Sound Suppressor considered a "flash suppressor" per MD law?

[outrider58]

Haha, sorry. I'm not your man. I've already arrived at my conclusion and I'm not arrogant enough to request that MSP provide an opinion - eliminating the possibility for others to come to their own conclusions.

For the record the ATF/GCA definition is: 'The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.'

The federal definition is clearly focused on sound as opposed to vision - which is the subject of the MD definition. I personally believe that a "silencer" does redirect perceptible flash and consequently meets both definitions - but that could still be argued.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And we'd probably lose that argument even though flash suppression is an unintended benefit, not an intended result of a sound suppressor.

 

[clandestine]

And we'd probably lose that argument even though flash suppression is an unintended benefit, not an intended result of a sound suppressor.

Suppressors are also used by teams that have to be cautious of things that can go BOOM that are not firearms. Powders, Fumes, Gasses and such.

They dont use them for sound reduction in that application.

 

[outrider58]

Suppressors are also used by teams that have to be cautious of things that can go BOOM that are not firearms. Powders, Fumes, Gasses and such.

They dont use them for sound reduction in that application.

Not to argue the point but, isn't that also an unintended benefit?

 

[clandestine]

Not to argue the point but, isn't that also an unintended benefit?

It's a function of the device. Just because something suppresses noise does not mean it's not a flash suppressor. ATF has ruled that's silencers are flash suppressors in regards to their function.

 

[mopar92]

To me there will always be a disconnect but I guess if you can call a shoestring a machine gun anythings possible.

But thanks fo da info so I donts commits a felony.

 

[swinokur]

Even a flash hider and a folding stock make it a copycat under MD law.

Be very careful here IMO.

As has been pointed out by Nate, the MD law says if it FUNCTIONS as a flash suppressor, it is illegal if you have 2 features.

The function is what defines it, not it's name or other design.

IANAL. Nate is.

 

[outrider58]

It's a function of the device. Just because something suppresses noise does not mean it's not a flash suppressor. ATF has ruled that's silencers are flash suppressors in regards to their function.

Gotcha

 

[AssMan]

Think I know the answer to this, but wanted to confirm. I can't attach a suppressor (Gemtech, AAC, etc.) to an SBR with a folding stock (at least in MD), as it then becomes a copycat, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the helpful info folks. Nothing "stupid" or "clever" going on here, just a discussion.

 

[Drew1340]

pertaining to centerfire rifles though correct? say a handgun caliber sbr with folding stock and silencer is this still banned? actual question, not trying to suggest anything, so like a mp5 clone with folding stock and suppressor? legal or not? as it is a sbr and pistol essentially in md, not a centerfire rifle...

 

[clandestine]

pertaining to centerfire rifles though correct? say a handgun caliber sbr with folding stock and silencer is this still banned? actual question, not trying to suggest anything, so like a mp5 clone with folding stock and suppressor? legal or not? as it is a sbr and pistol essentially in md, not a centerfire rifle...

Rimfire, is excluded so yes it can have folders and flash hiders. They can also be under 29" OAL.

The handgun caliber option means nothing, centerfire and semiautomatic is how MD differentiates the banned features.

SBR in a pistol caliber is still a centerfire rifle AND a handgun at once per current MSP intrepration.

 

[erwos]

The function is what defines it, not it's name or other design.

Be careful there. Nate correctly quoted the law, and the law is clear that "intending" to function as a flash suppressor also counts. That's why any device on the market that advertises flash reduction as a benefit is a flash suppressor in MD law's eyes, even if it sucks or does not function at reducing flash. So, yes, designing it to be a flash hider does count... at least if you advertise it as such, or it functions as such.

 

[swinokur]

true, I stand corrected.

 

[AssMan]

Many are probably in constructive possession of a "copycat" as well...at least if you own a suppressor or flash hider and a rifle with a folding stock. Hopefully we can get an official opinion on that soon.

 

[clandestine]

Many are probably in constructive possession of a "copycat" as well...at least if you own a suppressor or flash hider and a rifle with a folding stock. Hopefully we can get an official opinion on that soon.

 

[AssMan]

But true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[outrider58]

Many are probably in constructive possession of a "copycat" as well...at least if you own a suppressor or flash hider and a rifle with a folding stock. Hopefully we can get an official opinion on that soon.

Puts me in the clear then. No folders here.

 

[AssMan]

Puts me in the clear then. No folders here.

Lost my rifles in a boating accident. Was able to recover everything but the muzzle devices.

 

[tc617]

Many are probably in constructive possession of a "copycat" as well...at least if you own a suppressor or flash hider and a rifle with a folding stock. Hopefully we can get an official opinion on that soon.

If the opinion doesn't go our way we'll just blame Chad.

 

[erwos]

Many are probably in constructive possession of a "copycat" as well...at least if you own a suppressor or flash hider and a rifle with a folding stock. Hopefully we can get an official opinion on that soon.

There's no such thing as constructive possession of a copycat weapon, or an ALG for that matter. Let's not invent new imaginary stupidity, given how much real actual stupidity we've already got to deal with.

 

[swinokur]

i believe these posts were sarcasm.