Legally defined near-assault weapons and suppressors/silencers; possible?

[gss]

In CT;

Question 1: Is a sound suppressor legally considered a flash suppressor, by design or otherwise?
Question 2: Is it possible to legally own an AR with a functional sound suppressor?

First off, I apologize if this has been answered in some other fashion. I've search high and low all over the web, but I can't seem to find an answer (nor anyone asking the same questions).

I am a CT resident. I currently legally own several guns and suppressors (silencers).

I was having a discussion with a friend, and couldn't decide what may be true. I'm most likely going to ask a dealer, but I was curious what the concensus might be.

Known:

********************************************
Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:

(1) The whole long list of name brand rifles

(2) Parts and combos for form stuff in (1)

(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) A bayonet mount;

(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v) A grenade launcher; or

(B) A semiautomatic pistol....blah blah blah
********************************************

Take a stock Bushy AR that you can legally buy. It has a pinned stock and a brake instead of a flash suppressor. So right now you're at the limit on legal configuration from an AWB perspective:

- semiautomatic rifle
- ability to accept a detachable magazine
- pistol grip

What if you had muzzle break that was designed for a quick detach suppressor, such as this:

http://www.advanced-armament.com/product.aspx?pid=149

Of course it would be permanently attached (welded, pinned, etc), and sssuming the muzzle break isn't a flash suppressor, it seems as legal as the stock Bushy brake.

The big question; is there anything illegal with then attaching a (legally owned) QD suppressor to the AR?

The suppressor doesn't thread on, so it doesn't violate any items in section (A). There's no verbage about removable stuff at the end of a barrel, except for having threading. My friends stance/argument is that a sound suppressor also suppresses flash, so it falls under setion (iv). With this logic though, an integrally suppressed upper would be illegal. To my knowledge, something like this is in fact legal in CT:

http://www.lauerweaponry.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=LCWC9

Or is it just all about the fixed brake?

Of course there's the whole suppressor mount debate here to mix things up...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=20&t=285453&page=1

Thoughts?

 

[gss]

Additionally, I've heard this:

"Once you SBR a rifle, all 922r compliance is out the window. SBR status trumps it. You can attach any suppressor you like however you like."

Interesting...???

 

[Cross-X]

Get your post up a bit and use the Search function. (grin)

 

[tmitney]

My 2 cents:

SBR or not makes no difference in CT law; NFA registration does not exempt a firearm from state assault weapons law(s). However, a barrel length of less than 12 inches makes your “rifle” a “pistol” under CT statute....and assault weapons rules are different (worse, ) for evil feature count. 922r does not apply to SBRs as NFA weapons are considered to be non-sporting, and 922r addresses changing a sporting rifle into non-sporting …yadayada… I agree with your statement.
I say a silencer is a flash hider because it hides the flash better than any traditional flash hider ever could. That said, a very knowledgeable gun dealer I trust clams different. Both are individual opinions.
You will not get an answer from the SLFU or State’s Attorney office if you ask them that question (I have tried a question similar to this). Not really their fault, there often are different factors and things need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I say the only way to get a clear ruling is by the judge in a criminal case after one has been charged with a crime, and nobody wants that (especially you, who is obviously trying to OBEY the law to begin with!).
You walk on thin ice when trying to get “close” to an assault rife. I do the same thing, and do think the same way as you. I’m very proud of myself for recently making a CT ban compliant krink that actually looks like a krink!
I also think a silencer QD mount, permanently attached, with a brake, is a violation because it has some type of threads to attach the silencer to the rifle. That was clearly the legislative intend behind the ban statute (attaching silencers and flash hiders). Who knows, in court it could be found that a 3 lug set up equates to “threads” because it essentially does the same thing as actual threads… You never know. Even if you’re eventually cleared of the charge(s), the legal fees and embarrassment would be horrific in unlikely event that you got charged with a violation.

I like your question, very thought provoking. Interesting point made with the suppressed upper interpretation as well.

Your solution is simple, use a pre-ban non-Colt receiver and do with it as you wish.

Regards.

 

[CTbuilder1]

Additionally, I've heard this:

"Once you SBR a rifle, all 922r compliance is out the window. SBR status trumps it. You can attach any suppressor you like however you like."

Interesting...???

Once you SBR a rifle, 922r compliance is out the window - True

That does not mean anything as far as the CT AWB goes. This does not give you the ability to add a flash hider, or collapsible stock, etc. 922r wouldn't even apply to an AR15, it applies to imports.

CT had no definition of a silencer in the statute. The ATF considers a silencer a flash supressor. For this reason I would not want a silencer hanging off the end of a post ban AR15 in CT.

There would be no issue with having a silencer mount in CT. The issue would arise as sson as you actually mount the silencer. If you are in the market for NFA items then you should consider using a preban rifle as the host. The added expense is well worth getting rid of AWB hassles.

 

[Riverview Sales]

CT considers a supperssor a flash hider. So putting one on an AR would make it a ban weapon in CT.

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) A bayonet mount;

(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v) A grenade launcher

so the only way to put on a suppressor would be to get rid of the pistol grip.
and that would look funny.

People are useing pre ban's to have them on AR's

 

[gss]

Thank you all for your comments! Though I'm lost on what Cross-X said.

So if the general consensus is that a suppressor is a flash hider (of course without actually going to court and finding out), are integrally suppressed barrels out too then (for AR's), like the Lauer one I mentioned above? I've asked at shops before, and they say it's legal. Perhaps the key though is putting it on a pre-ban receiver...

To that end, I wonder if something like this is legal on a regular lower in CT:

http://www.tacticalsol.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=27&idproduct=879

 

[CTbuilder1]

Thank you all for your comments! Though I'm lost on what Cross-X said.

So if the general consensus is that a suppressor is a flash hider (of course without actually going to court and finding out), are integrally suppressed barrels out too then (for AR's), like the Lauer one I mentioned above? I've asked at shops before, and they say it's legal. Perhaps the key though is putting it on a pre-ban receiver...

To that end, I wonder if something like this is legal on a regular lower in CT:

http://www.tacticalsol.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=27&idproduct=879

No, it's not.

 

[CTbuilder1]

CT considers a supperssor a flash hider. So putting one on an AR would make it a ban weapon in CT.

Not entirely true. As I stated before CT has no definition of a silencer in the statute. I would agree that if it came down to it and someone was arrested for it, the court would probably apply BATFE definition.

 

[Twinsen]

Not entirely true. As I stated before CT has no definition of a silencer in the statute. I would agree that if it came down to it and someone was arrested for it, the court would probably apply BATFE definition.

And what is BATFE definition? Silencer counts or doesn't count?

 

[Twinsen]

No, it's not.

Why is that not legal?

 

[dcmdon]

Silencers are legal in CT. Several reputable dealers throughout the state sell them. They are not mentioned in any statutes, so they are legal.

If you want to thread a silencer onto something like an AR, you need to pony up for a pre-ban, non-colt lower receiver. Period. This will allow you to build up an AR with any combination of flash suppressors, threaded bbls, bayonet lugs, and collapsible stocks that your heart desires and they are not considered an AW by CT law. A pre-ban, non-colt lower will run 500-600 for a good stripped lower. About a $400 premium. I've got a pre-ban DPMS to go with my LMT 10.5" upper and Gemtech suppressor and it works great.

If you silver soldered a quick detach muzzle brake (can't be a flash hider) onto your post ban gun, like the one below, you could use that to support a removable sound suppressor.

Don

 

[dcmdon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gss
Thank you all for your comments! Though I'm lost on what Cross-X said.

So if the general consensus is that a suppressor is a flash hider (of course without actually going to court and finding out), are integrally suppressed barrels out too then (for AR's), like the Lauer one I mentioned above? I've asked at shops before, and they say it's legal. Perhaps the key though is putting it on a pre-ban receiver...

To that end, I wonder if something like this is legal on a regular lower in CT:

http://www.tacticalsol.com/store/pc/...&idproduct=879
No, it's not.


CT builder, you are incorrect. That tacsol upper is perfectly legal.

1) it is not threaded on the end.
2) it is 16 inches or greater in length.

Thats it. Period. Integrally suppressed weapons are 100% perfectly legal in CT.

If you think I'm wrong, please tell me why. But before you do, make a call to any of the many Class 3 dealers in CT who sell suppressors and ask them what they think.

Don

 

[gss]

You guys are killing me with the back and forth

Seriously though, I'm appreciative of the dialog. Obviously there's grey area here and it's coming down to opinions and interpretation. That makes me feel a little better that I didn't ask a completely obvious noob question

For what it's worth, I asked both Lauer and Tactical Solutions some pretty pointed questions about their integrally suppressed units:

**********************
1. Is your XXX product legal in CT because it's assumed that it will somehow be assembled with a pre-ban lower?

2. Are integrally suppressed barrels/uppers not in fact considered flash hiders, and therefore there is no issue putting them on post-ban lowers?
**********************

Thus far, only Lauer has responded, indicating some speculation (not unlike the thoughts in this thread), and that for a definitive answer they will need to get back to me after speaking with the CT State Police and BATF.

Very nice of them to acknowledge the question at all in my opinion. I'll certainly let you all know if/when I hear more.

 

[Twinsen]

Thank you for asking those people. I eagerly await any answers you receive.

I cannot believe the situation we are in every time we want to do anything with one of these guns. Everything is illegal! I spent around $500 extra to get parts and labor for building an AR that I thought would be legal now to find out it might not be. It is in parts that are stored in separate ownership in different towns until I find out if it is legal to put all the parts in the same building and assemble them.

And I'm going to buy a pre-ban lower anyway. I'll get myself a nice stock for it to make it all worthwhile. Goodbye another $1,000. At least I'll have a pile of AR parts sitting around that I can sell at half price to friends. I figure I should be able to recoup $100 or so. I'll call a few places and ask them to look for a receiver for me.

 

[CTbuilder1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gss
Thank you all for your comments! Though I'm lost on what Cross-X said.

So if the general consensus is that a suppressor is a flash hider (of course without actually going to court and finding out), are integrally suppressed barrels out too then (for AR's), like the Lauer one I mentioned above? I've asked at shops before, and they say it's legal. Perhaps the key though is putting it on a pre-ban receiver...

To that end, I wonder if something like this is legal on a regular lower in CT:

http://www.tacticalsol.com/store/pc/...&idproduct=879
No, it's not.


CT builder, you are incorrect. That tacsol upper is perfectly legal.

1) it is not threaded on the end.
2) it is 16 inches or greater in length.

Thats it. Period. Integrally suppressed weapons are 100% perfectly legal in CT.

If you think I'm wrong, please tell me why. But before you do, make a call to any of the many Class 3 dealers in CT who sell suppressors and ask them what they think.

Don

I know silencers are legal. I own them. I am talking about post ban AR15s. In the underlined part above I took "regular lower" to mean postban lower.

 

[gss]

CTbuilder1, yes, you are correct by what I meant with "regular lower" meaning postban.

Twinsen, I totally agree, this is all a giant PITA. For example, something I'd really like to do is SBR my Special Weapsons SP-10 AND get a suppressor on it. I don't think there's anything stopping me from doing the SBR, but I would imagine the same AWB stuff that applies to AR's applies to the SP-10.

For those not familar, this is the SP-10 (and mine looks identical, with the fake barrel shroud):

http://alpinetek.netfirms.com/guns/sp10/01.jpg

For those that ARE familiar, I don't need to hear your opinions on how bad Special Weapsons guns suck...I've had zero problems with mine, with thousands of rounds through it

 

[CTbuilder1]

CTbuilder1, yes, you are correct by what I meant with "regular lower" meaning postban.

Twinsen, I totally agree, this is all a giant PITA. For example, something I'd really like to do is SBR my Special Weapsons SP-10 AND get a suppressor on it. I don't think there's anything stopping me from doing the SBR, but I would imagine the same AWB stuff that applies to AR's applies to the SP-10.

For those not familar, this is the SP-10 (and mine looks identical, with the fake barrel shroud):

http://alpinetek.netfirms.com/guns/sp10/01.jpg

For those that ARE familiar, I don't need to hear your opinions on how bad Special Weapsons guns suck...I've had zero problems with mine, with thousands of rounds through it

I've actually been hearing some issues with postban SBR's with barrels 12" or less. It has something to do with how CT defines a pistol. There is a lot of controversy in this area.

 

[tmitney]

Yep. The only factor / feature/ whatever in CT law in determining if is something is a pistol or rifle is barrel length. Actual practice and application may vary, but the statutory definition seems clear to me...

 

[BossHarley]

Another thing that I have been told by a SGT at the DEP. You cannot legally own any item that could easily be installed on a compliant weapon, and therefore make it non-compliant. For Instance, you cannot legally own a folding/telescoping stock for an AR, even if it is not installed on the weapon. Of course if you have at least one pre-ban lower etc you could probably slide by....
Suppressors are certainly legal and I have shot a number of friends suppressed weapons. There was a suppressed AR at the last Metacon 3-gun match, and K5 arms, Newington Gun Exch always have suppressors in stock.

 

[Twinsen]

Another thing that I have been told by a SGT at the DEP. You cannot legally own any item that could easily be installed on a compliant weapon, and therefore make it non-compliant. For Instance, you cannot legally own a folding/telescoping stock for an AR, even if it is not installed on the weapon. Of course if you have at least one pre-ban lower etc you could probably slide by....
Suppressors are certainly legal and I have shot a number of friends suppressed weapons. There was a suppressed AR at the last Metacon 3-gun match, and K5 arms, Newington Gun Exch always have suppressors in stock.

You cannot legally own any part or assembly that you can illegally assemble on a gun if you do not have a gun that you can legally assemble that part on. If you have one preban AR, you can have anything.

Also I wouldn't go by what other people own for legality. People can do illegal things without you noticing.

 

[tmitney]

I sent two letters asking the question about owning a pre-ban receiver w/ spare pre-ban uppers, and also owning post-ban receiver(s)... DPS never responded and the Chief States Atty Office sent a nice letter declining the opportunity to answer my question. That situation is a real slippery slope if you ask me. The pre-ban receiver (etc.) could be considered part(s) to convert your cute and cuddly post-ban AR15 into an evil fire-breathing legislator-scaring assault rifle.

 

[Twinsen]

Well, in the United States, everything is legal unless explicitly illegal.

So is a silencer considered a flash suppressor by CT law? Not written law, no.

Could you please post that letter online? I'm sure the answer to your question is that, yes, it is legal. But man, that letter sounds like GOLD. Pure. Gold.

 

[tmitney]

The problem with statutes is that they often are, and are intended to be, written in a manner that is not uber-specific. This allows for the court (ie "the people") to interpret the law and apply the law with some applied discretion and sense. I don't know if a silencer would be considered to be a flash hider in CT, but the fact that it does in fact hide the flash makes it very possible that it could be considered as such (as an example). A horse of another color maybe, but it is probably still is considered a "horse" under statute as applied by the court.

 

[Darth AkSarBen]

A silencer is considered a suppressor under the NFA rules and requires both the regitstration, serial number and the $200 exise tax fee that flash suppressors or muzzle brakes do not have. If you get caught with an unregistered suppressor, which is Federal, it is a felony punishable by 30 years.

 

[Twinsen]

A silencer is considered a suppressor under the NFA rules and requires both the regitstration, serial number and the $200 exise tax fee that flash suppressors or muzzle brakes do not have. If you get caught with an unregistered suppressor, which is Federal, it is a felony punishable by 30 years.

Right, but the question is does the silencer count as a "flash suppressor" in CT ban law. It doesn't say so, but people here are saying that it does count, even though it isn't written so.

 

[Twinsen]

but the fact that it does in fact hide the flash makes it very possible that it could be considered as such (as an example). A horse of another color maybe, but it is probably still is considered a "horse" under statute as applied by the court.

So does a muzzle brake that is considered not a flash hider. The difference is usually the shape of the holes. Circular cuts or vertical gills being muzzle brakes and those with horizontal slits being called flash hiders.

 

[tmitney]

I would use the Fed USC definition of silencer as an example. It doesn't say "a tube with baffles that threads on to the muzzle and reduces dB output by XX%" It is more broad, leaves more open to interpretation... a coke bottle, a potato, a pillow taped to the muzzle... silencers? maybe. Depends on what the intent was and what thier actual function is. So is a silencer considered a flashhider in CT? I do not believe that anyone knows for sure; that will be determined on a case by case basis if needed (ie court case). We have a difference of opinion on this board, I say a silncer is a flash hider. I say this becasue that is the safe assumption. Maybe a silencer would not fall under the definition of a flahhider, but what if did??? My 2 cents.
Silencer definition for convenience: 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24)
The terms "firearm silencer" and "firearm muffler" mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

 

[Twinsen]

I assume it is legal, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna be using one on a post-ban AR-15 anytime soon. I trust the government as much as I can... uhh... fly. yeah.

 

[CTbuilder1]

So does a muzzle brake that is considered not a flash hider. The difference is usually the shape of the holes. Circular cuts or vertical gills being muzzle brakes and those with horizontal slits being called flash hiders.

So does a muzzle brake that is considered not a flash hider. The difference is usually the shape of the holes. Circular cuts or vertical gills being muzzle brakes and those with horizontal slits being called flash hiders.

The difference is that one supresses the flash and the other doesn't. Regardless of the shape or size of holes or slots. It is not the physical appearance of the device that matters but the function of said device.

If you are specifically talking about the PWS FC556 - it has been ruled by the BATFE as a non-flash supressing device. The Very same BATFE considers a silencer a flash supressing device.