Just wondering about all the weapons that come with fake suppressors or even the ones that come on some Airsoft guns. They are made out of good grade aluminum and are threaded 1/2x28 cc so they fit most threaded barrels? I guess what I am asking is if you were to put on of the Airsoft cans on a real weapon would that be illegal?
-
Please read the new forum rules! REQUIRED!
Click Here: https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/general-forum-rules-code-of-conduct.70770/
-
New Reloading Sticky Thread for Trading, Swapping Gear, etc.
https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/reloading-components-for-trade-item-value-and-photo.104847/
At what point would a " Fake Suppressor" turn into a jail cell?
- Thread starter TURTLE
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Here is how those prosecuting it define it.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-silencer
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-silencer
The difference between that case and the OP's question is the defendant didn't try or at least the prosecutor didn't try to prove he used it on a firearm and the question in the OP is specifically about using one on a firearm unless I'm reading it wrong. I remember the hubub about the air gun suppressors.
I realize this. I posted because this question comes up all the time to me because I have over 12K invested in PCP airguns with suppressor type devices on most all of them. I figured it would be a good place to post.
.
The article about the case against the guy with the Air gun is confusing too me. The first thing is Felon's can legally own PCP Air Guns , even those higher caliber ones such as Sam Yang Rifles. By definition, a firearm is any device that accelerates a projectile as the result of an explosion. Air Gun's don't do that. They are also ( Felon's) are able to own Muzzleloaders , which are firearms by definition so that weird.
Most of the rules that the atf and any other govt entity comes up with always confuse me. LOL
And yes I have airguns that are quite capable of doing just about anything the powder burners can do.
.
wildrider666
Master
Origional black powder guns and modern replicas that do not use 22 rimfire or centerfire fixed ammo are classified/defined as "Antique Firearms". This is different from the definition of Firearm. Yes, Restricted persons can buy and use them if there is no State or local provision against it. There was no 4473 or background check, and they were shipped to your house I'm not sure if any of this has changed.
wildrider666
Master
The following Foot Note from that case is also relevant to the OP. Notice the conflicting positions:
FN3. E.g., United States v. Carter, 465 F.3d 658, 667 (6th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (the silencer provision “focuses on the intended application of a silencer, not its actual demonstrated operation” and “indicates a concern for the purpose of the mechanism ․ not the function ” (first emphasis added)), cert. denied, 550 U.S. 964 (2007); United States v. Syverson, 90 F.3d 227, 232 (7th Cir.1996) (reading the silencer provision language to require the government to “prove that the cylinder was made for the purpose of silencing a firearm, not that this purpose was realized,” because “Congress has indicated that it intends to regulate all devices purporting to serve as silencers, not just those devices that actually work to silence firearms” (emphases added)), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 982 (1996).
FN3 Continued: But see United States v. Kavoukian, 354 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir.2003) (per curiam) (suggesting that a silencer is “defined by its functionality ” (emphasis added)); Hall, 171 F.3d at 1151 (stating that the crime of possession of an unregistered silencer “require a finding that the defendant knew that the relevant item could in fact function to diminish the sound of a gun” (emphasis added)).
FN3. E.g., United States v. Carter, 465 F.3d 658, 667 (6th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (the silencer provision “focuses on the intended application of a silencer, not its actual demonstrated operation” and “indicates a concern for the purpose of the mechanism ․ not the function ” (first emphasis added)), cert. denied, 550 U.S. 964 (2007); United States v. Syverson, 90 F.3d 227, 232 (7th Cir.1996) (reading the silencer provision language to require the government to “prove that the cylinder was made for the purpose of silencing a firearm, not that this purpose was realized,” because “Congress has indicated that it intends to regulate all devices purporting to serve as silencers, not just those devices that actually work to silence firearms” (emphases added)), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 982 (1996).
FN3 Continued: But see United States v. Kavoukian, 354 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir.2003) (per curiam) (suggesting that a silencer is “defined by its functionality ” (emphasis added)); Hall, 171 F.3d at 1151 (stating that the crime of possession of an unregistered silencer “require
Last edited:
