Court rules ATF did not properly decide that Innovator muzzle brake is a silencer

J

jimpeel

New member
SOURCE

SOURCE w/ PATENT DIAGRAMS

The court found that the ATF designation of the Innovator as a silencer to be capricious based upon the agency's definition of a silencer based on physical characteristics of "known silencers." The agency stated that three physical characteristics found on silencers, which also exist on the Innovator muzzle brake, qualifies it as a silencer.

The court also found that the agency did not perform any sound testing on the device even though the agency lab possesses equipment for that purpose.

In calling the agency's comparisons of certain characteristics (three of which were enough to warrant the classification) capricious, the court gave the following comparisons of its own.

From the article at Courthouse News:

"Hypotheticals further illustrate the weakness of this methodology," he ( U.S. District Judge John Bates) wrote. "A mouse is not an 'elephant' solely because it has three characteristics that are common to known elephants: a tail, gray skin and four legs. A child's bike is not a 'motorcycle' solely because it has three characteristics common to known motorcycles: two rubber tires, handlebars, and a leather seat. And a Bud Light is not 'Single-Malt Scotch,' just because it is frequently served in a glass container, contains alcohol, and is available for purchase at a tavern. To close with a firearm-related example a hockey puck us not a 'rubber bullet,' just because it has rounded sides, is made of vulcanized rubber, and is capable of causing injury when launched at high speeds. Learning that one object has three characteristics in common with some category may not be very helpful in determining whether the object in question belongs in that category.
"To make matters worse, other agency guidance uses a different set of characteristics - the six characteristics in the Classification letter appear not to be an exhaustive definitive list."
Click to expand...

So Judge Bates remanded the issue back to the BATFE for reexamination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The judge remanded the case back to the agency. A key portion of the opinion (according to the link provided by the OP):
"That is not the same thing as actually holding that the Stabilizer Brake is not a silencer," Bates wrote. "The court does not have enough information to determine whether the Stabilizer Brake is or is not a silencer; nor is it the court's responsibility to do so. The duty of making that determination - using a rational process - lies with the agency."
Click to expand...
So, based upon more rational factors, BATFE could conceivably still find the device to be a silencer.
 
I can't find these for sale online. How come? I can't even find the company that makes them (Innovator Enterprises).

Oh and, this was very funny
The court ordered the BATFE to be rational. I don't think they can do that.
Click to expand...
 
Ruger480
Quote:
I would imagine it's because the manufacturer doesn't want to sell a muzzle brake that ATF believes to be a silencer
Click to expand...

I suppose....think they'll sell them now, or at least soon?
Click to expand...
Not a chance, if you read the article the judge didn't agree with the plaintiff, he threw it back on ATF to revise the methodology.
 
At the risk of asking the obvious, why not rely primarily on a test which determines the degree of sound suppression?
Click to expand...

Because the degree of sound suppression the device produces is legally irrelevant.

Because of the specific wording of the law, it is the intent to silence a firearm (without prior Fed approval) that is the crime.

SO, it is technically possible you could be convicted of violating the law even if the silencer doesn't work (reduce noise a measureable amount).

it is also technically possible that someone building a muzzle brake type device, that unintentionally reduced the sound level could be found innocent of violating the law. (although how one could convince a court of this, I have no idea).

Obviously, if you make a device to reduces the sound level, and it actually does to some measurable degree, your "intent" is clear.

This case appears to be where a device was submitted for classification (prior to production and sale to the public), and the BATF ruled it was a silencer.

The inventor disagreed, and went to court, where the judge looked at the BATF evaluation letter, and applied rational thought, which apparently, the BATF didn't do.
 
What a great answer. i have to take your explanation at face value, as I have no independent knowledge of how suppressor/silencer law works.

The disconnect between the purpose and intent of the law (to regulate devices that reduce the sound signature of firearms), and the effect of the law as you describe it (to regulate the design characteristics and intent of the designer) is rather abstract.

Perhaps it's overly ingenuous to think so, but it would seem that the only test ought to be: Does the device reduce the sound signature by (x) decibels, or (x) percentage decibels?
 
I can't find these for sale online. How come? I can't even find the company that makes them (Innovator Enterprises).
Click to expand...

This is quite correct. I went to the Thomas Register http://www.thomasnet.com/ and could not find any company by this name. The Thomas Register lists over 700,000 companies throughout the United States and their products and brand names. In its printed form the Thomas Register is a set of books that is over five feet long. It is the Encyclopedia Britannica of the business world.
 
This is quite correct. I went to the Thomas Register http://www.thomasnet.com/ and could not find any company by this name. The Thomas Register lists over 700,000 companies throughout the United States and their products and brand names. In its printed form the Thomas Register is a set of books that is over five feet long. It is the Encyclopedia Britannica of the business world
Click to expand...

Sooooo...do you think that is significant for some reason? Or do you think its just poor journalism on the part of the article I lifted the name from?
 
Last edited:
jimpeel ......I went to the Thomas Register http://www.thomasnet.com/ and could not find any company by this name. The Thomas Register lists over 700,000 companies throughout the United States and their products and brand names. In its printed form the Thomas Register is a set of books that is over five feet long. It is the Encyclopedia Britannica of the business world.
Click to expand...
I've been in business for six years with my current name...........I couldn't find it on that website.
 
I've been in business for six years with my current name...........I couldn't find it on that website.
Click to expand...

Being that there are far more than 700,000 businesses in the United States it is not surprising that you aren't in there. I was only stating that I had exhausted that resource as an avenue of search. It is the largest compendium of business names, trademark, and product listings there is with few exceptions.
 
It eliminates a valuable research source, that's all. Sorry if I interfered. I hope your search is more successful
Click to expand...

No apologies necessary. I just wasn't sure of the significance of that reference. I hadn't heard of it and wouldn't have thought to use it even I if had. Google tends to be my main source for finding info. Thank you for your input though.

Have you had anymore luck locating information about this company?
 
Have you had anymore luck locating information about this company?
Click to expand...

Given the information that the device was submitted to the ATF for classification (and that resulted in the court case), I think it's quite likely that the company isn't "in business" yet.

Or they may be making other things under a different name right now, I don't know.

But if I were going to make something that required govt approval, I wouldn't open up shop until after ALL my legal concerns were resolved.
 
I agree with 44 AMP. Why do the start-up before you have your ducks in a row. That is likely the reason we can't find it yet. I haven't had any more luck at finding them than anyone else seems to be having.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top