Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New Trophy's
New trophy room comments
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Classifieds
Trophy Room
New items
New comments
Latest content
Latest updates
Latest reviews
Author list
Series list
Search showcase
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Off Topic TN Forums
TWRA QUESTIONS
Suppressor stamp
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BlackBelt" data-source="post: 5517119" data-attributes="member: 5867"><p>Those were the original and genuine "solvent traps", and they were made to actually capture cleaning solvent. </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>They started taking notice when people started buying metal cans that threaded on and could be altered to "diminish the report of a firearm".</p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>But thats just me.</p><p></p><p>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...</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BlackBelt, post: 5517119, member: 5867"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Off Topic TN Forums
TWRA QUESTIONS
Suppressor stamp
Top