FICG And Dead Air Armament File An Opposition To ATF 29P -The Firearm Blog

Friend, attorney and fellow blogger Adam Kraut has filed comments in opposition to ATF’s recently proposed rule-making dubbed 29P on behalf of Silencer manufacturer Dead Air Armament. If you remember from our story a few months back, 29P seeks to change the way silencer manufacturers mark their NFA-registered products. Currently manufacturers can mark serial numbers, locations and models anywhere on the silencer – tubes, end caps, etc. The ATF is proposing that going forward, only markings on tubes will be allowed.

Obviously, the rule change has broad implications for manufacturers and consumers alike. Topping the list is the possible effects on repairs to damaged suppressors and Form 1 “home-made” silencers.

From the Prince Law Blog:

The Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., is pleased to announce that it was retained by Dead Air Armament (“Dead Air”) to prepare a detailed filing in opposition to ATF’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) 29P. Dead Air has combined the brains and passion of both Mike Pappas and Gary Hughes to bring to the market some of the most innovative and anticipated silencers of the past year.

Because there is a delay in the posting of newly filed comments on http://www.regulations.gov, a copy is available for your viewing here.

An inspection of the docket this morning showed that no other silencer companies have filed a comment in opposition to this ANPR, making Dead Air the first in the silencer industry to take charge in the fight to prevent additional, unnecessary regulations.

Excerpts from the ‘Comments to the Opposition’ filing:

From subsection ii:

Nowhere in the docket does ATF cite to statistics, examples or other information where a silencer that was marked in a location other than the “outer tube” was unable to be identified after being recovered in a crime, was transferred between other silencer bodies that were unregistered or otherwise used in the evasion of other NFA rules. As such, the entire basis for this ANPR is at best a sham and utilized by NFATCA for its own personal agenda and positions, in the absence of any Industry support.

From subsection iii:

Nowhere in the comment submitted by NFATCA do they attempt to correct, dispel or otherwise address issues that they raised as the basis for the petition to have ATF enter into rulemaking or explain that contrary to their assertion, they do not represent the Firearms Industry. As such, they have left it to others within the community, who they do not represent, to adequately address the issues they raised. 2 Unfortunately for the rest of the community, regardless of whether NFATCA withdraws its petition, ATF is not required to have a petition to enter into rulemaking. As a result, such an action is at best more akin to a gesture to gain good will of the Industry and likely to save face, rather than to meaningfully participate in the rulemaking process that its petition was the basis for.

Conclusion:

For the reasons set-forth above, ATF lacks the authority to define what is an “outer tube”. ATF should thoroughly consider the comments in opposition to proposed changes contained in this comment as well as the implications of the proposed changes, specifically the effects it will have on stifling innovation within one of the fastest growing segments of the firearms industry.

A copy of the filing can be found on the Prince Law Blog here.

The Firearms Industry Consulting Group:

(A Division Of Prince Law Offices)

646 Lenape Rd,
Bechtelsville, PA 19505
1-888-313-0416