA violations. If the regs are so and so I will let people who are wondering know what they are so that they can make informed choices based what the hazards and penalties are for disregarding the law. Choices right? Freedom? Theres a concept that you really come to terms with when you spend 8 years in a federal penitentiary for exercising your "freedom" . Yeah, Ive known people who's lives have been destroyed for thinking the law didnt apply to them AND Ive had agents of the ATF attempt to put me there too. Thats an eye opener . I can play their game their way and stick it in their face while doing it

I really dont worry about what the perfect world should be like. I'm much more a realist. In the reality we all live in . including you, if you want to build a silencer you still can. Make an investment in some tooling like you know you'd like to anyway and become the master of your own destiny . I'll take time out of my weekend to show you how to use it more than enough to make you dangerous.

And yeah, under the letter of the law braces are buttstocks. The ATF botched its only job allowing those , Now theres a huge mess to clean up that all could have been avoided. .
 
Last edited:
@wired thanks for your reasoned reply. I still disagree though, and think that at this point we should be hopping mad about the state of affairs and ready to fight back instead of submitting. It sounds like we agree on everything except where to go from here.
 
@wired thanks for your reasoned reply. I still disagree though, and think that at this point we should be hopping mad about the state of affairs and ready to fight back instead of submitting. It sounds like we agree on everything except where to go from here.
Serious question I’m not trying to be confrontational I’m asking simply because I don’t know. How do we fight back?
 
Last edited:
Serious question I’m not trying to be confrontational I’m asking simply because I don’t know. How do we fight back?

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan

Seriously though Yeah, what is the plan? Fight it how exactly? MAYBE if you had a team of lawyers working on it and some serious lobbying you MIGHT get something through Congress or the Courts but I seriously doubt it . Silencers are a do not touch item in Washington DC.

The standard answer is "Vote harder! Write your reps! Visit them in person even!". These measures are obviously ineffective, especially in the age of dubious election results and other shenanigans.

IMO the immediate answer is mass non-compliance. This would require tens or hundreds of thousands of men willing to risk their freedom at least and their lives at most. Do they exist? I can only answer for myself, and I am willing. Peaceful non-compliance is only the beginning of our way out of this mess. We all know it will lead to further action and then reaction.

Before you comment "Be real! That's never gonna happen!", please take a moment and ponder whether you prefer liberty or servitude, and to what lengths you'd be willing to go in order to secure said preference. There are definitely lines being drawn even today.
 
The standard answer is "Vote harder! Write your reps! Visit them in person even!". These measures are obviously ineffective, especially in the age of dubious election results and other shenanigans.

IMO the immediate answer is mass non-compliance. This would require tens or hundreds of thousands of men willing to risk their freedom at least and their lives at most. Do they exist? I can only answer for myself, and I am willing. Peaceful non-compliance is only the beginning of our way out of this mess. We all know it will lead to further action and then reaction.

Before you comment "Be real! That's never gonna happen!", please take a moment and ponder whether you prefer liberty or servitude, and to what lengths you'd be willing to go in order to secure said preference. There are definitely lines being drawn even today.
Oh yeah, The FreE MeN argument. Yeah, I dont do that.
 
How do we go about organizing mass civil disobedience without incriminating ourselves. Illegal NFA items serve no purpose if they’re just stuffed away somewhere never to see the light of day.
 
Like I said. Federal Prison is not something I advocate for anyone. It's all fun and games until you get nailed for $20k in legal bills and get 1 to 10 years in the Federal lockup. Then it gets real .
There's a Sam Adams quote that sums this up nicely. Something about crouching and licking. You do you.
 
How do we go about organizing mass civil disobedience without incriminating ourselves. Illegal NFA items serve no purpose if they’re just stuffed away somewhere never to see the light of day.
And therein lies the rub. Every man needs to do a personal cost-benefits analysis and determine what they are willing to risk to get what they want.
 
You going to include freeze plugs and valve spring retainers in the “already a suppressor” category? 🤔

They’re definitely not bar stock, or part of a solvent trap.
How about a roll of nickel coins? They will send the black cars shortly to my home. (only 25% nickel with 75% copper)
 
Last edited:
Looking at the definition, the problem is purchasing everything as a kit, or having all the parts before form 1 is approved. The definition of a silencer reads:

any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication

If you have a "combination of parts" that can be redesigned into a silencer and intending to do so (by the submission of a form 1), theoretically you have a silencer IAW the above definition. I do not see how they can designate a threaded tube as a silencer part since it is a single part and could be used as a solvent trap in cleaning the firearm and therefore not "intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." The problem is the "intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." If you buy it after receiving the stamp, it is intended only for use. If you buy everything before the stamp you have a "combination of parts." Now is you have a solvent trap tube, get the stamp, and purchase some freeze plugs (more than you need) that should get be OK as "I" read the law. If it is not, then buying a piece of bar stock an using a lathe to machine the baffles should not be OK.
 
Looking at the definition, the problem is purchasing everything as a kit, or having all the parts before form 1 is approved. The definition of a silencer reads:



If you have a "combination of parts" that can be redesigned into a silencer and intending to do so (by the submission of a form 1), theoretically you have a silencer IAW the above definition. I do not see how they can designate a threaded tube as a silencer part since it is a single part and could be used as a solvent trap in cleaning the firearm and therefore not "intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." The problem is the "intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." If you buy it after receiving the stamp, it is intended only for use. If you buy everything before the stamp you have a "combination of parts." Now is you have a solvent trap tube, get the stamp, and purchase some freeze plugs (more than you need) that should get be OK as "I" read the law. If it is not, then buying a piece of bar stock an using a lathe to machine the baffles should not be OK.

What they want you to do is file a form 1 and then when its approved buy a piece of tube, thread it yourself, make end caps and machine baffles. Put it all together,, get it engraved and your'e done. You cant add parts to it or change parts after that. If you blow it up you can repair it i.e, weld it and fix it without changing parts. If you need to change parts you have to send it to a SOT. None of this is new.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the definition, the problem is purchasing everything as a kit, or having all the parts before form 1 is approved. The definition of a silencer reads:



If you have a "combination of parts" that can be redesigned into a silencer and intending to do so (by the submission of a form 1), theoretically you have a silencer IAW the above definition. I do not see how they can designate a threaded tube as a silencer part since it is a single part and could be used as a solvent trap in cleaning the firearm and therefore not "intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." The problem is the "intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." If you buy it after receiving the stamp, it is intended only for use. If you buy everything before the stamp you have a "combination of parts." Now is you have a solvent trap tube, get the stamp, and purchase some freeze plugs (more than you need) that should get be OK as "I" read the law. If it is not, then buying a piece of bar stock an using a lathe to machine the baffles should not be OK.

I agree that is what they "ONLY" want you to do, but does not necessarily mean that that is the only way that is legal. Hell, they probably want to ban AR15's also, but it is legal to own them.
 
I agree that is what they "ONLY" want you to do, but does not necessarily mean that that is the only way that is legal. Hell, they probably want to ban AR15's also, but it is legal to own them.
I've already argued with him at length on this. He doesn't believe in our legal system. To him, what the ATF wants must be the law because, after all, they said it is what they want, and they will try to arrest you if you don't obey! The letter of the law doesn't matter. That stuff your civics teacher taught you about a Constitution and legislative, judicial, and executive branches with separate and limited powers is all just made up, apparently. Just do whatever bureaucrats tell you! It's the key to living the good, free, American life. At least, I think that's what Jefferson and all those guys wrote about.
 
I've already argued with him at length on this. He doesn't believe in our legal system. To him, what the ATF wants must be the law because, after all, they said it is what they want, and they will try to arrest you if you don't obey! The letter of the law doesn't matter. That stuff your civics teacher taught you about a Constitution and legislative, judicial, and executive branches with separate and limited powers is all just made up, apparently. Just do whatever bureaucrats tell you! It's the key to living the good, free, American life. At least, I think that's what Jefferson and all those guys wrote about.
Jefferson isn't going to bail you out of jail after your ex girlfriend turns you into the ATF for having illegal machine guns and silencers. Madison isn't going to represent you when you plead to a lesser charge to avoid 10 years after you get pulled over coming back from shooting in the woods and they find to MG's an a contraband silencer in your trunk. Hamilton isn't going to take care of your wife while you are in jail after your tennant's turn you in for your FrEe MaN guns. Maybe he will who knows. John F'ing Hancock isnt going to pay your mortgage after you get 3 years for buying the machine gun from that the guy youve known for two years at the gun show who turns out to be a confidential informant.

I make those references because I've seen every one of them go down. Ruby Ridge, Waco. wake up guys these arent the girl scouts your'e talking about. Theyre the ATF and they'll lock you up and kill your family.

I feel like I'm the only guy living in the real world here.
 
Last edited:
Jefferson isn't going to bail you out of jail after your ex girlfriend turns you into the ATF for having illegal machine guns and silencers. Madison isn't going to represent you when you plead to a lesser charge to avoid 10 years after you get pulled over coming back from shooting in the woods. Hamilton isn't going to take care of your wife while you are in jail after your Tennant's turn you in for your FrEe MaN guns. Maybe he will who knows.

I make those references because I've seen every one of them go down.

I feel like I'm the only guy living in the real world here.
Married, don't have any serious exes, and don't have any landlords or tenants. I am not dumb enough to try to illicitly purchase a machine gun from some informant. And I don't consent to searches, nor do I provide valid probable cause for one. So none of those hypotheticals would apply, even if I were to do something "illegal", which I don't.
 
Last edited:
Married, don't have any serious exes, and don't have any landlords or tenants. I am not dumb enough to try to illicitly purchase a machine gun. And I don't consent to searches, nor do I provide valid probable cause for one. So none of those hypotheticals would apply, even if I were to do something "illegal", which I don't.
Oh , then your'e untouchable.
 
Looking at the definition, the problem is purchasing everything as a kit, or having all the parts before form 1 is approved. The definition of a silencer reads:



If you have a "combination of parts" that can be redesigned into a silencer and intending to do so (by the submission of a form 1), theoretically you have a silencer IAW the above definition. I do not see how they can designate a threaded tube as a silencer part since it is a single part and could be used as a solvent trap in cleaning the firearm and therefore not "intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." The problem is the "intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." If you buy it after receiving the stamp, it is intended only for use. If you buy everything before the stamp you have a "combination of parts." Now is you have a solvent trap tube, get the stamp, and purchase some freeze plugs (more than you need) that should get be OK as "I" read the law. If it is not, then buying a piece of bar stock an using a lathe to machine the baffles should not be OK.
Here’s how I’m thinking about it.
Get the form 1 approved when you have no parts at all, pay the tax and then get started.
Order a threaded tube. Wait, that is a “part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication” so it’s a suppressor and you haven’t been approved to buy, or paid a tax to buy, a suppressor. No threaded tube for you.
Freeze plugs, same issue.
How about a piece of bar stock? Well, you have the same problem unless you think you can successfully claim that an undrilled freeze plug is a part but an undrilled tube is not.

It feels like starting from raw steel/aluminum/titanium and machining every bit of it would be okay…but it may not be if you apply the same logic as you do for other parts.

As a practical matter, this is NOT how they ever enforced their rules.

So must ATF allow form 1 at all? Why not shut it down?
 
Is a solvent trap tube with no baffles capable of being redesigned into a silencer. I.e., if you drill a hole in the end cap is it considered a silencer. That is the only way that it could be banned by the Nfa and then that may be overly broad.
 
Is a solvent trap tube with no baffles capable of being redesigned into a silencer. I.e., if you drill a hole in the end cap is it considered a silencer. That is the only way that it could be banned by the Nfa and then that may be overly broad.
You'll find that if you take all the guts out of a silencer especially 22 and put the end cap on yeah it works pretty well as a silencer so yes no internals doesn't matter
 
You'll find that if you take all the guts out of a silencer especially 22 and put the end cap on yeah it works pretty well as a silencer so yes no internals doesn't matter
Yep. And you can send an empty tube off for a recore, as long as you can attach it to a barrel and the end cap has a hole in it.
 
The question is is an empty tube with an end cap with no hole in it a silencer according to the NFA. It can be used as a solvent trap, but is drilling a hole in the end cap considered a redesign. If so, I think thAt would be overly broad and in that case even a 6” piece of pipe could be considered a silencer. In fact I think there are some old designs where you can turn 6” pipe into an improvised silencer.
 
The question is is an empty tube with an end cap with no hole in it a silencer according to the NFA. It can be used as a solvent trap, but is drilling a hole in the end cap considered a redesign. If so, I think thAt would be overly broad and in that case even a 6” piece of pipe could be considered a silencer. In fact I think there are some old designs where you can turn 6” pipe into an improvised silencer.
An empty tube with an end cap is a silencer if the intent is to make it a silencer.
 
The ATF, as far as I know, has never ruled any undrilled baffles, suppressor kits, solvent traps, etc to be legal. Nor would it be a defense if they had.


!
 
And it might be if you don't intend to make it a silencer. That's what makes this such an exciting rule set!
To win they’d have to prove that you intended to make a silencer when you hadn’t actually made a silencer, I’d expect the judge to dismiss. Of course you lose anyway because your life is turned upside down and the costs for the defense are high. I still don’t think they’d risk the loss in court, they know that the only thing behind them is the belief we share that they can do bad things at will.
 
Back
Top Bottom