Decision In SIG Muzzle Brake Trial

I fully expected this. The legal definition of silencer is this:

The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest. Nobody's going to consider that a muzzle brake. It's a baffle stack for a silencer. All that's missing is an outer tube, which can be made on the sly by anybody with a decent workshop.
 
I guess a big question would be, if a silencer part can stand on its own as a useful muzzle brake, is it a silencer or a muzzle brake? If a muzzle brake can be sleeved and reduce the volume of the firearm at all, is it now a silencer?

I think it's important to note that while the judge agrees that it's a silencer part, it's being remanded to make clear parameters on what ATF can define as a silencer and what they cannot.
 
dakota.potts said:
I think it's important to note that while the judge agrees that it's a silencer part, it's being remanded to make clear parameters on what ATF can define as a silencer and what they cannot.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's not being remanded to establish parameters on what the BATFE can classify as a silencer. It's being remanded so the ATF can reissue their ruling based on specific indications that the device violates the regulations, rather than just "It's a silencer because we think it's a silencer."

Yet, the judge said the ATF failed to directly state in court documents leading up to the hearing that it thought Sig intended to skirt regulations by calling the device something it isn’t.

“Your position really is, they’re lying … but you didn’t find that they were lying,” he told attorneys with the ATF and added, “[Y]ou didn’t say … ‘You just are wrong. You’re not intending to market this as a muzzle brake. You’re intending to market it as a silencer. We’re calling you out on it. We don’t believe you because the evidence doesn’t support a belief in the truth of what you’re saying.’”
Click to expand...
 
The thing is, the SIG brake does not diminish the muzzle report - at all. It isn't intended ONLY for use as a part in a silencer, as it is intended and used as a muzzle brake. The only thing ATF has left to hang their hat on is that it is designed and intended as a part in a silencer.

SIG is basically making the same argument ATF made in classifying the SIG brace though - that they designed and intended it as a muzzle brake and it doesn't become a part in a silencer until it is "redesigned" by adding a sleeve - and the person adding/selling the sleeve is the manufacturer who pays the tax.

Of course, NFA law is already so absurd that trying to apply logic to it is a pointless exercise. But ATF is actually doing what the judge said - they are trying to argue that SIG is lying about their intent without offering any evidence to that effect. It seems if SIG can show that they aren't lying about their intent, ATF has no claim. Of course, it doesn't help SIG that they included features that are of dubious use on a muzzle brake; but pretty handy on a suppressor - or the general lack of giant muzzle brakes on pistol caliber weapons (though I suppose you can justify the latter by having to meet the 16" minimum - much like the civilian XM177 clones that Bushmaster used to sell with 5" flash hiders or muzzle brakes.)
 
I think we all know what Sig was attempting to do with this "device". To me, it's a good thing, if it doesn't get a pass, at least they tried. If it wasn't for Sig pushing the limits on NFA rule, than we would have seen the landscape completely change on our options for SBR "type" rifles. You can credit Sig and their brace for a whole slew of new designs that would have been to akward to shoot or too costly to own. They have single handedly paved the way for us common folk to own a rifle with MOST of the benefits of an SBR and with it came all kinds of new rifle pattern pistols that actually have some kind of practicality. I urge Sig to keep trying these things that buck the system and hopefully get filled with all kinds of loopholes when they get done.

But you have to admit, the device is silly, but the argument behind it'slegality is sound. Keep fighting Sig.
 
"I think we all know what Sig was attempting to do with this "device"."
To be able to sell a non-SBR non-'pistol' version of the MPX action? Unless they've overcome the design limitation*, SIG was unable to get the gun to cycle properly with a full length barrel, which is why something had to be permanently attached to the barrel to get it up to legal length. Since the design was also developed with an integral-ish silencer from the get-go, welding on the monocore from that can was the obvious solution for that problem; gets you to legal length, doesn't push the pressure timing beyond what the design will operate with, and *bonus* you can market it as 'readily convertible' to a silencer with legally-purchased conversion sleeve that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg (well, for a threaded tube it'd still be expensive)

I've not yet seen where 'readily convertible' appears in the silencer text of the NFA, but perhaps I missed it (or perhaps the ATF is assuming things based on machinegun rules that it shouldn't be). If what really matters is whether it drops the sound, the ATF has no leg to stand on; that much is clear. They should have saved their ire for the idiots who would doubtless have started marketing "SIG Solvent Traps" without paperwork, who would actually be selling illegal silencer parts, but no, the had to try for the brass ring. What is not clear, is how judges can continue holding the ATF's arguments as clearly unfounded/indefensible, yet refuse to rule on the case in SIG's favor; frankly, it's starting to get embarrassing --what, are they going to rule on the case like that moron DC judge in the Witashek trial? "I do not know what silencers are, but I am convinced these are silencers. These are silencers, though they do not meet the statute definition for silencers."

It kills me all the folks who think SIG is in the wrong here, but who freely admit to using 'linear compensators' or other muzzle devices specifically to manipulate sound. Sound direction rather than emission, but the intent to quiet the report is certainly more arguable than SIG finding a dual use for its suppressor mono-core outside the NFA. Sorry, but until the ATF rules that threaded barrels are 'silencer parts,' the barrel can't be part of a silencer, so if you weld the core to the barrel making them 'one' it turns into an unregulated barrel. Tough beans, ATF.

TCB

*Clearly not, as it appears there are still nothing but 'pistol' variants for sale. SIG could be making money hand over fist right now with a plain ant-eater-barrel 16" 9mm carbine, the type of firearm 100% of their customers would rather buy, but they do not have the option while this case progresses. If the ATF wins the case, I strongly suspect the MPX to be essentially withdrawn from civilian sales within a year, since *shock* there is no market for factory-made SBRs of any size, thanks to the NFA. Hopefully if SIG loses, they'll bring a suit from that perspective, suing for all their revenue lost at the NFA/ATF's hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top