It’s just a law—it doesn’t have to make sense

I was reading the latest ATF FFL Newsletter and ran across something I found interesting:

an FFL/SOT (Class 2 manufacturer of firearms) who manufactures a silencer part for the sole purpose of repairing a registered silencer 1) is not required to mark the part; 2) is not required to register the part on ATF Form 2; 3) is not required to submit and receive an approved ATF Form 3 to transfer the part to FFL/SOT; and 4) is not required to maintain records of manufacture or other acquisition and records of disposition (A&D) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(g), 26 U.S.C. § 5843, 27 CFR § 478.123, and 27 CFR § 479.131, provided the part is transferred to an FFL/SOT for the purpose of repairing a registered silencer.

If someone other than an FFL/SOT wants to acquire a silencer part, that part must be marked in accordance with regulations and registered by filing a Form 2. A Form 5 must be filed if the part is being acquired by a government entity. A Form 4 must be filed if the part is being acquired by an unlicensed person or FFL who is not qualified under the NFA.

So… if you don’t tighten the end cap on your suppressor, it works loose, and you spew the end cap and all the baffles all over the lake you can’t purchase new components from the manufacturer and repair it yourself. You local dealer can purchase the parts and repair it for you.

In either case you end up with a new set of serialized components. But in one case you and the manufacturer spend some quality time in Club Fed and are never again allowed to own a firearm. In the other case you go about your business as you see fit.

It’s just a law. It doesn’t have to make sense.


10 thoughts on “It’s just a law—it doesn’t have to make sense

  1. This stupid law is the result of replacing the word “pistol” with the word “silencer” at the last minute to prevent the NFA of ’34 from being a pistol ban.

    Which is why the NFA is so freaky about shortbarrelled shotguns and rifles, in order to prevent making a pistol out of them.

    The parts non-sense was to prevent people from making unregistered pistols out of the vast pool of pistol parts available.

  2. This has resulted in the creation of products marketed as blast shields that take the same mount and front cap as the silencer. You aren’t buying a silencer endcap, you are buying a blast shield endcap that just happens to fit the silencer.

  3. Pretty sure this is NOT a “law” as it was NEVER VOTED ON by an elected body of representatives. It….like virtually EVERYTHING that comes from the criminals infesting BATFEces is a “ruling”. A unilaterally decided edict that has NEVER been debated on or voted on by ANY elected official. There is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between the two.

    • Administrative law heralded the death of the Republic.
      When I took Administrative law in Law School, each chapter began with an illustrative case. I would read part way through the case, and think to myself, “They can’t do THAT!” I paid close attention in Constitutional law, word salad though the decisions be.
      Then I’d read the rest of the case, and think to myself, “Sunofagun! They can!”
      Once I met my professor in the hallway and he asked me what I thought of the class so far. I told him I found it disheartening and recounted my thought process from the first paragraph, above.
      He agreed and said that there wasn’t much need for the States anymore, except as administrative districts for the Feds (This was in 1995!). He also said that he thought the Police function could be converted into an administrative function since it was already an executive branch agency. Anybody that has had dealings with administrative agencies, like the Housing Agency knows how well that works (E.G. exhausting one’s Administrative “Remedies before seeking Article Three Court Remedies). Twenty Five years later, we know that this is part of the goal of “Defund the Police”.

      • Thus we have the term “legal fiction”. Something MADE UP
        by those in power to grant themselves authorities they were never intended to have.

    • Oh, but that power was delegated to a portion of the Executive Branch because the Legislature couldn’t be bothered to actually do the job they were all elected to do.
      An important distinction that will doubtless be brought up at their trials.

      • I never understood the constitutional underpinnings used in those rulings for executive branch rule making? Or why ANY lawyer would go along with it?
        It violates every tenant of separation of powers. And /or equal powers.
        But then that would be forgetting the first rule of government. (Unwritten of course.) That being that government rules. The rest be damned!

        • MT, I think the answer is simple. The Constitution says that the executive carries out the laws. It seems reasonable that this would include filling in details left open by a given law.
          The real issue with BATFE is that its very existence is unconstitutional. The regulations we’re arguing about here aren’t a case of executive overreach, they are a case of legislative overreach. (Well, arguably the executive should decline to enforce that which is not law, but the original sin here, as in 99.44% of the cases, is with the first branch rather than the second.)

  4. If I understand correctly, if you blow up your “silencer” it can be repaired by the manufacturer unless the outer tube is compromised. Then you need a whole new “silencer”.

Comments are closed.