Airgun Moderators.....What’s the Legal Issues??

[Bitey]

That's kind of my point, the SCOTUS ruled that firearms are "arms" under the the terms of the 2A, in their 2008 ruling, Scalia made it more clear than ever that anyone had a qualifying right to own a firearm. They did not specify "any" arms in this regard, only firearms, which makes this more important to airguns.

There's also the the 1968 ruling:  Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)

I can't ready find the more-recent ruling by the feds, but I am sure that a google search for Crooker or other related keywords will find it in there.

A ruling that firearms are "arms" isn't the same as a ruling that only firearms are "arms." From Heller:

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). 

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added). Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Bitey]

Yes, but there is no current ruling that protects airguns.

You're not going to get a ruling that specifically determines that airguns are protected under the 2nd Amendment unless it's litigated. That doesn't mean that airguns aren't protected. Absent such litigation, you would have to rely on the definition of "arms" in various Supreme Court cases.

Under Heller and Caetano, I would expect airguns to be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Saltlake58]

The tricky part is that if you construct a moderator for an airgun, that can be used on a firearm, it's covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That's Alphabet org's argument, and that's the argument the courts rejected in the Crooker. It doesn't matter if the LCD can be used on the firearm for 1 shot or 1,000 shots. What matters is whether the person in possession of the LCD intends to use it on a firearm. If there's no intent, then Alphabet org has no jurisdiction over the airgun LCD, no matter how much they may contend that they do.

Crooker won $172k for his wrongful conviction. Alphabet org will get slapped that hard or harder next time they try that again, absent a change in the law from Congress.

Intent is one of those tricky things. If you have a suppressor that fits on an airgun, and have the proper adapter for a firearm, I'll bet they can make the intent argument stick. After all, if you have the correct adapter, and a firearm with the proper threaded end, what else would you have the suppressor for? Each case is different, and lawyers are an interesting bunch (I've worked with quite a few over the years). If the Alphabet org thinks they have a case, they'll pursue and cost you a boatload with costs and years fighting it out.

We all need to be very careful about moderators on firearms, which to me is completely bizarre. I don't believe there's been a case in 50 years where a suppressor was used to commit a crime, and England encourages suppressors to avoid irritating and alarming the neighbors.

To top that off, If I remember correctly, a suppressor on a AR-15 reduces the report from 160 Plus decibels to 130 or so. 130 is the sound of a jack hammer at about 5 feet.

Anyway, back to the subject of intent. In htis case, good judge, we don't know what shennanigans were pulled in the back room that may have irritated the judge, or the judge's political leanings. Sounds like the judge is a judge, not an activist. All good things that worked in Crooker's favor. I didn't look to see what District the case was from, but I doubt it would have been the same results in the 9th circuit.

Further, the case revolved around something like this statement, "“could probably be adapted for use as a silencer on a powder burner.” Since it had not already been adapted (part of making it usable on a firearm), they couldn't prove intent. That's a danged thin line.

 

[Bullfrog]

You have to remember that the trail court judge and jury convicted Crooker and sentenced him to about 21 years in prison. Crooker's case was overturned by the appellate court, the 1st Circuit. Those judges that overturned the conviction wouldn't have been party to any backroom deals or shenanigans in the case. They're only looking at the law and the 4 corners of the case transcript. 

The way case law works, when one appellate court addresses an issue, and no other appellate court addresses the same issue, that one court opinion stands as binding over all Circuits. The Crooker case might as well be a US Supreme Court decision in terms of how binding it is. If Alphabet org prosecutes someone for having an airgun suppressor now with no evidence of intent to use on a firearm, it will be subject to dismissal by default under the Crooker case and the Feds would be subject to another suit. Any money you spent fighting it you'd get back several times over. That's a quirk of the Federal system that doesn't exist in my state system.

About the only danger area the Crooker case left open was the possibility that matching adapters between the airgun suppressor and a firearm could be evidence of intent. The court expressly stated that such could be evidence of intent. That's a simple work around. Don't own an airgun suppressor that is threaded to match your firearms. Also, don't use a suppressor made for a firearm on your airguns. When you buy one, make sure there's nothing in the advertisement or info for it that also indicates is used for rimfires or other firearms.

All other evidence of intent is real evidence of intent. Gun powder residue in the suppressor. Statements that you use or intend to use it on a firearm. Ect. Evidence that ought not exist if your intentions are honest.

 

[Queequeg]

The threat is also that regulatory agencies now see fit to write regulations that suit their agenda regardless of public input or in some cases even the legality. In the Radio Control Aircraft community we found this out the hard way. When the Quad drones started to proliferate Congress mandated the FAA to regulate them and in this mandate the FAA was specifically prohibited from including any new regulations on legacy RC aircraft. They disregarded this and included RC aircraft in with Drones and forced us to register our aircraft. One individual with deep pockets sued the FAA and won. They then used lobbyists to get amenable congress critters to insert a small item into one of the frequent “Omnibus Spending Bills” and Trump signed it. Registration was not enough. Now we must display the number on the out side of the airframe. Next I would expect some sort of Federal Licensure as they’re doing with professional drones, and probably mandatory liability insurance. BTW most of us already have a policy through our organization (AMA). But anytime the government mandates insurance it goes through the roof. Now it’s 75 bucks a year for a million coverage. I can see a zero easily added to that 75.



It’s not a matter of if but when our benevolent masters will turn their attention to us. The RC community stood down and trusted the FAA to follow the law. It was a mistake as many foresaw. We need to remain vigilant if we want to keep our rights.

 

[BabySherman]

Sam, gotra pay for those illegals and terrorists somehow.

So what's the deal, can I thread on a Donnie Fl custom made LDC for my Evanix Max 357 in NY or is it illegal? 

30 days my Long Island house goes on the market and after 50 years here, we escape to conservative Tennessee, and I don't need the hassels of trying defend myself. 

 

[elh0102]

You know, sometimes, the less said, the better................

 

[davidsng]

Nobody really knows. Don't make an issue out of something that is not an issue.

 

[Nutcracker]

This has been gone over for a long time now & the Crooker case always comes up and that should have settled it. I hunt a lot of public land, & when I come out of the woods and head for the truck, I look around and see if anyone is close , then the last hundred yards I go fast get in the truck and leave. I feel I am totally legal, but I just don't want to have a confrontation from a conversation officer about that thing on the muzzle. He could be cool and not say a thing, but he could start asking questions, it could be awkward. However almost all airguns now have some kind of noise reducer on the muzzle , even the ones Walmart sales. So why would Walmart sell something that is illegal. I Iove air rifles and always have, but if I have to take the moderators from them I just as well go back to a rimfire & get my fed stamp for a silencer.