Hey, SKS Owners! Has Cheaper Than Dirt made you a criminal?

D

Dean Speir

New member
Mini-14/30 Owners, too! Has mail order huckster Cheaper Than Dirt turned you into a criminal?

You can be ignorant, or you can be stupid… some people are born that way. But you really have to work at it to be both, and Cheaper than Dirt has managed to do just that while recklessly putting unsuspecting gun owners at risk. Here's the whole disturbing story.

Caveat emptor!
 
Illegal Design or Illegal Advertisement?

From the BATF via NRA:
U.S.C. Section 922(r), and 27 CFR Section 178.39. An
advisory letter to the NRA from the ATF's Technology Branch [reprinted in the NRA's American Rifleman magazine, May, 1994, p.44] specifically states that it is legal to "Attach a muzzle mounted recoil compensator, provided that the device is not also designed as a flash suppressor" to an SKS. [Emphasis added.]
Click to expand...


From The GunZone:
By advertising a muzzle brake which will also act as a flash suppressor, you are selling a product that, when installed, turns a legal SKS rifle into an illegal rifle. This would probably apply to modification of any Chinese SKS rifle imported after the enactment of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(r) [P.L. 101-647] on November 30, 1990.
Click to expand...

The BATF said it was illegal to attach a device "designed" as a flash suppressor. It said nothing about some FDA-like authority to regulate the advertising claims of firearms products. Does subsequent advertisement change a product's design or is that design independent of later advertisement? If I were to sell a Remington Model 700 and somehow label it an illegal "Assault Weapon", would that change what it actually is (that is, just your generic deadly sniper rifle)?

This does not mean that the BATF is not sleazy enough to try this new legal theory. And, no, this sentence does not prove your point.

What, exactly is the difference between many muzzle brakes and flash suppressors? Does a DSArms FAL muzzle brake suppress flash? Seems like it does to me.

Rick
 
Dirty bastards, or victims with the rest of us?

I live in California. There's lot's of stuff in their catalogue I can't legally buy and have shipped here. I don't hold that against them.

Regards.
 
many things are legal to buy & illegal to install

i can buy a pre ban AR upper from Brownells
i can not install it on a post ban rifle

Flash hider/ muzzel brake / grenade launcher is a tricky deal
the diameter determines if it can mount a muzzle afixed gernade
the flash hider ability is a subjective judgement call

dZ
 
I had the same question about that "Flashbrake" when I bought one for my pre-1991 SKS. I asked Eagle Exim, who I bought my SKS from, and ammo from, and the Flashbrake from, and they were quite adament that the thing satisfied the BATF's criteria. Much like the new Wilson brake for the AR-15. Now, I appreciate the warning, but I also agree that there's a TON of stuff that's legal to buy and subsequently illegal to install, be it for the SKS, AK, AR, M1A/M14, 1100, Auto-5, Mini-14, Mini-30, you name it. Cheaper than Dirt does have some cognizance, they will not sell full-capacity magazines to states that ban them. And reputable folks like Brownells, Cabelas, Midway, MattSKSupplies, they all sell the stuff that's illegal to install on post-ban guns. Perhaps courtesy letters from Mr. Firriolo would be in order there, too? I'm sure as a business owner, I'd really like the exposure provided by an internet forum like Sports.Rec pointing out such stuff, which is perfectly legal to sell, but will inevitably be taken by the anti-gun crowd as just another reason to get those evil nasty things off the street, those damned death-dealers...

"Just what the firearms community needs."

"Mail Order Hucksters Put Gun-owners At Risk!"


Dean, if you're gonna call a spade a spade, that's fine, but not to the exclusion of the other spade-mongers, especially when what they're doing is no more illegal than the sale of pre-ban parts that could conceivably be installed on post-ban guns. (yes, the risk is there, lots of us are aware of that, and I'm sure there are those who aren't) Although, given enough exposure by formerly famous gunwriters, I'm sure there will be laws enacted to close that loophole, to the detriment of pre-ban owners looking for replacement parts.
 
As a joke I once bought an inert grenade for a cop friend.
It came to me all nice and pretty and I gave it to the cop. A week later he comes up to me and says that I'm under arrest for possession of an illegal weapon (I live in CA). He obviously let it slide but...

Slipshod work over there... that's for sure.
 
One can legally machine the barrel of an AR-15 rifle exactly like a flas supressor. No threaded barrel, no muzzle device. If it's integral to the barrel, it's not illegal.

Also note that gas can be bled off of the barrel to suppress the report of the gun so long as it isn't attached directly to the muzzle.

Heck, a recessed target crown suppresses the flash to a fraction of a degree also. Are these banned?
 
I appreciate Cheaper Than Dirt's shipping policies.

I heard a story of a guy that is a friend with my brother's cousins uncles girlfriends next door neighbor where he ordered some remanufactured .308 tracer rounds from Cheaper Than Dirt and they shipped them to him in California. It was not until the neighbor was braggin about his tracer rounds to a detective did the detective say to stop talking about it because it was illegal. The neighbor did not get upset with Cheaper Than Dirt, he actually appreciated being shipped the tracer rounds since no one else will do it. Check your regs before you have them ship them. Aren't we all about taking responsibility for our own actions? I applaud Cheaper Than Dirt for being so nice to us comrades in the PRK.
 
While they would probably be wise to reword their product description, I don't think it is necessary to insult a business for this reason. BATF rules and reg's, and many laws for that matter, are quite absurd. We may be stuck with them, but we don't have to accept them as logical.

If we want to discuss 'hucksters', ignorance and stupidity, then we may as well start with the fools in Congress that send this BS our way ... ;)

Regards from AZ
 
Hey RickD!

Take a look at the name on the NRA article that you quoted...

Take a look at my name...

Notice a similarity? :D

Yep, my article, I wrote it.

The rifle shown in that article?

It's sitting in my hall closet right now.

Virtually the same configuration as shown in the article.

The guy shooting the rifle?

One of my best and oldest friends. I was behind the camera.

Did you find that article on the web somewhere, or did you pull it out of the magazine?
 
While Mr. Speir deserves some thanks for bringing this issue to light, it really is a matter of personal reponsibility. Like most firearm enthusiasts, I feel these laws are ridiculous.That, however, does not absolve me of the responsibility to know what is legal regarding my rifle. If you are responsible enough to own a firearm, you should also be responsible enough to know the law and how it applies to you. Cheaper Than Dirt hasn't made anyone a criminal and drawing lots of attention this issue is sure to result in more legislation, as noted by Gewehr98.
 
Some thoughts from an involved party

Allow me to respond to some of the comments here and make some general observations.

First, those who say that there are lots of products that are legal to purchase, but which are illegal to do things with (such as install them on rifles) are perfectly correct. Caveat emptor.

However, responsible vendors typically will warn potential buyers that the product _may_ be illegal if installed on certain guns, shipped to their state, etc. If you actually read the e-mail I wrote to CTD, a simple advisory to the buyer was one of my suggestions.

There is a difference between personal responsibiity and taking advantage of ignorance. Nobody is more of an advocate of personal responsibility than I. However, a business that _knows_ it could be getting its customers in trouble by selling them something, and then makes the conscious decision not to inform them of same, is not your friend. Bottom line: CTD was made aware of the problem, and apparently chose to do nothing.

Everyone of us knows that the majority of gun owners simply cannot and do not keep track of the myriad gun laws. Frankly, the same can be said for many who sell guns and gun parts. My letter was clearly a suggestion for CTD to look into this matter, as in my professional opinion the product description indicated an unnecessary hazard to unsuspecting SKS owners. Forgive me for being concerned, but as a Second Amendment activist I'm more interested in helping gun owners stay on the right side of the law than in giving them advice after they've unwittingly broken it.

And recall that the way this started was with an SKS owner who didn't know the law, and was concerned he was breaking it. He contacted Dean, and Dean contacted me for my opinion. So this was not merely an academic exercise, and it was certainly not an attempt to torpedo a business. I have been a CTD customer many times, and had no axe to grind with them.

CTD could have written back to me with any manner of response, including words to the effect that ATF had approved the brake; that their legal counsel disagreed with me; etc. However, CTD simply ignored the communication. At that point Dean Speir decided to go public with it. Personlly, I think he did the right thing. The gun owning public deserves to know what they may be getting into. Certainly, CTD didn't seem to worry about that, at least as far as the SKS brake is concerned.

Next, the point about the brake being "designed" vs. "advertised" as a suppressor is likely a distinction without a difference, as far as ATF is concerned. Brake manufacturers may well tell you that what matters is whether the device has more than an incidental effect of reducing flash. Something sold as "double purpose" -- one purpose explicitly stated as being flash suppression -- is not likely to be something ATF dismisses as mere marketing hype.

If _you_ want to be the test-case for ATF, go attach one to a post-'90 Chinese SKS, and head down to your local ATF office and ask for an opinion. My desire was to prevent any unsuspecting person -- like the guy on Long Island who asked Dean about the brake -- from becoming an inadvertant test case.

If nothing else, Dean's Gun Zone piece has put the ball back into CTD's court. Hopefully the piece will result in them addressing the issue, which is something my private communication to them weeks ago was unable to do.
 
The real question is why?

Why even bother with a muzzle break for your SKS? Leave it stock in original condition and it works great and there will be no question about legality. If it ain't broke...
 
I suspect a lot of the impetus to install such products is from folks who are big on the 'cosmetics' involved. I recognize some guys enjoy putting a collapsible stock on an AR, even if it doesn't collapse. Doesn't do anything for me, but it's their rifle.

OTOH, muzzle brakes on AK's aren't uncommon, and it's the same round, so I would suppose there is some benefit.

LIProgun, thanks for the clarification, and the donation of your time to this cause. Your point is well taken.

Regards from AZ
 
Rob,

I'd say welcome aboard but you've been here for awhile.

Dean's "style" can be "abrasive" to those that don't know him. When I originally read his post I though... "Oh here here go!", though I understood what was being said/context of the post. So far TFL membership also understands that this is not a flame at CTD and that Dean is only making known a problem.

Thanks for taking up the ball in this matter (i.e. your e-mail to CTD) and clearifing here.
 
"So far TFL membership also understands that this is not a flame at CTD and that Dean is only making known a problem."

Quite frankly, from the topic of the post, I'd say it sure seems clear that it WAS a flame at CTD. Of course, many of the other messages I've seen from Dean have a similar flavor...
 
CTD does, in fact, know that customers could get into trouble with certain post-ban or illegal components, I experienced their cognizance first hand, and it was a good experience. Not more than two years ago, I talked to CTD's management, on the phone, about their refusal to sell full capacity magazines to addresses in states that banned them. They made the mistake of listing Czech VZ-52 mags as illegal to ship to California, and I gave them a call to remind them that those particular magazines were never manufactured to hold more than 10 rounds, so how could they possibly be illegal in California? The manager I talked to apologized profusely, and stated with the bewildering array of gun laws, they must have erred on the side of safety with the VZ-52 magazines, and thanked me for bringing that error to their attention, he'd see to it that the next printed catalogue would be corrected. Hardly an irresponsible business attitude, in fact, I'd say that they were more than aware of what the laws state.

I also noticed that as easy as it was for me to talk voice to a manager there, I didn't see any such attempt to do the same by Mr. Firriolo, just straight into the e-mail, which we all know cannot convey as personable an attitude as an honest-to-goodness telephone conversation, smileys or no smileys. I'd probably not respond to a condescending email from a practicing firearms law attorney, either, until I got a chance to talk to my own attorneys. An unsolicited email from an attorney can scare the bejeezus out of lots of folks, and immediately put them into defensive, "clam-up" mode.

I have to agree with johnwill, if this weren't a flame at Cheaper Than Dirt, then why the adjectives such as "Huckster", "Ignorant", "Stupid", and the adverb "recklessly"? Or is that considered the "norm" when describing businesses these days, it makes for good print?

Mr. Speir, and Mr. Firriolo, I appreciate your efforts to keep us on the right side of the onerous gun control laws, and standing up for our Second Amendment rights, but perhaps your energies would be better spent debating Glock kB!s, or why Senator Ashcroft shouldn't resign his NRA membership to become Attorney General. Otherwise, you should get very busy sending letters to the other mail/Internet vendors I listed earlier (Brownells, MattSKSupplies, TAPCO, Cabelas, Midway, Fulton Armory, Smith Enterprises, K-Var, etc) who often sell prohibited items without benefit of a disclaimer. I could accidentally buy and install an illegal component from them, too...

Or do they not deserve the same benefit of information that Cheaper Than Dirt received?
 
Hi, guys,

Maybe I am out to lunch, but the primary definition of a "semiautomatic assault rifle" says it must have "the ability to accept a detachable magazine". The SKS, unless modified, thus cannot be an "assault rifle", so installing a flash suppressor is irrelevant.

Jim
 
Gewehr98, it is obvious to me you have some sort of problem, though I am not sure what that problem is. I can't see how any reasonable person could call my e-mail to CTD "condescending" unless he had a heck of a big chip on his shoulder.

And as for the mode of communication, for something as technical as this is, a written communication makes much more sense, as the recipient could print it out or forward it to the appropriate party and actually look up the laws that were cited. The effectivenes of phone call would have depended upon the customer service person taking down the message accurately, and in detail. If they were really interested in the issue, they could have replied, and I would have taken as much time on the phone as they desired to discuss the issue. It wouldn't be the first, second, or even hundredth time I've done that (and at no charge, I might add.)

And as for your suggestion as to what to do with my energies, thank you. I'll be sure to file it in an appropriate place. My suggestion to you would be to know what you're talking about before offering your suggestions. You apparently know little about who I am, what I do, or how I do it, other than the slivers that may appear here and there on the net. To my knowledge you don't have access to my correspondence file or to my phone records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top