PSA, revised BATFE opinion. "soda can upper"

W

wogpotter

New member
Just in case you bought one & didn't get the memo about the interpretation change.

Link to letter: http://s3.amazonaws.com/siteninja/s...E_Explanation_Letter_to_Customers_(final).pdf

Dear Customers,

We recently received a complete evaluation from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms on the legal status of the Can Cannon dated: August 26th, Received September 11, 2015. The evaluation of the Can Cannon
as currently produced is in and of itself not a firearm and not controlled, however when placed on a rifle receiver is considered a (SBR) short barrel rifle, and when placed on a pistol (AOW) Any Other Weapon.

We are submitting a revised design to address the issues in the B.A.T.F.E’s determination letter. We will update our customers throughout this process.

For questions or inquiries about this matter, please email warranty@xproducts.com
A copy of the determination letter will be available on our site shortly.


Best Regards,
X Products LLC
Date: 9/21/2015
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PSA, revised BATFE opinion. "soda can upper"
Click to expand...
Are you sure this was a revised ATF determination letter?
If so, I would like to see what the previous letter said.

For the last year the vendor right next to me at Dallas Market Hall has had these for sale. More than one person has remarked that they looked to be SBR's........looks like ATF agrees.:eek:
 
For the last year the vendor right next to me at Dallas Market Hall has had these for sale. More than one person has remarked that they looked to be SBR's........looks like ATF agrees.
Click to expand...
Yea, I don't see any reason for the ATF to have ruled in any other way, prior to now.

On a pistol lower, you're adding an unrifled barrel. ....AOW.
On a rifle lower, you don't make minimum barrel length. ....SBR.


Just be happy that they aren't calling it a destructive device!
 
So put some rifling in. Cans need stabilizing as much as any other projectile though I suspect we could get lots of discussion about twist rates...
 
Are you sure this was a revised ATF determination letter?
If so, I would like to see what the previous letter said.
Click to expand...
If you'd just open the link you'd see exactly what it was.
It was exactly what I said, nowhere did I say it was a BATFE letter.
 
wogpotter
Quote:
Are you sure this was a revised ATF determination letter?
If so, I would like to see what the previous letter said.
Click to expand...

If you'd just open the link you'd see exactly what it was.
Click to expand...
Well, I DID open and read the link, as well as several other postings on other forums.



It was exactly what I said, nowhere did I say it was a BATFE letter.
Click to expand...
Uh.........when your thread title reads:
PSA, revised BATFE opinion. "soda can upper"
"Revised BATFE opinion" implys that there was a previous BATFE opinion.......again, is there a previous ATF opinion?:rolleyes:

As far as "nowhere did I say it was a BATFE letter".....true but you claimed it to be a "revised opinion"...and ATF doesn't do verbal opinions do they?;)
 
I don't see how it's considered an SBR when it's not a rifle. An AOW on a handgun at least makes some sort of sense since it's not not rifled. Looks to me like they're really grasping at straws to find some way to make it evil.

I would have to argue also that it doesn't fire from fixed ammunition. Doesn't the NFA only apply to firearms firing fixed ammunition? With the can cannon, the primer and propellant are loaded independently of the projectile.

Makes me wonder if the ATF doesn't have better things to be doing than making it a felony to own an attachment that allows one to shoot soda cans.
 
they could possibly be worried we can use it as a makeshift grenade launcher, although that would go for a golf ball launcher just the same, although you could pack a good bunch of junk in a soda can size projectile. I have to admit, when I first saw one, I was thinking of the interesting "non-fragmenting" explosives I could make for it, could be more fun than tannerite
 
Looks to me like they're really grasping at straws to find some way to make it evil.
Click to expand...

Gotta do SOMETHING to make themselves look relevant ..... being as how they have so much time on their hands now that they are not busy walking guns into Mexico......
 
dakota.potts I don't see how it's considered an SBR when it's not a rifle.
Click to expand...
It's not a rifle because it doesn't have a 16"bbl....its an SBR.
And when mounted on a rifle receiver (which IS a firearm all by itself), the configuration will be either rifle or SBR depending on bbl length or OAL.



An AOW on a handgun at least makes some sort of sense since it's not not rifled.
Click to expand...
Correct.


Looks to me like they're really grasping at straws to find some way to make it evil.
Click to expand...
This determination is consistent with previous opinions on a wide range of NFA firearms.
 
"Revised BATFE opinion" implys that there was a previous BATFE opinion.......again, is there a previous ATF opinion?
Click to expand...
I don't know.
I was just reposting the letter I referred you to as an advisory. Sorry you disagree with it, perhaps if you contacted those who published it earlier you might get the information you seek:confused:

After all they did include contact information.

For questions or inquiries about this matter, please email warranty@xproducts.com
A copy of the determination letter will be available on our site shortly.
Click to expand...
 
In the same Topsy-turvey way its capable of "assaults" without any assault being ever committed by one without human intervention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top