ATF open letter regarding solvent traps

BigWaylon

BigWaylon

Head philatelist
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Messages
64,901
Location
Charlotte
Rating - 100%
71   0   0
Enjoy this letter that was released on 11/20/23: Solvent Trap Open Letter

Be interested in seeing if it affects the number of traps you see for sale at gun shows.

The thing that strikes me as odd is this:

IMG_4182.jpeg

Because they sure as heck allowed that exact same thing to happen with pistols that were determined to be SBRs. 🙄
 
doesnt this kind of take things back a few steps in terms of cans that have removable endcaps for different calibers? or decorative upgrade ones that look like a cat's butthole?
 
DrScaryGuy said:
doesnt this kind of take things back a few steps in terms of cans that have removable endcaps for different calibers? or decorative upgrade ones that look like a cat's butthole?
Click to expand...
Sure does read that way…although I’m still seeing end caps for sale on manufacturers’ websites.
 
BigWaylon said:
Sure does read that way…although I’m still seeing end caps for sale on manufacturers’ websites.
Click to expand...
maybe they think it won't hold up and they're all like "come tax my butt"
1700885246287.png
 
BigWaylon said:
Enjoy this letter that was released on 11/20/23: Solvent Trap Open Letter

Be interested in seeing if it affects the number of traps you see for sale at gun shows.

The thing that strikes me as odd is this:

View attachment 702996

Because they sure as heck allowed that exact same thing to happen with pistols that were determined to be SBRs. 🙄
Click to expand...
Let’s see how thin we can slice this. Here they are saying that a solvent trap is an NFA item. In then pistol brace ruling they said that a braced pistol may be an SBR depending upon configuration, they allowed owners to configure them so as not to be an SBR. That’s as good as I can do, and it almost kinda works except that in the rule didn’t they identify some specific examples like the Q sugar weasel, CMMG Banshee and Sig Rattler as manufactured SBRs?
Oh well, just another day.
 
GymB said:
Let’s see how thin we can slice this. Here they are saying that a solvent trap is an NFA item. In then pistol brace ruling they said that a braced pistol may be an SBR depending upon configuration, they allowed owners to configure them so as not to be an SBR. That’s as good as I can do, and it almost kinda works except that in the rule didn’t they identify some specific examples like the Q sugar weasel, CMMG Banshee and Sig Rattler as manufactured SBRs?
Oh well, just another day.
Click to expand...
Except the letter opens with:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recently examined devices commonly marketed as “solvent traps” and has determined that some of them are “firearm silencers” as defined in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and as defined in the National Firearms Act (NFA).

So even in this case it’s not black & white that they’re all silencers.
 
I read all the way to the bottom, which states:

"This Open Letter is a guidance document that advises the public of ATF’s interpretation of binding regulations, statutes, or constitutional provisions. This guidance document does not establish requirements that bind the public and does not itself have the force and effect of law."
 
ImYourHuckleberry said:
I read all the way to the bottom, which states:

"This Open Letter is a guidance document that advises the public of ATF’s interpretation of binding regulations, statutes, or constitutional provisions. This guidance document does not establish requirements that bind the public and does not itself have the force and effect of law."
Click to expand...
That one word. It’s their interpretation, what’s the courts? What’s the courts? What’s Congress? What’s the Constitution’s? THEIR interpretation doesn’t mean crap unless backed by the others. Jus sayin..
 
HandyDave said:
Hold on are you saying that people have taken there solvent traps and somehow magically turned them into "silencers" that is crazy talk 🤣 🇺🇸 and no I don't keep a box of freeze plugs next to my drill press 😉
Click to expand...
IMG_4257.jpeg
 
I predict they will be slapped down in court on this just like they did on redefining receivers. I don't see the brace ban holding up either. As of the time I'm posting this that rule is on hold waiting to be heard (or not) by the Supreme Court. No knowing what will happen tomorrow, but it sure looks like ATF won't win.
 
Hammer12b said:
That one word. It’s their interpretation, what’s the courts? What’s the courts? What’s Congress? What’s the Constitution’s? THEIR interpretation doesn’t mean crap unless backed by the others. Jus sayin..
Click to expand...
It matters a whole lot when they use our practically endless tax dollars to harass, intimidate, arrest, and charge us, based on their non-sensical interpretation.

Who’s going to be the next Matt Hoover?
 
Climberman said:
If I ran for President, one of my platforms would be the removal of the ATF from the list of federal agencies.
Click to expand...
Just that one? 🤔
 
Climberman said:
If I ran for President, one of my platforms would be the removal of the ATF from the list of federal agencies.
Click to expand...
Heck I’d cut the total public workforce by 10% the first year and 5% each year after, ya’ll could leave me there until it gets to a number you like. I’d also eliminate most government pensions, let them have a 401k, and their health plan, they can use medicare and the healthcare marketplace.
 
Jeppo said:
Just that one? 🤔
Click to expand...
I would merge them into the FBI for the criminal and crime investigation departments and neuter their rule making. Also put Secret Service back under Treasury where it belongs
 
GymB said:
Heck I’d cut the total public workforce by 10% the first year and 5% each year after, ya’ll could leave me there until it gets to a number you like. I’d also eliminate most government pensions, let them have a 401k, and their health plan, they can use medicare and the healthcare marketplace.
Click to expand...
I'd stop paying into NATO and the UN or a few years, let them see what defense really costs when Uncle Sam takes care of our own people first.
 
Last edited:
They've cracked down on solvent traps being put on form 1s for awhile now. Truthfully I don't get it, you're already in bed with the ATF if you are applying for NFA items... what's the big deal? Wouldn't you rather people willingly submit their shit than hide it in perpetuity?
 
adamr94 said:
They've cracked down on solvent traps being put on form 1s for awhile now. Truthfully I don't get it, you're already in bed with the ATF if you are applying for NFA items... what's the big deal? Wouldn't you rather people willingly submit their shit than hide it in perpetuity?
Click to expand...
The problem is that, at least they believe, only a small percentage of buyers submit their builds. They need a way to regulate the sellers, defining parts as a suppressor opens that door.
 
Who writes their copy, Mike Tyson? What about those that are NOT silencers?

1701037399091.png
 
...and presumably, the only difference between the two is what you had in mind when you purchased them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top