The ATF’s battle against gun owners and gun shops has extended to gun manufacturers as well. Now the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is being sued by Sig Sauer for classifying the gun maker’s muzzle brake as a silencer.
Remember it wasn’t long ago that the ATF raided a California gun shop
The problem for the ATF is that the thing they classified as a silencer does not silence or even muffle because that is not what it was made to do. Sig Sauer’s muzzle brake is intended to “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged”.
By classifying the part as a silencer the ATF made on obvious decision to either put their ignorance on display or purposely hurt the economics of the gun maker.
According to Seacoastonline,
Sig claims that gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting it to “economic injury.”
“If classified as a silencer, no market exists for the subject device given that it will not silence, muffle, or diminish the report of a firearm and yet it would still be subject to the burdensome requirements set forth above as if it really is a silencer,” Sig argues through Manchester attorney Mark Rouvalis and Virginia attorney Stephen Halbrook.
This erroneous classification would make it impossible for Sig Sauer to sell the device.
If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn’t perform as a silencer, Sig claims.
Sig Sauer did their best to try to help the ATF to do their job. They sent a letter to the agency reporting that the device actually amplified the sound, so any reports calling it a silencer were obviously wrong. But the ATF just couldn’t admit their mistake.
The gun maker also informed that ATF that their muzzle brake actually worked to correct recoil as it was INTENDED to do in their independent tests.
But the ATF is sticking with it’s original error that the device is a silencer, not allowing the facts to get in the way of their decision.
Sig Sauer’s lawsuit seeks to receive compensation for costs and damages and I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t win, provided someone is not paid out or corrupted. But that could never happen in our legal system, right?