Will a reprint suffice?
Suppressor stamp
- Thread starter gatodoc
- Start date
The one time I had to provide proof was to a LEO and it was just a copy. I can't speak to everyone and everything but in that particular instance it worked for me. In talking with other folks who have them over the years, it's how they roll as well. That said, I think the regulation states you have to have the stamp. Who knows honestly... It's the government, they want you in trouble, you're in trouble...
BlackBelt
Well-Known Member
It has happened before. I dont recall many details because it wasnt in TN, but the BATFE had reason to believe a man was using oil filters as suppressors. They confiscated cases of filters the man had at his home.
I dont recall if he was charged.
BlackBelt
Well-Known Member
So...just communicated with a BATFE agent. Apparently they are no longer issuing physical stamps to e-file approvals. They email you a pdf, and you need to print it, or have a device (phone or tablet) with a copy of the approved stamped transfer pdf on it.
Just my take, (and I've been dealing with NFA since the early 80's), I would have a couple of paper copies with me whenever any NFA registered device was with me, and a copy on your phone as well if you feel the need.
This is just my opinion, not legal advice. And worth what you paid for it.
Just my take, (and I've been dealing with NFA since the early 80's), I would have a couple of paper copies with me whenever any NFA registered device was with me, and a copy on your phone as well if you feel the need.
This is just my opinion, not legal advice. And worth what you paid for it.
Huh. $200 for a PDF. For that money I want the pretty stamp.
Interested in this as well. I just talked to a FFL dealer and he said that they are only considered illegal if they have a hole in them?
Wiley
Well-Known Member
Since the ATF makes it up as they go lots of times I can see them saying that a solvent trap that's threaded 1/2x28 WITHOUT an exit hole is "intent to construct" if the law abiding citizen also has weapon barrels that are threaded 1/2x28.
I don't trust the ATF to follow their own written directives.
BlackBelt
Well-Known Member
BATFE considers a single part of a suppressor to be a suppressor by itself (with a couple of exceptions like the barrel mount or a non-wiped endcap that changes the diameter of the exit hole).
The solvent traps usually have baffles in them or have a monocore unit that acts as a baffle. Those baffles or a monocore unit ARE parts of a suppressor.
That is why some solvent traps require you to also drill the baffles. By not providing drilled baffles it was a way for the manufacturer to try to end-run around the law. However, they are still considered suppressor parts.
I strongly encourage anyone with a solvent trap to rid themselves of it. Remember, if you pass away unexpectedly your family who inherits your stuff now are responsible for owning an unregistered suppressor. You knowingly made the decision to own it. They did not. Don't put that legal quagmire on them. Just get rid of it.
If you want a suppressor go do a e-file and buy one.
So far the BATFE, to the best of my knowledge, has only prosecuted those who have drilled their solvent traps. They have been collecting the traps nationwide based off of manufacturer, distributor and payment records.
I may be mistaken about the prosecutions because I dont closely follow all national prosecution cases.
If you think buying a suppressor is too expensive, I encourage you to check out the price per hour of the NFA knowledgable and experienced attorney you will need to hire to defend you against a federal felony charge for having an unregistered NFA device. I believe you will find it much less expensive to just buy the suppressor legally.
Not to mention if they get a conviction you will carry that felony for life...which also means no firearms for you. Your deer season will be limited to archery equipment only.
Just my opinions, not legal advice.
I don't own either a solvent trap or a suppressor, but what I picture, when thinking of a solvent trap, is like I've seen on the Midway commercials that looks just like a plastic water bottle. How could that be considered anything remotely close to a suppressor is what I keep wondering?
BlackBelt
Well-Known Member
Those were the original and genuine "solvent traps", and they were made to actually capture cleaning solvent.
Those were around for quite awhile. For multiple reasons I dont believe BATFE had any problems with those, mainly because if it were shot through it would be destroyed and usually fly off the end of the barrel, and did not practically lower the sound level.
They started taking notice when people started buying metal cans that threaded on and could be altered to "diminish the report of a firearm".
In todays political/legal environment I would steer clear of any type of device that captures anything coming out of a barrel other than a muzzle brake.
But thats just me.
We have witnessed from BATFE's recent arrest, prosecution and conviction of a Naval officer for having legally bought a parts kit that had been properly destroyed per BATFE guidelines...then years later BATFE changed those guidelines and went after the man for having that same previously approved kit...
You really want to stay on the right side of BATFE regulations. It is important to know their "regulations" carry the weight of law and consequences.
It has been my observation that the only people that try to circumvent BATFE regulations are those that dont understand the seriousness of doing so.
I have no worries in the suppressor area. I am thinking about purchasing one tho.
LY
Well-Known Member
I keep "legible" copies everywhere, backpack, gun cases, etc., originals are locked in safe and will probably never again see the light of day.
I too keep copies of my phone, but they are for myself and to make future copies from if/when needed.
Talk to an attorney or google it, under no circumstances do they recommend giving your phone to an LEO for any reason. It's even recommended to turn off facial recognition and to use a pass-code only. Access to your phone should be by a warrant only.
I too keep copies of my phone, but they are for myself and to make future copies from if/when needed.
Talk to an attorney or google it, under no circumstances do they recommend giving your phone to an LEO for any reason. It's even recommended to turn off facial recognition and to use a pass-code only. Access to your phone should be by a warrant only.
It's the totality of the circumstances, intent, and marketing. Much like "possession of burglary tools" or "Possession of tools to interfere with anti-theft security devices". Intent would need to be shown. It was determined by the BATF that the company that got busted selling solvent traps was marketing them as silencers. So they went to the buyers and asked them to turn them over. You could tell them to go get a warrant, you could tell them to go pound sand. But it costs them nothing to charge you with a felony, and you have the legal costs of getting an attorney whether you win your case or not.
As someone else pointed out, if someone wants one, it cheaper to just pay the federal tax, and the ridiculous price for a suppressor and call it a day.
LanceS4803
Well-Known Member
I reduce the form by 50% and laminate. Just toss it in your gun bag. Keeping a copy on your phone is a good idea, too.
And, local or state police have no ability to check the status of your NFA items independent of ATF. This is considered tax information and is closely guarded by ATF. Only an ATF agent has access to the data.
And, local or state police have no ability to check the status of your NFA items independent of ATF. This is considered tax information and is closely guarded by ATF. Only an ATF agent has access to the data.
LanceS4803
Well-Known Member
After working many, many joint cases with ATF, let me say to never take the advice of a field agent. If it is something low level, maybe. Something serious, get it in writing.
There have been too many times when I had to explain their own laws to them. The worst was a BATF Form 5320.20 form, allowing NFA items to cross state lines. They had no idea what it was.
BlackBelt
Well-Known Member
Communication wasnt with a low level agent.
