2022-03-18 House GOP to ATF re: Silencers

[JaySmith]

Seems 140 members of congress have signed this and sent it to the ATF.

https://w5x4i3u4.stackpathcdn.com/wp...-Silencers.pdf

Dear Acting Director Richardson:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) continues the Biden Administration’s assault on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. We have heard from concerned constituents that the ATF is attempting to restrict the ability of law-abiding Americans to make their own silencers. This ATF attempt to expand the definition of a silencer—like the ATF’s other regulatory actions—is contrary to years of ATF precedent and beyond the scope of the agency’s authority under federal law. We demand that you immediately stop his effort to curtail fundamental Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees to all Americans the right to keep and bear arms.1 Relevant federal firearm laws, including the National Firearms Act (NFA) nor the Gun Control Act (GCA), do not prohibit a law-abiding American from constructing
firearm, including the ability to construct silencers.

On its website, the ATF explains:
Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the Gun Control Act [GCA] provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms.

The long-held policy of ATF has been to require any individual making his or her own silencer to first file a Form 1 application, pay the $200 fee, and receive approval from ATF. Form 1 is the ATF’s “Application to Make and Register a Firearm.”

We have learned that the ATF has begun denying Form 1 requests from law-abiding citizens seeking to make silencers for their personal use. These individuals sought to follow the law by filing Form 1 requests, and they often did so carefully following published ATF guidance. The individuals sought approval to make silencers from individually sourced raw materials, components, or kits that included items that are manufactured for other non-firearm purposes, such as flashlight tubes or fuel filters. In denying the Form 1 requests, the ATF informed these individuals that they were in violation of the NFA because they had not received prior approval to own the materials in question, which the ATF claims to meet the legal definition of a silencer. Because of the ATF’s actions, these law-abiding citizens are now concerned that they could be in violation of a law that carries punishments of up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

We have also learned from constituents that once the ATF receives a Form 1 application to manufacture a silencer, the agency requires the applicant to send in photographs of the parts he or she will use and a description of the assembly process. The ATF tells the applicant that without this information, it will disapprove the application and refund the $200 fee. The ATF’s requirement—which is nowhere in statute or existing processes—potentially opens these otherwise law-abiding citizens to self-incrimination by admitting that they possess the raw materials that ATF now defines as a “silencer” and demonstrates their constructive intent to violate the law.

The ATF’s continued assault of the Second Amendment threatens millions of law-abiding American firearm owners. The ATF has overstepped its authority by changing the definition of what constitutes a silencer from the definition as passed by Congress. The American public deserves to know the ATF now believes that the mere possession of otherwise legal items are now considered to be violations of federal law. To better understand ATF’s basis for making these Form 1 denials, we request that you provide the following information:

1. Please explain why the ATF is denying Form 1 applications for the manufacture of silencers using raw materials, components, or kits.
2. Please explain whether these denials reflect a change in policy in how the ATF regulates self-made silencers.
3. Please explain what the ATF has done to inform the American people of its position regarding a Form 1 application and devices it believes are silencers as opposed to individually sourced raw materials, components, or kits, so that law abiding Americans can attempt to comply with the law.
4. Please explain how the ATF evaluates whether a Form 1 application for a silencer is going to be used for individually sourced raw materials, components, or kits that, in ATF’s view, is already legally a silencer.
5. Please explain how the ATF intends to handle approved Form 1 applications that occurred before February 28, 2022, for silencers made from individually sourced raw materials, components or kits.
6. Please explain how the ATF plans to make tax-free registration available for applicants who in good faith attempted to comply with federal law. If ATF does not plan to make tax-free registration available for applicants who in good faith attempted to comply with the federal law, please explain why.
7. Please produce all documents and communications, including but not limited to ATF legal opinions, referring or relating to the ATF’s definition of a silencer or what constitutes individually sourced raw materials, components, or kits.

We ask that you provide this information as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m.
on April 1, 2022.

If you have any questions about these requests, please contact House Judiciary
Committee staff at (202) 225-6906. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

[USMC3531]

"The ATF has overstepped its authority by changing the definition of what constitutes a silencer from the definition as passed by Congress. " this part is false. The definition of silencer is so vague they don't need to change it nor are they trying to. Unlike what they did with the MG definition lately or the misinterpretation of the armor percing ammo statute.

[JaySmith]

"The ATF has overstepped its authority by changing the definition of what constitutes a silencer from the definition as passed by Congress. " this part is false. The definition of silencer is so vague they don't need to change it nor are they trying to. Unlike what they did with the MG definition lately or the misinterpretation of the armor percing ammo statute.

Still, what legislature passed that has them not approving what they previously had approved en masse? They can't just change their minds, they are enforcement, not a determining body.

[USMC3531]

Still, what legislature passed that has them not approving what they previously had approved en masse? They can't just change their minds, they are enforcement, not a determining body.

They can and do change their mind all the time. They are a regulatory agency created by politicians to handle the stuff they don't understand. "The term *Firearm Silencer* or *Firearm Muffler* means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication." Politicians gave them the power too decide if objects fall within this definition. We don't have to like it but that's the way it is right now.

[JenniferG]

ATF has the authority to make it own laws and enforce them. That's what we're seeing at this point.

[PickingPA]

Hopefully they will also construct a strongly worded letter about arm braces too.

Then the ATF will ignore that one as well

[esh21167]

Yep, ATF operates outside normal channels, regularly making 'determinations' and turning them into de-facto law.

And yes, they will completely ignore this letter, as others have said.

[philadelphia patriot]

They need to shit can the entire NFA.

[win67]

Politicians gave them the power too decide if objects fall within this definition. We don't have to like it but that's the way it is right now.

True, and politicians can take that power away too, as the OP explains they are trying to do.

...any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication

That word "only" is important here. For example, if I submit a Form 1 in which I state I have a Ford FL-1A that I intend to use as a suppressor part- but, I don't own any Ford trucks and am not employed in the automotive service business, then yes, they might have a point about "constructive intent" or whatever. OTOH, if I happen to own a truck that could use the filter for its intended purpose, then it's a different story.

[USMC3531]

True, and politicians can take that power away too, as the OP explains they are trying to do.



That word "only" is important here. For example, if I submit a Form 1 in which I state I have a Ford FL-1A that I intend to use as a suppressor part- but, I don't own any Ford trucks and am not employed in the automotive service business, then yes, they might have a point about "constructive intent" or whatever. OTOH, if I happen to own a truck that could use the filter for its intended purpose, then it's a different story.

Yes ONLY is important here. They are saying pre made internals serve no legal purpose and are suppressor parts. At that point its not constructive intent it's possession of an unregistered silencerScreenshot_20220321-092108_Chrome.jpg