PDA

View Full Version : Legality of a Fake silencer/suppressor on a rifle


MustangGreg66
10-31-2010, 6:06 PM
Ok, so I tried to search for this and I read a lot but I didn't find an answer...

I shot a rimfire match today with a Spikes Tactical ST-22 AR upper I bought from them a while back. It's the version they were selling for a while with a fake silencer that says Spikes Tactical on the side with their logo. Anyway, at the end of the match I was talking to a guy I was shooting with and he said there was a thread on calguns about a CA law that passed that made fake silencers illegal.

I thought maybe he was incorrectly quoting the AW ban or something else, but he seemed adament that it was in fact illegal now. I thought I kept up with this kind of thing pretty well, did I miss something? Are fake silencers/suppressors illegal in CA now?



For full details, this is a dedicated .22LR AR rifle. So this is NOT a pistol with a threaded barrel, or a centerfire rifle where someone could argue incorrectly that it's a flash suppressor (no holes). In fact it more resembles a barrel shrowd since the muzzle runs flush to the front of the device.

Noobert
10-31-2010, 6:07 PM
Perhaps he was referring to the ATI GSG5SD fake silencer?

Rukus
10-31-2010, 6:18 PM
:fud:

Exile Machine
10-31-2010, 6:33 PM
Fake Silencers suppress neither sound nor flash and as such are legal to use.

BTW since I'm a vendor/retailer on this site I would be remiss if I failed to mention that I've got select Spike's fake cans on the store at a 5% discount this week... https://www.exilemachine.net/shop/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=6

MustangGreg66
10-31-2010, 6:54 PM
Yeah the ATI thing was all I could find when I did my search. My understanding was that had something to do with them being imported from Germany? I still don't quite understand that one...

I really hate how people spread untruths. My dad always gets FUD from his buddy at work, some nth degree of the slippery slope of some law that's just starting to be written or misinturpretation of something that's on the books or about to be.... so I end up doing the research to set them all straight. Not that we don't have some bull $h1t laws, but some people make it seem so much worse than it is....

J-cat
10-31-2010, 6:57 PM
Isn't it great when people talk out of their arsch?

ke6guj
10-31-2010, 7:01 PM
Yeah the ATI thing was all I could find when I did my search. My understanding was that had something to do with them being imported from Germany? I still don't quite understand that one...


the problem had to do with the design of the fake suppressor, not the country of origin. ATF felt that it was too easily covertable to something that would actually suppress some of the sound, making it an unregistered silencer.

Anchors
10-31-2010, 8:05 PM
Yeah the ATI thing was all I could find when I did my search. My understanding was that had something to do with them being imported from Germany? I still don't quite understand that one...

I really hate how people spread untruths. My dad always gets FUD from his buddy at work, some nth degree of the slippery slope of some law that's just starting to be written or misinturpretation of something that's on the books or about to be.... so I end up doing the research to set them all straight. Not that we don't have some bull $h1t laws, but some people make it seem so much worse than it is....

Yeah. I am constantly educating classmates, coworkers, and sometimes fellow firearms enthusiasts.

"No, unregistered handguns aren't all necessarily illegal. Yes, that rifle is legal in CA. No, you don't have to store ammo separately. No, it isn't illegal to have a loaded magazine next to the unloaded firearm, that is a special situation for known gang-members."
A guy that works at a shooting range pretty much refused to believe me on the last one.
I'm always nice about it though. It's good to educate in a constructive matter. It helps reduce the stigma and mystique surround firearms.

Munk
10-31-2010, 8:08 PM
the problem had to do with the design of the fake suppressor, not the country of origin. ATF felt that it was too easily covertable to something that would actually suppress some of the sound, making it an unregistered silencer.

This, and the complications with the GSG5, if a fake suppressor offers ANY measurable reduction in dB, then it is considered a suppressor by law, and thus you are boned.

If it's essentially a barrel shroud that has the barrel go all the way through the "can" then it SHOULDN'T suppress sound, however if your rifle is already quiet (.22lr) you might have to spend a little bit of time talking with an overzealous cop.

also... those Spike's cans are pretty cool decorations.

MustangGreg66
10-31-2010, 8:50 PM
This, and the complications with the GSG5, if a fake suppressor offers ANY measurable reduction in dB, then it is considered a suppressor by law, and thus you are boned.

If it's essentially a barrel shroud that has the barrel go all the way through the "can" then it SHOULDN'T suppress sound, however if your rifle is already quiet (.22lr) you might have to spend a little bit of time talking with an overzealous cop.

also... those Spike's cans are pretty cool decorations.

Ah, interesting, now I wanna go look at the GSG closer haha.

yeah I got the Car-1 fake can that goes all the way over the barrel. I even tried flipping it around and use it sort of like a "bloop-tub" that some of the long range .22LR shooters use, but it doesn't lessen the sound at all.

The bloop tube I'm refering too is a sight extention tube sometimes used by highpower and other long range iron sight shooters. I've heard one fired, a .22 LR bolt action with probably ~26" barrel, subsonic target ammo and this 6-8" sight extention, all you hear is a "Blooop".

With the 16" AR barrel I don't notice a diffrence with device attached or not. The length of barrel has a lot to do with it. Maybe they should consider a barrel longer than 18" a method of sound supression in .22LR :rolleyes: ... or maybe I should just shutup and stop giving them ideas :oops: