SIG's Dispute with F Troop Is Ongoing: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agreed to once again delay its final classification of a SIG Sauer muzzle device, which SIG contends is a muzzle brake but ATF classifies a silencer. The U.S. District Court in the District of New Hampshire issued the order, signed by both parties, on Sept. 9 and extended the stay of litigation to Nov. 1. According to the order, after re-examining the item, the ATF concluded that it was still a silencer, rejecting SIG’s argument. SIG has until Sept. 19 to submit a response... The item in question is the muzzle of the SIG MPX carbine. Its 9.5-inch muzzle brake welded to a 6.5-inch barrel can double as the internal components for a silencer. If equipped with a metal cover it would suppress sound. Unless the ATF changes its position or SIG gives up, the dispute will likely continue in court. There’s no set date for a final verdict. (I suspect that the outcome of this dispute will hinge on the the concept of constructive possession. From Wikipedia, “A person can be charged with constructive possession of an illegal device if they possess the otherwise legal material to assemble it.” The issue could then become whether a person is in constructive possession of an unregistered “silencer” if this muzzle brake is permanently attached to the firearm but the person is not in possession of a matching “metal cover” for it.)Those little chrome tailpipe tips found on the backs of Volkswagen beetles and microbusses back in the day make pretty good silencers in their own right. They are, after all silencers for the cars. This would then imply that all the aging hippies out there who still have their old air-cooled bugs can be arrested for constructive possession of a NFA device.
/s As loyal Democratic voters however, I don't expect this to happen. Just another example of how the law doesn't apply if you're properly connected. /s off
No comments:
Post a Comment