OT, which 22cal Air Rifle to buy?

[Jon Heron]

-Almost all incorporated cities and towns have a 'no discharge of firearms' law. No big for those that live outside the city limits, but even a relatively quiet .22LR could draw a noise complain from a nosey neighbor.

Doc.

Good point, I havnt lived in the city for awhile now I guess. When I did though you wouldn't want to be caught pointing any kind of gun by a nosy neighbour or risk having the SWAT team called on you👍
Have you guys seen these? https://www.cabelas.ca/product/10138...-22-ammunition
These are quieter then an air gun. Great for squirrels but not for bigger critters like coons and possums, I have tried and they lack any stopping power due to the low velocity, you can see the lead leaving the muzzle lol
Cheers,
Jon

[Bob La Londe]

I'm well aware of the Crooker case. Thing is, according to the ATF, any separate, standalone, removable suppressor, or the parts thereof, are still controlled items.

Technically, it's very much like the whole pot/cannabis thing- the Feds still consider it illegal, but have simply stopped actively prosecuting.

And without an actual change in the law, that can change on a whim. Had "the Waco Kid" gotten in as head of the ATF, one of his stated positions was to drastically crack down on all Title II and Title III transactions, including suppressors. Look at the whole "arm brace" thing- illegal, then legal, then illegal again, now legal but only for a narrow range of firearms. And that can change again, at any time, on a whim.

Until the law is actually changed, they're technically still illegal.

I will readily admit the chances of anyone being prosecuted for it are slim, but speaking personally, I absolutely will not make one, nor would I own one with a common firearm thread.

Doc.

Oh, I admit the BATFE has been writing rules by fiat for ages, but this is a case where nobody in the business is afraid of them. It was an over reach when they tried the case, and after some years they have not yet opted to appeal to a higher court. The appeals court case stands in case law. Seriously. They picked a serial criminal to use as their example case to set precedent and they still lost. You believe whatever you like. I believe case law supports that air gun suppressors made and intended for use on airguns are NOT NFA items. This isn't something they can just change their mind on like one of their own arbitrary made up rules. This is established case law. It is established outside of the BATFE, and the only way they can change it is to appeal or have the law changed by the legislature. If they have the law changed by the legislature in the manner you describe it would be illegal to own water, soda bottles, or potatoes, and definitely not tape.

For anybody thinking this is a loophole or get out of jail free card... It is not. Its a very narrowly defined ruling that is very specific. If you have your 1/2-28 threaded mono core sitting next to your 1/2-28 threaded firearm barrel and your ducks aren't arranged in a linear fashion you are probably going to jail. That being said it is legal to buy a suppressor if you get your $200 tax stamp and its manufactured by a licensed manufacturer... OR You get your tax stamp and notify the BATFE that you intend to manufacture your own and jump through all the appropriate hoops. One of the loop holes self manufacturers were using (buying Chinese or in some cases domestic "solvent traps") is closing or closed. You will need to manufacture your home made licensed silencer from raw stock or materials with an original primary purpose not intended to be made into a firearm silencer.

[Bob La Londe]

-Almost all incorporated cities and towns have a 'no discharge of firearms' law. No big for those that live outside the city limits, but even a relatively quiet .22LR could draw a noise complain from a nosey neighbor.

Doc.

Many except where preempted by a higher law even include airguns, bows, slingshots, and other projectile devices. Some don't even exempt paintball or airsoft except at a license paintball business with a playing field. Some specifically allow, but only where you can guarantee the projectile does not leave your property.

[RB211]

Seems pretty complicated, especially considering the constitution clearly states, "shall not be infringed"

[Bob La Londe]

Seems pretty complicated, especially considering the constitution clearly states, "shall not be infringed"

Yes, and I think to some degree making things overly complicated is the point. The first time I heard the phrase, "We are a nation of laws," I just cringed. I had to ask myself when we stopped being a nation of people.

[Doc Nickel]

Oh, I admit the BATFE has been writing rules by fiat for ages, but this is a case where nobody in the business is afraid of them.

-They would have been, very much so, and with very good reason, had Chipman been appointed as head of the ATF.
And that's my point- there may well be case precedence, but the law itself has not changed. Again, it's very much like the pot thing- according to the feds, it's still very much illegal, it's just that the past couple of administrations has simply declined to prosecute.

Look at all the back-and-forth we've been seeing on Executive Orders the last couple administrations. They might technically carry the weight of law, but they're not actually laws- the next administration can erase, reverse or modify them at a whim, with the same stroke of a pen.

This is even worse, in that it's not an Executive thing- it's the ATFs own regulations, that they can, have and will rewrite as they see fit, and with considerably less public/press oversight- the aforementioned arm braces are example number one of that. And of course the public opinion of "silencers" is far more negative than it is for pot- according to the movies, only bad guys, spies and assassins use silencers.

The ATF suddenly decides to ban 'em, the 'gun nuts' get up in arms (if you'll pardon the pun) but the majority of the voting electorate just goes "huh. I wonder what's for lunch?" There would be very little public backlash over banning them.

Its a very narrowly defined ruling that is very specific. If you have your 1/2-28 threaded mono core sitting next to your 1/2-28 threaded firearm barrel and your ducks aren't arranged in a linear fashion you are probably going to jail.

-Bingo. A big chunk of the Crooker case revolved around the 'adapter' the ATF tech had to fabricate to mount the paintball suppressor on a firearm. The part about 'intent' fell down simply because, while it was acknowledged that Crooker knew, conceptually, that such a thing could be made, there was zero proof he'd actually tried.

I, on the other hand, am a machinist, and one, I'd like to think, of a little skill. Making such an adapter would be child's play- a few minutes on a lathe, at best.

Yes, again, I'll gladly acknowledge they'd still have to prove intent- that I did or had actually tried to make such a thing, but then, it's also worth noting that Crooker spent a year in jail before being let off. The ATF- and other bureaus- are often more than happy to take you to court and rake you over the coals even if they know they can't win. It'll still cost you a year or two and probably bankrupt you with legal and court fees.

Not a machinist? Not a firearms owner? You're probably okay. You're a machinist, own .22 cal airguns and .22 cal firearms and have a .22 "airgun" suppressor? Personally, that's playing with fire- until they actually change the law.

Doc.

[Bob La Londe]

Ok, lets try this again. Please go back and read the Crooker summary again. The whole thing. Not just the bits and pieces if taken out of context (like your quote and reply above) that might be used to support your personal bias about it. The court interpreted what is IN THE LAW. They didn't make anything up. That's what the BATFE tries to do, and it could be very expensive for the BATFE to willfully ignore established precedent. It may even go so far as to invalidate qualified immunity for the individual agents involved since there is established precedent. You sound like some of those its "my way or the highway" guys on certain airgun forums now.

The fact is airgun moderators are not illegal under federal law and there is court precedent to back that up. I didn't make that up. The court didn't make up their own laws, and my example of how somebody might get in trouble if they are looking for a loophole and have bad intent does not invalidate the facts. You are just spreading fear, doubt and intimidation. Yes its possible to get screwed over acting in good faith, but like your rogue interpretation of the law prohibiting ownership of potatoes, your fear mongering can only be mitigated by crawling into a hole and pulling it in after you. Even then you better hope you filed your environmental impact study and got permission to withdraw from society first.

The simple fact is its almost impossible to do or choose not to do anything in the USA without violating a law, rule, statute, or ordinance. However in this case the nuance has been defined by the court using the language of the law itself.

[Doc Nickel]

I have read the entire thing, several times, and discussed it with numerous people, including a professional legal-beagle.

I've gladly acknowleged, twice, that the chances are very slim you'll actually be prosecuted. But the fact remains, and I've been told by several people, with better qualifications than either of us have, that the combination of owning an air rifle of a given caliber along with a firearm of a given caliber, is already a grey area, and only gets worse if the firearm is also threaded, and even moreso if one is a machinist of any competence.

I am fully aware of the precedence of the Crooker case- I'm also aware that a great deal of it hinges on the ATF's own regulations, which they can and have changed literally on a whim. Had "The Waco Kid' been confirmed, I'd bet you a paycheck we wouldn't be having this conversation, because he'd have rendered them illegal with the stroke of a pen. He openly admitted wanting to do so- firearms silencers, anyway, but I very much doubt he'd leave the airgun thing alone.

It's worth noting that part of my personal reticence is because I'm a manufacturer. I'd love to be able to manufacture a top-quality paintball suppressor- there already exist threaded-tip barrels on the market, and the bore would be clearly large enough it's not intended for a .223 or a 9mm. But no one in this biz will risk it, because it's not actually truly legal yet.

Back in the day- mid 90s- a paintball manufacturer called Barrels Of America made a barrel they called a Concealor, which included a primitive silencer shroud. The ATF raided them, confiscated inventory, computers, paperwork and materials. BoA was eventually acquitted, but it cost them over $200K in legal fees, and put them out of business as they weren't able to make or sell product for over a year. When they got most of their stuff back, it'd been badly stored and damaged.

For most people, sure, it's probably fine, and chances, again, are slim anything will ever come of it. For me, there's no damn way I'll risk my business and equipment.

Doc.

[RB211]

Speaking of legal issues, long time ago I used to speak with an individual in an IRC chat room that ended up going to jail. He is/was a skilled machinist, but he purchased an MP5 from a police officer(wasn't a sting operation), and had a hobby of making Ak47's in his shop that had all the "parts" inside, he wasn't licensed to do so. That's what he told me as he was awaiting his hearing. He never told me any of these illegal details until he got caught.
Strangely, it is now easier than ever it seems to get the licenses to build your own machine guns. One would have to be pretty stupid to not stay legal. You might have to move to a more gun friendly state, and more importantly, a gun friendly local government.

[JRouche]

Strangely, it is now easier than ever it seems to get the licenses to build your own machine guns. One would have to be pretty stupid to not stay legal. You might have to move to a more gun friendly state, and more importantly, a gun friendly local government.

Machine guns?? I dont think so. They are still covered under the ATF, the Feds. States cant change that. I think the reason people do it illegally is because they dont want to shell out the big bucks for a legit license. JR

[danlb]

and more importantly, a gun friendly local government.

Quite true. I live in a nice little middle class town. The local ordinance says that you can have an airgun shooting gallery inside the house or in your yard. All you have to do is to get it approved by the Police department.

The problem is that when I called the police department to find out how I get it approved, I was told that you submit a request to the police chief. I was also told not to bother since the Chief of Police refuses to authorize any. None in 15 years in office. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

[Doc Nickel]

Strangely, it is now easier than ever it seems to get the licenses to build your own machine guns.

-No, it absolutely is not. It's easier, paperwork-wise, to buy one, as online applications and the like have sped up the paperwork and background searches, but no new civillian machine guns have been legal to manufacture since 1986. And that includes conversions.

If you're a licensed manufacturer, you can make prototypes ostensibly to offer to the military and police, but those cannot be sold or traded

Doc.

[Bob La Londe]

-No, it absolutely is not. It's easier, paperwork-wise, to buy one, as online applications and the like have sped up the paperwork and background searches, but no new civillian machine guns have been legal to manufacture since 1986. And that includes conversions.

If you're a licensed manufacturer, you can make prototypes ostensibly to offer to the military and police, but those cannot be sold or traded

Doc.

Exactly right, and if you can't sell them you have to destroy them.

[RB211]

Like I said, easier than ever to legally make machine guns, get your FFL, become an SOT.
Funny how you all say it's not easier, then admit it actually is.. Yes, you make samples for your own use, most of the time you do need to destroy them, but not always. One of my buddies just got his FFL, and is now considering his SOT, in the wonderful state of Virginia.
Who cares if it's for personal use only??? Isn't that the point???
Bigger hurdle is affording the ammo to feed them! You're licensed, the Feds know who you are, what you have, and know what you do with them. They seem to be ok with it as long as they have you pegged in the system. They know these guys aren't the problem.

[Doc Nickel]

I wouldn't call adding Special Occupational Taxpayer status to a Class III Federal Firearms License "easier".

To say nothing of the physical requirements- mandated secure storage, an alarm system, you have to have a copy of the tax stamp with you when taking the weapon to the range, etc.

I mean it's possible, yes, whereas not that long ago it wasn't even possible, but it's sure not a process I'd call "easy". (Or cheap, or quick, etc. I'm told to get to the C2 or C3 SOT, from scratch, is a two to three year process, depending on how friendly your local constabulary is.)

It's also worth noting that this is another one of the things that Chipman was going to crack down on, if he got in. And again, since very little of it is actual congressonal-enacted law, they could change it at a him, based only on the opinions of the director.

Doc.