Suppressed black powder rifle; no tax stamp

[Ranb]

Since 1934 an unlicensed person like me has had to purchase a $200 tax stamp in order to make/buy/register a machine gun, silencer or other NFA firearm. This is one reason why silencers are so expensive in the USA; people want a durable and high quality muffler for their gun. There is a bill in Congress that would remove silencers from the NFA registry, but it has no traction; Trump certainly isn't interested in the bill at all even if one of his kids is supporting it.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/21/news/companies/silencer-muzzleloader/index.html

Silencerco has taken a Traditions muzzle loading rifle and permanently attached a muffler to it. Federal law says that any device intended to suppress the report of a portable firearm is a silencer; in the USA federal law does not include muzzle loading rifles using loose black powder in their definition of a firearm. So the device welded to this rifle is legally not a silencer.

Here is a video; it is a bit more cumbersome than the usual muzzle loading rifle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIyi8ua4mGk

I think this is the rifle used by Silencerco as the base unit. https://www.traditionsfirearms.com/category/Vortek It is about $400, with their moderator attached they sell it for $1000.

State laws vary, but Silencerco claims you can buy one through the mail; https://s3.amazonaws.com/com.silencerco/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/18141358/maxim50-FAQ.pdf

Illinois
New Jersey
New York City and its incorporated
territories, which includes the following
counties: Bronx, Kings, Nassau, Queens,
Richmond, and New York
Washington D.C.

If it's legal in CA, I'm sure someone there will be quick to pass a law making is harder to own.

From the CNN link;

But, the company also says it has already run into legal challenges from California, Massachusetts and New Jersey -- three states with stringent gun laws.

What a surprise.

This dipstick sure has his panties in a bunch.

"Since its inception, the gun industry has been manufacturing loopholes to get guns and suppressors into as many hands as possible, regardless of how dangerous those hands might be," said Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "Literally the only thing workarounds like this accomplish is they make it easier for people we all agree shouldn't have guns, much less sound suppressed ones, to get them."

Really? And I thought it was only law makers who could manufacture loopholes since they are the ones passing legislation in the first place. Sounds like Kris Brown is actually the one manufacturing an imaginary problem so he can get his name in the news.

But the lack of federal oversight and the absence of a federal background check means the Maxim 50 could be purchased by a felon, according to the ATF. However, they couldn't necessarily own the ammo for it and certain state and local laws might prohibit possession of the muzzleloader or silencer by convicted criminals depending on how those localities define a "gun" or "firearm."

This statement is lame. The "ammo" for any black powder firearm is loose black powder poured down the barrel and a lead slug or shot wad pressed over the top of the powder.

Ranb

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, this was posted to a lefty gun group on FB I'm in.

My basic takeaway is...why? The sole purpose of this gun seems to be to say "har har! I've got a legally supressed rifle without a tax stamp and there's nothing you can do about it!"

 

[William Parcher]

Has anyone stopped for a moment to consider the Bigfoot hunters? I didn't think so.

 

[cullennz]

I think the first post answers a question I have always wondered about silencer laws, but I am a bit confused, as the law seems so complicated.

If people don't mind me asking

If people are so eager for some weird reason to need a silencer, why don't they make a gun with a built on/in one to by-pass it being an add-on?

Or is this illegal, because it is blatantly trying to take the piss out of the law

 

[BStrong]

Yeah, this was posted to a lefty gun group on FB I'm in.

My basic takeaway is...why? The sole purpose of this gun seems to be to say "har har! I've got a legally supressed rifle without a tax stamp and there's nothing you can do about it!"

This might lead to many people who purchase one of these to become familiar with the facts of life wrt federal firearms N.F.A. licensees - they cooperate with the ATF when requested.

Should the executive branch of government decide to throw these rifles into the N.F.A., either as Any Other Weapon (as they did with "Operational" briefcases and certain concealment holsters) or possibly as a Destructive Device (as they did with certain semi-auto and drum fed shotguns) there would most likely declare an amnesty for registration (as they did in the other instances I cited) but anybody that lives in a state that generally forbids N.F.A. weapons or devices is going to be SOL.

There wouldn't be any door-to-door nonsense, but licensees that in good faith have either imported and sold weapons to the retail market or manufactured weapons later to be determined to be subject to the N.F.A. have provided federal authorities their sale and or shipment records. Below is a redacted letter that went out back in '02 when Coles Distributing had run into a problem with their imported Uzi smg parts kits when ATF decided they hadn't been demilled to meet specifications :

***To all of my customers....We have sold some UZI Kits that are now classified as illegal....We have turned over all our receipts to ATF...so if contacted by ATF do not worry unless you purchased the UZI kits....So we are sending out a blanket email to everyone in our address book as were are not sure who bought them....If you purchased the kit please contact us for a full refund and we will pay the shipping... If you have any questions or concerns please contact us..Thank you and we are very sorry for any inconvenience.

Other than that, having cleaned cans almost as often as I've cleaned firearms, cleaning a can used with BP or a BP substitute will not be fun, unless the owner has a sonic cleaning tank,

 

[BStrong]

I think the first post answers a question I have always wondered about silencer laws, but I am a bit confused, as the law seems so complicated.

If people don't mind me asking

If people are so eager for some weird reason to need a silencer, why don't they make a gun with a built on/in one to by-pass it being an add-on?

Or is this illegal, because it is blatantly trying to take the piss out of the law

There's a process for manufacturing and registering the can legally, but in many areas suppressor ownership is restricted under state law, even where the fed regulation would not prohibit that same individual from possession, the state (and the local CLEO where the possession would be legal) has the last word.

 

[Mark F]

I think the first post answers a question I have always wondered about silencer laws, but I am a bit confused, as the law seems so complicated.

If people don't mind me asking

If people are so eager for some weird reason to need a silencer, why don't they make a gun with a built on/in one to by-pass it being an add-on?

Or is this illegal, because it is blatantly trying to take the piss out of the law

Yes a built-in is also considered a NFA item. Ruger BTW markets a version of its uber-popular 10/22 carbine with a built-in suppressor.

I have shot a Ruger 10/22 and an AR in .308 with a suppressor. It is much more pleasant than shooting without, especially indoors. When I go to my local indoor range and all 16 lanes are a bangin' conversation and concentration are near-on impossible. I would be overjoyed if everyone had a suppressor.

 

[Ranb]

I think the first post answers a question I have always wondered about silencer laws, but I am a bit confused, as the law seems so complicated.

https://www.atf.gov/file/11241/download

(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Guns using black powder loaded from the muzzle are some of those considered to be antique firearms.

(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean 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.

Any device intended to suppress gun noise whether is part of the barrel or merely screwed on is a silencer. But if it is permanently attached to something that is not a firearm (such as an antique rifle or an air rifle), then it legally can not be a silencer.

If people are so eager for some weird reason to need a silencer, why don't they make a gun with a built on/in one to by-pass it being an add-on?

As said above there are integral silencers built into various gun barrels on the market, but since they're part of a real gun, they are actually silencers which require registration and a tax.

Or is this illegal, because it is blatantly trying to take the piss out of the law

Entirely legal as long as the taxes are paid. They may be trying to mock the law also. But then I think it is only cranks like those at the Brady Campaign who think that anyone is going to murder someone with a large cumbersome rifle like this one.

 

[Ranb]

My basic takeaway is...why? The sole purpose of this gun seems to be to say "har har! I've got a legally supressed rifle without a tax stamp and there's nothing you can do about it!"

I'm thinking the same thing. But then why not?

Telling a dispstick like Kris Brown of the Brady Campaign who have been trying to convince people for years that silencers were illegal or only useful for assassins to go **** themselves would be satisfying for some people. Some of them might even be willing to spend a grand to say it louder.

 

[Cleon]

I'm thinking the same thing. But then why not?

Telling a dispstick like Kris Brown of the Brady Campaign who have been trying to convince people for years that silencers were illegal or only useful for assassins to go **** themselves would be satisfying for some people. Some of them might even be willing to spend a grand to say it louder.

Ok, fair point.

 

[BStrong]

I'm thinking the same thing. But then why not?

Telling a dispstick like Kris Brown of the Brady Campaign who have been trying to convince people for years that silencers were illegal or only useful for assassins to go **** themselves would be satisfying for some people. Some of them might even be willing to spend a grand to say it louder.

I got the word about these direct from silencerco, and a bunch of other folks did too.

I know folks that have already voted with their pocketbook.

 

[Ranb]

There has been some discussion on www.silencertalk.com about state level restrictions and potential problems associated with making your own blackpowder can at home.

If I weld the tube in place prior to making the baffles, would I still be making silencer parts? Not sure I want to be the test case in court.

 

[William Parcher]

Anyone who tries to suppress my black powder rifle will have to pry their cold, dead...

Wait.

 

[TX50]

And the point of that stupid looking thing is...what, exactly?

 

[Ranb]

The point is that it makes less noise than the usual black powder rifle. I'm certain Silencerco is also selling it to make money. This would make it like most other consumer goods available in the USA.

 

[3point14]

SReally? And I thought it was only law makers who could manufacture loopholes since they are the ones passing legislation in the first place.

You've clearly never dealt with or read anything about tax accountancy.

 

[Bikewer]

Having “burned some charcoal” in my day, I can’t help but wonder...

Is this thing easy to remove and clean? I mean, I can see unburned grains of black building up in the baffles and sooner or later you’ll get an impressive explosion.

 

[Ranb]

You've clearly never dealt with or read anything about tax accountancy.

Who passes the legislation relating to tax accountancy? Tell me more?

 

[3point14]

Who passes the legislation relating to tax accountancy? Tell me more?

Well, that'll teach me to try to be funny.

You know that the government make tax law, right?

And that tax accountants seek out loopholes in those laws? Hence we end up with things like a 'double Irish'.

But seeing as your ire seems to have been raised, I'll withdraw the comment. I wouldn't want to upset you further with misplaced humour.

 

[Ranb]

Is this thing easy to remove and clean? I mean, I can see unburned grains of black building up in the baffles and sooner or later you’ll get an impressive explosion.

It is easy to remove, with a hacksaw. The problem is, if an unlicensed person removes the moderator from the rifle, it legally becomes a silencer. A silencer they just made without a license or tax stamp.

It is permanently attached as in welded (I assume). I think boiling soapy water will remove most of the fouling. An ultrasonic sink should do a good job on the more stubborn stuff.

 

[Ranb]

Well, that'll teach me to try to be funny.

I can't tell on this forum anymore if someone is being ironic, funny, serious or indulging in satire unless they come out and say it.

You know that the government make tax law, right?

Yes I do. but some people here have actually tried to convince me that others besides Congress are responsible for the bills that are passed.

And that tax accountants seek out loopholes in those laws? Hence we end up with things like a 'double Irish'.

Again yes, I understand.

But seeing as your ire seems to have been raised, I'll withdraw the comment. I wouldn't want to upset you further with misplaced humour.

Not mad, but since I don't know your reputation very well on the forum, I wasn't sure if you actually understood Congress' role in passing legislation.

 

[3point14]

I can't tell on this forum anymore if someone is being ironic, funny, serious or indulging in satire unless they come out and say it.


Yes I do. but some people here have actually tried to convince me that others besides Congress are responsible for the bills that are passed.


Again yes, I understand.


Not mad, but since I don't know your reputation very well on the forum, I wasn't sure if you actually understood Congress' role in passing legislation.

No worries. I shall use more smileys.