PDA

View Full Version : interesting silencer case U.S. v. CROOKER


gunsmith
06-21-2010, 7:17 PM
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100618081

Of course, this literal construction poses no barrier to prosecuting anyone who knowingly possesses a commercial silencer. In such a case, it would be suitable to charge that the jury need only find that the defendant knowingly possessed a device designed to be used as silencer for firearm. The defendant's purpose becomes a pivotal issue only for a device not so designed, but that is the case before us; or at least the government's evidence and arguments leave it in that posture.[ 5 ]

As a practical matter, this leaves a loophole for other devices not so designed which we do not mean to minimize. Congress might well think that there are devices like airgun silencers that can be so readily adapted to use with conventional firearms that their possession by felons ought to be prohibited without regard to purpose. A conventional solution is to provide that the Attorney General can make regulations defining objectively the devices that pose enough of a danger to warrant banning. Cf. 18 U.S.C. 841(d), 921(a)(4)(B), (17)(C).

xLusi0n
06-21-2010, 7:40 PM
So they reversed the conviction because an airgun silencer is NOT a firearm?

Malthusian
06-21-2010, 7:59 PM
So they reversed the conviction because an airgun silencer is NOT a firearm?

No more then a potato or an empty soda pop bottle
Unless you have an adapter for the potato that makes it readily attachable
and obvious that the user grew the potato with the intent to attach it to a firearm

Interesting though it mentions an "A" plus "B" component; firearm + silencer
Or the user having knowledge that the device in his possession is a silencer.

Which in fact could be a potato or soda bottle.

command_liner
06-21-2010, 8:34 PM
This case rehashes an important point. A silencer needs to be "attached to" the
firearm. Just how is attachment defined?

For example, with an AR-15 platform, I could make a handguard/float tube, and
a cover that tube that covered 179 degrees of the circumference. The cover
would always fall off unless the hand was gripping the the cover and tube, in which
case it would be rigid and parallel to the bore. It would be a small step to
add a device capable of muffling a rifle shot to such a cover.

In no case would the cover/muffler/silencer ever be attached to the firearm,
since it fall off under normal gravity unless it was being tightly held to the
floating buffer tube. The fact that one might be expected to tightly grip
the floating buffer tube while shooting is of no concern; a firearm is a firearm
regardless of it being held or fired. The definition of "is a firearm" does not
change depending on the act of pulling the trigger or holding the device.

The way the law has been interpreted, such a configuration would not be
illegal.

No, I do not want to try it. No, I do not want to build it. OTOH, a fully
automatic black powder rifle using those new pelletized charges sounds
like an interesting project.

Mstrty
06-21-2010, 8:37 PM
great read
Even though the guy is a scumbag. The reversal was the correct action.

as an example a glass-pack is a muffle designed to muffle sound. discussing the fease-ability of converting it to something other than what it was intended doesnt make it a firearm suppressor. Good reversal.

Crom
06-21-2010, 10:35 PM
Agreed. It was an interesting read. Thanks for posting.

kel-tec-innovations
06-21-2010, 10:40 PM
a fully
automatic black powder rifle using those new pelletized charges sounds
like an interesting project.

Sounds pretty cool