"The letter appears to be a non-binding statement of the agency's position on whether the Stabilizer Brake is a silencer, which will not bear the force of law as applied in future classifications of different devices." "It contains hardly any reasoning, and makes no reference to prior agency regulations or interpretations that support its conclusion," he continued. In doing just that, Judge Bates said that he found the Classification Letter in question to be "a brief and informal document." Innovator sued the agency in the federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking to overturn the agency's determination. The ATF responded six weeks later, saying it determined that the Stabilizer Brake was indeed a silencer. The distinction is critical to a company in Innovator's line of work.Īny device that is deemed to be a "firearm silencer," defined under federal law as "any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm," is subject to extensive taxation and registration requirements.īy comparison, a device that does not so qualify can be produced, marketed and sold free from federal restraints, subject only to state regulations of varying severity. 2, 2012, Innovator asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives to provide a classification letter, designating the device as either a firearm muffler or firearm silencer. In developing the Stabilizer Brake, Innovator thought it had solved the latter problem by directing the noise forward, away from the shooter. Such devices can also have their disadvantages, however, namely increasing flash, reducing bullet velocity, and increasing the noise experienced by the shooter, the court noted. Typically, such devices, sometimes called "muzzle brakes," are used to reduce recoil by redirecting combustion gases created by discharging a firearm, Bates summarized. brought the complaint as the creator of the "Stabilizer Brake," a device that attaches to the muzzle of a rifle with the intent of substantially reducing the firearm recoil and redirecting noise away from the shooter toward the target, among other things. But in this case, ATF fails to clear it." District Judge John Bates wrote Wednesday. "In any agency review case, a reviewing court is generally obligated to uphold a reasonable agency decision that is the product of a rational agency process," U.S. (CN) - Uncle Sam arbitrarily classified a new device as a firearm silencer without sufficient review or a decent explanation why, a federal judge's somewhat scathing opinion states.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |