BREAKING: SD Tactical Shut Down For Selling Solvent Trap Parts

** I want to preface this by saying that we have covered the legality of solvent traps time and time again, they are not legal and can place you in a position that you do not want to be in. NFA laws are serious and should be taken serious. **

About 12 hours ago SD Tactical released a statement on the Book of Face stating that the ATF had shut their business down because they have determined that they were selling “suppressor parts” without proper licensing. Now it is no secret that many of the parts that SD Tactical was selling are used in Form 1 suppressors for home build cans, but for the ATF to step in and regulate the sale of car parts purchased from NAPA or Autozone is a bit of a stretch.

I am not a lawyer so the legalities of the matter are not something I can comment on but as an enthusiast, I have a hard time seeing what grounds the ATF used to shutter the small Veteran-owned business. The rational part of me sees the ATF position, but without looking at how the “solvent trap” parts were characterized on the site I can’t make a firm commitment to one side or the other.

While we are no politics here, I did get a chuckle about the final paragraph of the notice where SD Tactical pleaded with the internet to make it go viral so that the Trump Administration wold step in. Somehow I think that they have larger fish to fry right now.

I hope that SD Tactical figures out a new direction to take so that they do not disappear from the marketplace, but the market is already crouwded making a focus chance very hard. You can visit them on the web at the SD Tactical website.



Patrick R

Patrick is a Senior Writer for The Firearm Blog and Co-Director for TFBTV. He is a verified gun nerd and also podcasts at The Firearms Podcast. With a lifelong passion for shooting, he has a love for all types of firearms, especially overly modified plastic handguns, precision rifles, and AR based things. You can follow Patrick on Instagram @tfbpatrick, Facebook, or contact him by email at tfbpatrick@gmail.com.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • iDreamOfWeenie

    Well that’s some suppressing news

    • Brian G. Lowery

      Quiet!

    • Ambassador Vader

      Can it!

      haha

    • Kevin Riley

      Zip it! Zip it good!

    • iksnilol

      Well, Trump likes suppressing science… so suppressing gun manufacturers does kinda fit the bill (guns are kinda science).

      • Anonymoose

        Here’s to hoping he signs the HPA…

        • iksnilol

          I fail to see why he would.

          I mean, he could just veto it in spite of congress being republican or whatnot.

          • Anonymoose

            But why would he veto it?

          • OgBrog

            He doesn’t have to, all that’s needed for it to fail is a couple people like Lindsey graham voting against it.

          • glenn cheney

            I am currently soliciting BLUE Dog Democrats to contact Newt, The Grinch, to caucus with President Trump.
            We need 6, but if 12 come over, we will steamroll.
            “Leslie” Graham, Marco Rub, and John McCain won’t be needed, just shunned.
            Reality : Many Democrats are locked in Red States and 2018 looms, all Rep.’s and 1/3 the Senate.
            I am the person who first published the 3-to-5 million fraudulent votes, and yes , much of that number originates in Kalifornication.
            I’m two days behind this posse, but I can now see youse guys dust trail. …HERE’S THE DEAL: Sen. SESSIONS has tet to be confirmed. But will be. Soon as he’s in the saddle, you’ll see the changes, meanwhile ATF is being PARTED OUT TO FBI, DEA.
            I want to know WHO ordered the nomenclature/promugation/ NEW last minute interpretation.
            The rest will take care of its self.
            There is an internal PURGE ongoing, it’ll take time.
            No one knows, how far this goes until we see the BRASS on the GRASS.

          • iksnilol

            Maybe because he doesn’t really care about guns?

            Maybe because his previous history shows him having an anti-gun slant?

            I dunno, I honestly don’t know.

          • Anonymoose

            He’s a politician. The promises he made during this election cycle won’t be forgotten easily if he wants to get a second term, but at least he’s not Hillary. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc03e386059d3137e1b02d3fce1e736caab4090025e6a3659b1c5d0756751e74.jpg

          • iksnilol

            “He’s a politician…promises won’t be forgotten easily”

            THAT’S LITERALLY HIS JOB, fer cryin’ out loud.

          • Hanover Fist

            His track record is 100% so far.

          • iksnilol

            I dunno, in his book he wrote: “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,”

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            To be fair, that book was written in 1987. That was before I was born. I would die for views I hold today that I didn’t posses in ’87. I would look to the views of his sons (YUGE gun rights advocates) today than of himself back when Reagan was in office.

          • iksnilol

            His book is from 2000.

          • glenn cheney

            Trust me, President Trump will and is going to sign it and my guess is MORE.
            HE’S not your grandpa’s politician.

          • PersonCommenting

            Things change. Clintons were against gay marriage then they became for it. So many politicians have said and went back on things either because they thought they had to say it or truly believed in it and said it because of that. At the end of the day we will just have to wait and see. I think he would sign it but I wouldnt be surprised if he didnt. You never know what anyone else is truly thinking.

          • Hoosier Steve

            So far he is doing exactly what he said he would do.

          • Scott825

            Yep.

            100%

            Trump has already kept more promises in his first WEEK than B-rock O’traitor did in his entire irrelevancy.

          • Anonymoose

            Only if he doesn’t want a second term.

          • glenn cheney

            This is a different breed of cat. His sons can do a tennis ball at 600.
            Right now, there are global GCR’ frying, we have to help May pull Brexit across the finish line, TRADE PKG., we THINK we got the “chemtrail” spraying under control, We just fired a rogue muzzie ftom head of CIA, and all other agency heads were hand picked muzzies, lots to deal with here, but we’re in there chopping wood.
            I send up relevant “stuff” to those I think can utilize it.
            We’re working on 1934, 1986 at the source, plus ATF is going to get revamped and NEW LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVES “INSERTED.” The operative verbiage, “inserted.”
            Enjoy!

          • Tp

            Jonny Quest, ahh nope, never heard of him ☮

          • PersonCommenting

            While true I do think he would sign it.

          • RSG

            He’s already spoken on the HPA and national Reciprocity, saying he will sign both.

          • iksnilol

            So, plenty of other politicians said they were gonna take your guns, they didn’t.

            Y’know that politicians of all people aren’t obligated to tell the truth?

            There’s this concept called lip service.

          • Edeco

            Ooof, right in my feels. OK, if you must make me say it, he’ll probably sign because the pro gun side has momentum and resolve. Game recognize game.

          • Koolhed

            Do you have to interject your hatred of President Trump into EVERY single post?

          • iksnilol

            No… No I don’t, but I don’t either. Not my fault you’re such a sensitive bunch that you understand every little economic nuance or criticism as “hate”.

            I frankly am a bit saddened that you denigrate me in such a way. It is the intellectual equivalent of me calling you a poopyhead.

          • Scott825

            I don’t know if you guys have been paying attention, but Trump has already kept more promises in his first WEEK than B-rock O’traitor did in his entire irrelevancy.

            .

          • Brett

            Yeah. Given recent developments, I am not sharing the faith like most.

        • Joseph Goins

          HPA would not change anything about the manufacturing of silencers. They would still need to be made by a licensed manufacturer and contain a serial number so that gun shops can run a NICS check on the buyer.

          • Bradley

            If I understand the proposal correctly then it actually would change. If they are taken off the NFA list and basically classified as firearms then you don’t need as much red tape to buy, sell, or manufacture. As of now you can manufacture NFA items with a standard license you have to have an additional sot. I could be wrong about any detail, but it should make it easier on all parties involved. There’s also the fact that you don’t need a license to produce or sell most parts for firearms. If they weren’t NFA I would guess something like this would be similar to an 80% receiver legally.

          • Joseph Goins

            The red tape around AR lowers would still apply to suppressors. They didn’t serialize the “solvent traps” and sold them direct to the customers without background checks being conducted or taxes collected. Keep in mind that this scheme was 99% of their total income.

          • Bradley

            I’m not sure you read or understood what I said. If suppressors are classified as non NFA firearms then a part for one, or one that still needs machined, would not be regulated. At the very most it would require an ffl and a background check. How is that the same as needing a special license for both the manufacturer and seller, a $200 tax, fingerprints, registration, etc. for the buyer?

          • Joseph Goins

            I don’t think you understand the current law and the proposed Hearing Protection Act. All firearms (which by law includes silencers) are regulated products which require licensed manufacturing and sales. Certain types of those firearms (SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, silencers, destructive devices) have further regulations on the manufacturers, sellers, and buyers beyond what is needed to pick up any common gun. These extra regulations that affect the buyers are the tax stamp and Form 4 which has a long waiting period. HPA seeks to remove the extra regulations and would classify the product to be the same as a regular gun where you would still need to visit a FFL and fill out the Form 4473 and complete the NICS check (if applicable). At no point does the HPA remove any and all regulation from suppressors. If it passes, you will not be able to order one online and have it shipped to your house like you could with any product on Amazon.

          • Bradley

            That is exactly what I just said…twice. thanks though.

          • Joseph Goins

            It actually isn’t. It is currently a crime to sell “any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler” without going through the Form 4 background check and $200 tax. HPA wouldn’t eliminate that. It would only keep the background check. Ergo, it would still be a crime to sell someone “any combination of parts” that would be intended to make a suppressor.

          • Bradley

            Okay, you’re the expert. I’ll take your word for it.

          • RICH

            …..punishable by up to 10 years in a Federal penitentiary, a $250,000.00 fine and lose the right to own ‘any’ firearms ! ! ! OUCH !

          • Al Brautigam

            It doesn’t matter what 18 USC § 921(a)(24) says about silencers if they’re “treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act.”

            SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SILENCERS.

            Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

            “(f) Firearm Silencers.—A person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this subsection) with respect to such silencer.”.

          • Studies and Observations

            The point you are missing is that under Federal law you can legally manufacture your own Non-NFA firearm without paperwork. if Silencers/Suppressors are removed from the NFA and treated as Title 1 firearms, then there’s no Bar to making your own on the Federal Level. Under Federal Law i can machine my own 1911 frame if i have the equipment to do it, and never be required to put a SN or anything else on it, or to use a simpler example, a Slam-fire single-shot 12 Ga..as long as it meets the legal requirements for a Non-NFA firearm (18″ Bbl, 26″ OAL)

          • Charles

            You are right in the belief that you can manufacture ” for your own use” , -but- if you intend on transferring a home-made firearm to another party it MUST carry a unique serialization and markings as to where and by whom it was manufactured.
            Otherwise, don’t even think about selling it because Federal penalties are nothing to joke about.

          • Joseph Goins

            True; however, there are existing crimes involving parts intended to manufacture a suppressor listed in 18 U.S.C. § 922 that aren’t fully exempted by HPA.

          • gabriel brack

            Is it law or arbitrary atf regulations that considers parts that can be used for something the actual thing?

          • Joseph Goins

            18 USC § 921(a)(24).

          • gabriel brack

            I don’t deal with nfa items so I have never bothered to really look into it.

          • jay

            He’s a know it all, and a troll. Although baiting trolls can be amusing at times, he has aspergers or something. He can’t understand when to let it go. Alway’s got to be right, in his personal opinion. And as a liberal, he’s perfectly happy switching to something completely different that the original topic.

          • Lumpy Rutherford

            I’m not sure that it was the same company, but it’s the same collection of parts that I saw on Youtube, and that individual sold kits from a website, and showed how to use those parts to build a suppressor, so he can’t really say he was intending only to sell gun cleaning equipment. If that were the case, he would only have showed it being used for trapping solvents, and let the buyer–if so inclined–figure out how to break the law on his own. I don’t know why suppressors are illegal, but I do know that ATF has been threatening to prosecute those showing or teaching others to build other “illegal” items. SD Tactical can hardly claim to be surprised by this development. I wish them luck–they’re going to need it.

          • Joseph Goins

            Silencers are really unique in that time period. Violent crime sprees (Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Al Capone, etc.) in the 1920s and early 1930 made a lot of people fear new technology. They frequently used Tommy guns, BARs, and short barreled weapons that could be easily hidden. When the new Congress was seated in 1934 under the new President, they moved very swiftly to ban new and upcoming technology with the NFA. Silencers were included in that bill despite a lack of crime committed with them.

          • Hoosier Steve

            You know that they did not buy those tommies or BARs but stole them by raiding police or national guard armories.

          • Joseph Goins

            That’s why I said “they frequently used.”

          • P161911

            If they are classified the same as firearms, then you are allowed to make your own for personal use. If it is parts sales, then they would probably be treated similar to 80% receivers. However, at some point, if silencers are treated as firearms, there will have to be a determination of which part constitutes the silencers, just like gun receivers/frames.

          • Darrell Amy Kress

            The issue to them is that it is a NFA item.

          • P161911

            Currently they are, but not if the Hearing Protection Act passes.

          • krinkov545

            Well if you can build your own home rolled firearm and be legal in most states. If HPA passes and no more NFA for suppressors. I would think a home cooked suppressors should be a go.

          • Core

            They will have to go the no serial required route if you make your own for personal use and never plan to sell it. Moohahaa

          • PersonCommenting

            Yeah but they could sell parts and 80% versions.

          • Joseph Goins

            …which is still a “suppressor” as defined by the GCA.

            18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
            The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

          • PersonCommenting

            Yes, but I am saying if HPA passed they could make suppressor 80%ers if they were treated just like Firearms.

          • SLi-Fox

            So could Home Depot be next?

          • Joseph Goins

            Does Home Depot market their goods as Form 1 Ready? What SD Tactical did was advertise their product as parts that the end use could convert into a silencer.

          • Darrell Amy Kress

            A solvent trap tube isn’t only designed to be a silencer.

          • Joseph Goins
          • LGonDISQUS

            Exactly. This is like posting how to make c4, then selling the individual chemicals, telling people these cleaning supplies are solely for polishing tablet screens with, then having a full FAQ on how to boil them properly without catching everything you love on fire.

          • Joseph Goins

            Replace the part about “telling people these cleaning supplies are solely for polishing tablet screens with” with “all NFA rules apply” which is an encouragement.

          • carlcasino

            Momma May I go Potty?

          • gregge

            So engine block soft plugs and a piece of exhaust pipe shouldn’t be covered because they are not “…intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or
            firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or
            fabrication.”

          • Darrell Amy Kress

            Not true. My parts would be basicially like a 80% lower if this passes. The agent told me I was good to go if it passed but there isn’t a snowballs chance in hell it will.

          • Joseph Goins

            Your parts are already 80% suppressors. Quit kidding yourself.

          • throwedoff

            There’s no chance if everyone just sits on their butt and doesn’t bug their senators and house representatives about passing the Hearing Protection Act.

          • Michael Meador

            Not necessarily. If they are removed from the NFA, they could be built privately with no paperwork just like any other title 1 firearm. See “Ghost guns” as the media is so fond of calling them.

          • Joseph Goins

            As I have said on this thread at least four times: HPA DOES NOT ELIMINATE EVERY PROVISION UNDER 18 USC §921-922 WHICH CONTAIN ADDITIONAL LAWS GOVERNING SILENCERS.

          • Michael Meador

            The sections you are referring to are dependent upon sound suppressors remaining on the NFA. I’ve spoken to the authors of the HPA on this because it was a significant concern. The law will list them as a title one “other firearm”. They will fall into the exact same class as a stripped receiver, or pistol grip shotgun. There is no way that the law would be enforceable to prohibit private manufacture of these items once off of the NFA. It’s an non issue.

          • Joseph Goins

            NFA, GCA, FOPA — three very different laws that aren’t related other than their topics.

          • Michael Meador

            Not quite.. but I’m not going to sit here and argue with you over it.

          • throwedoff

            So, we would then see “80% suppressor” kits become available for home assembly? If so, as long as you are building for yourself and not selling or transferring to other individuals, “80% suppressor” kits would be legal with the passage of the Hearing Protection Act.

          • Michael Meador

            Well, that’s what the “solvent traps” are. But everything you need to make a suppressor is available at your local auto parts store. The only real difference between those parts and what you’re getting with a solvent trap is the thread pitch. That’s why I find this whole thing laughable. Unless ATF is planning on raiding NAPA, this is an exercise in futile mental masturbation for ATF.

          • Bradley

            If you’ve said it four times then why do you keep saying it? Several people have made it clear that they see your entire argument as incorrect based on the information available. Maybe if you say it four more times people will start to agree with you simply out of admiration of your persistence.

          • Bradley

            Or maybe you’re just not using enough capital letters.

          • Raguel A’septem

            In that case, you order the tube and have it transferred through a FFL like you would a lower of an AR.

        • Sasquatch

          Amen

      • thedarkknightreturns

        Is that you Al Gore?

        • iksnilol

          No. Just a guy that is not happy that Trump put in place a gag order on basically all scientific orgs in the US.

          That’s some serious anti first amendment crap right there.

          • thedarkknightreturns

            Hmm, maybe because during the previous admin, they were violating the Hatch Amendment….or something trivial like that.

          • iksnilol

            What does protection of pupils have to do with gagging the NASA amongst others?

          • thedarkknightreturns

            Hatch Act of 1939

          • iksnilol

            Yeah again, I know what the Hatch Amendment is. I am asking you to provide sources where NASA or the EPA infringed on that amendment.

          • thedarkknightreturns

            The Hatch Act of 1939 (not “amendment”) prohibits government employees/agencies from in engaging in partisan political activities. If you don’t think the EPA or any other agencies have been engaging in highly political behavior over the last 8 years then I wonder what rock you have been living under all this time.

          • iksnilol

            I dunno, saying that the Earth has gotten warmer doesn’t sound that political to me. Especially when it is your job to measure such things.

            Also, if what you’re saying is true then the gag order would’a applied to private orgs as well.

          • Cory C

            All due respect, but you’re really playing coy about the nature of global warming and the role government agencies play. It’s not as simple as some government agency saying, “Captain, my scanner shows the planet’s getting hotter.” There is a political prerogative to shout from the mountain tops every “see, I told you so” finding and stay mute when any other information comes to light. I’m not weighing in on the topic of whether global warming is real or not or how big of a threat it is or any of that. I’m merely stating that the issue is incredibly politicized by both sides and government agencies and their findings have been relied upon (coerced?) into legitimizing both sides of the argument. Just the same way that we want the evening news to say, “A person was robbed at gunpoint this evening” instead of, “A sign of the times, yet another robbery has happened, signaling our country’s downward spiral into a type of lunacy, made possible by the NRA,” I’d prefer if the government’s science organizations do the heck out of science, present findings, and the leave the conjecture to everyone else. For the record, I don’t trust Trump as far as I can throw him and I’m generally opposed to interfering with scientific endeavor. But insofar as climate science is an issue with considerable political implications, government scientists need to leave the advocacy to their colleagues in the private sector.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, but gagging them means they can’t really present their findings.

          • Patrick ONeil

            Scientists have to “conjecture”. We never just publish data without concluding what it means (yes, I’m a scientist). I don’t give a crap who may dislike the data I collect and analyze. I don’t give a crap why someone picks and chooses what data they want to believe our don’t. The data is the data and it doesn’t care whether you like it or not. It just is.

            In this case, the ridiculous conspiracy theory is that ALL scientists from ALL countries are in on a big “Global Warming Hoax”. This makes it the world’s biggest, most disciplined and all encompassing conspiracy ever in history. Ridiculous on its face.

            Scientists do science and collectively, as a body, evaluate and test conclusions to produce a consensus based on the most likely and we’ll supported theory. Tough crap it is inconvenient for a certain subset of people and politicians who look set to lose money as a result of hard reality.

          • gregge

            I’ve read enough of the ‘climategate’ e-mails to know that isn’t true when it comes to the people pushing the preposterous idea that t tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can have a huge effect on the overall temperature of the Earth.

            What we humans can do is as nothing compared to the amount of change in solar influx as the Sun goes through its sunspot cycle.

            Just one big hurricane like Katrina unleashes as much energy in a week as the human race uses in almost 20 years.

            Then there’s the Earth’s axial precession and change in axial tilt – which is currently (and has been for thousands of years) reducing. Less tilt = overall more temperate climate.

            The idea that human activity has a greater effect on the climate than any of those is just crazy talk, and the ‘climategate’ emails, documents and program code showed they know it.

            As for ‘peer review’ I assume you know how it’s supposed to work. Someone writes a paper and submits it for anonymous review and critique. Well the guys in climate science don’t play by the rules. They were emailing and calling each other, forwarding one another the papers they were supposed to be *anonymously* reviewing – and colluding to blacklist papers that dared question their authority and word that climate change is caused by human activity. They even managed to get editors fired from journals that dared to publish anything contrary to their stand on the matter, and boasted about doing so in their emails.

            It’s not about the science to those guys. It’s personal aggrandizement and the money they get from grants. Some of them even asked how to avoid paying taxes on non-exempt funds they’d received and how to keep grant money they’d been given for research they didn’t do.

          • Cory C

            You do realize that conjecture doesn’t mean “communicate” or “compare data” or “interpret,” right? Conjecture means to form conclusions based on faulty or missing information. Surely, you’re not suggesting THAT is a necessary tool of the scientist. You’re either unfamiliar with the term or you’re trying to put words in my mouth and suggest that I’m opposed to peer review and interpretation. Either way, bad form, friend.

            I’m not suggesting that all scientists are in on a global warming hoax, but from your rant we get a glimpse into what has become of the scientific community, and it is certainly something worthy of criticism. You’re insinuating that consensus is somehow equivalent to accuracy. But I’ll remind you that there was once a scientific consensus on causality, on the presence of the luminiferous ether, on humorism, yet none of those concepts turned out to be entirely (or at all) correct. In the case of causality, you’ll no doubt recall that Einstein himself railed against the notion of uncertainty, concluding that “God does not play dice.” Yet he was proved wrong. Does the fact that scientists get it wrong sometimes diminish their worth, significance, or accomplishments? Of course not. But does their worth, significance, or accomplishments say anything at all about their accuracy? Of course not, and to suggest it does is folly.

            Indeed, the scientific community has erred at times, consensus be damned. Did these inaccuracies come about because all of yesteryear’s incorrect scientists engaged in the world’s most elaborate conspiracy? Of course not, so the suggestion that widespread inaccuracy is somehow only possible through a carefully coordinated conspiracy is itself patently absurd.

            What makes people untrusting of scientists are things like your rant, wherein you propose a number of concepts built upon specious reasoning in the name of defending the objective reality of the world, no less! You jumped to conclusions about what I was suggesting, you spoke of conjecture without knowing what it means (or worse, you do know what it means and you really think it’s a part of scientific inquiry), you imply that scientists could ever have anything other than benevolent intentions or that they’re so disconnected from the rest of humanity as to be incapable of error or other frailties outside of willful conduct on their part, and you suggest that something agreed upon by the learned clerisy is sacrosanct. In short, you reveal the kinds of biases that science should eschew, by definition.

            I get it, you’re probably annoyed by people who don’t take the time to understand how scientists “do science.” You’re probably equally vexed by politicians who misstate the nature of the work that you do and by companies who use propaganda to cast doubt upon its signicance. But, frankly, you only help their cause by taking the position/approach you did in this thread. When I speak to people who have different philosophical or political leanings, I don’t find it to be helpful to denigrate them and preach to them. I instead try to help them understand the value in my way of thinking and to see the problems in theirs. If they are equally respectful, they do the same. What comes out the other side is usually a softening of both our positions; a better understanding.

            But but this brings me to the most troubling aspect of what has become of the scientific community. When someone is a member of a totally-not-human-therefore-incapable-of-error exhalted body such as the scientific community, such discourse is unnecessary, right? I mean, after all, when you’re one of the enlightened few who is keeper of the objective reality of the world, which totally isn’t filtered through the imperfect minds and motivations of humans, why would you need to bother convincing anyone of anything?

            Sorry, but I left the church for a reason. I’m not interested in exchanging a religious cult for a secular one.

          • Patrick ONeil

            Off topic, no? In any case, reporting scientific data and conclusions is SCIENCE, not politics. Publishing research is SCIENCE in action and is never politics except to non scientists that don’t like the facts being reported.

            As for the HPA, I’ll hold my breath for a little while but if it isn’t brought to the floor in Congress or tacked onto some other bill to be sent to the Prez for signature fairly soon, then we will all know it was always a lie used by the GOP to fire up gun owners and sucker them out of money for political donations. They no longer have any excuse for NOT putting it forward.

          • RSG

            I hope Trump shuts down the EPA.

          • iksnilol

            i don’t really care about what you hope.

            But for everybody’s health I hope he doesn’t.

          • RSG

            The EPA has nothing to do with “health”. It is now a cesspool of liberal filth confined to a govt agency Petri dish. It is infested with Democrat Terrorists™ at every level. It is unsaveable.

          • iksnilol

            Well, I dunno, as a sportsman and farmer myself I care about the environment.

          • Cory C

            I’d say that the truth resides somewhere in the middle. I want there to be someone who keeps the badguys from dumping carcinogens into the water supply. But I don’t want that organization to try to impose standards on people and places without any regard for context, like the way that the EPA is gnashing their teeth over Alaskans burning wood for warmth.

          • Fox Hunter

            Not all scientific orgs, just those owned and controlled by the govt. Private orgs are not included.

      • Lumpy Rutherford

        What science would that be? The “science” of manmade “global warming”? If that’s the case, riddle me this, Lolinski, how does the taxation of cow farts actually save the world from this “threat”? Why is it that even using the doctored numbers created by the “global warming” computer model shows an increase in the Earth’s temperature by one half of one degree Celsius over a period of 100 years or so? Why is that even considered significant? Why doesn’t anyone actually accept the satellite data that shows ACTUAL temperatures of the Earth’s surface INSTEAD of a “computer model”? In the 1500’s the Earth was so much warmer that Greenland was actually the, green heavily forested home of the Vikings.England’s climate was so warm, that grapes were grown there. Today, the only grapes one finds in the UK are in supermarkets–too cold to grow them, and Greenland is covered by ice. NASA, whose mission under the Obama administration was not only to celebrate the contributions of Islam to space exploration, but to study “global warming”, just released a study that claims greenhouse gases are causing “global cooling”. So, not only do cow farts cause the Earth to become warmer, they also cause it to become cooler. You can’t make this stuff up…

        • iksnilol

          And now all the climate change “truthers” are going out of the woodwork.

    • Twilight sparkle

      Quite baffling

    • AZgunner

      Help! Help! I’m being suppressed!

      • Paladin

        Come see the silence inherent in the system!

        • PavePusher

          When you can work a MP reference into a discussion about firearms accessories, you have won the InturWebz for the day.

  • junyo

    The problem with the internet is it’s like that time, when you were invited to the secret club with absinthe cocktails, and hot topless waitresses and a poker room and an axe throwing room, then some dude invites his nerdy friend who proceeds to loudly and often tell everyone about this place he went with axes and cards and topless chicks, and then the police come and shut the place down.

    • hh

      awesome analogy!
      man my life is boring!

      • Bucho4Prez

        Yea, we have to make do with just the axe throwing.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          Yeah, “axe throwing”…

    • Brett

      Yeah, Thanks Jason Momoa.

      • junyo

        The first rule of axe club is we don’t talk about axe club.

        • Brett

          Or get axed, it’s in the name.

    • OgBrog

      Except everything they sell is completely legal per ATF printed guidelines. The problem is that someone at ATF recently decided they can change the law by changing their mind.

      • junyo

        Toplessness, cards and axes are legal too. Put them to gather and get some soccer parent screeching about it and you’re gonna get cops justifying their jobs. There’s no reason suppressor are controlled in the first place, except the aforementioned screeching. This logically follows as long as the screeching drives the law and law enforcement priorities.

        • PersonCommenting

          I disagree though. While I dont agree with the laws in the first place if you are buying this solvent trap as a solvent trap then you have nothing to fear. If you buy it to turn into a suppressor then you are breaking the dumb law that exists. Same goes for selling it. There was a time when kidnapping wassnt illegal as long as you didnt cross state lines and a guy got away with it. When people found out there was this loop hole they closed it. It is only reasonable that the ATF would close a loop hole that they are in charge of.

          Again I dont agree with it. I dont like it. I dont like how ATF has no oversight and can just create laws but that is the way it is and as long as we live under these dumb rules people have to follow them. I dont see that they are being punished other than losing their business which is huge but still they knew it could be a risk.

          • junyo

            Nope. You can legally buy the parts and legally create a suppressor at home (file the Form1). I can buy the parts to build an AR lower – and that hunk of machined metal ain’t never going to be anything other than an AR lower- and as long as the seller doesn’t finish it for me, they’re fine. So even if people were specifically buying the parts to create a suppressors, actual assembly before the paper work clears is on the purchaser, not the seller, unless the government has officially decided to regulate flashlights and auto parts.

          • PersonCommenting

            Yeah if you go the form one route yes but people are buying these under the ruse of solvent trap and may or may not be form 1ing them. I can buy an oil filter and a thread adapter and form one that too but if I get caught with them together than I get a nice stint to club fed.

          • junyo

            And that’s the point. You – the purchaser – get a stint in Club Fed, not Autozone.

          • PersonCommenting

            yes but Auto zone wasnt selling them as Solvent Traps Wink wink.

          • junyo

            But they’re not selling ‘Solvent Traps wink wink’. They’re selling ‘Solvent Traps And If You Use Them For Anything Other Than That You Should Really Fill Out The Proper Paperwork’. If you can prove that they’ve specifically encouraged anyone to NOT fill out a Form 1 – which is basically what you’re alleging – I’d really like to see it.

          • PersonCommenting

            Hmmmm, you have a point there. Ill give you that. Plenty of companies selling shorty AR uppers and nothing is said… It is all about disclosure. Still I disagree, it is still a wink wink thing though.

            Do you know if they ever submitted this to ATF technology branch to make sure they werent in violation? I would be curious to know that.

            Also be curious if ATF will be shutting down the many other companies who are doing the exact same thing.

          • Cymond

            wink wink?
            SD Tactical had a very large section of their forums dedicated to Form 1 info.

          • PersonCommenting

            Yes but then arent they just selling suppressor parts which is illegal isnt it?

          • junyo

            Except they’re not selling “suppressor” parts. They’re selling things that have a clear and long established primary use. They don’t become a suppressor until the end user modifies them and assembles them in a certain configuration. Maybe you’re buying them to make a suppressor (and if so, the seller has extensive info on how to do so legally), maybe you’re buying them because you stumbled across the site looking for freeze plugs and/or flashlight parts. You don’t just have to accept the logic that these things are all presumptive suppressors, you have to accept that they’re all preemptively illegal suppressors, and thus make the vendor responsible for policing the actions of a third party. More than that, if proof that they were telling people how to legally do a clear and obvious alternative with the legal components they sold (suppressors in general are an old and simple technology, and flashlight tube suppressors specifically exist because of the ease of obtaining the components and putting them together) it means that the alternative position is that the public would have been better served by selling the potentially felonious and/or dangerous to assemble components with no guidance on how to to it safely and legally.

          • Patrick ONeil

            I wonder how Preppers Discount will fare. The guy running that show studiously avoids saying anything about his solvent tap kits being usable to make suppressors. He will very aggressively respond to any question about using them as suppressors with a statement that THEY ARE NOT SUPPRESSORS or suppressor parts, they are only solvent traps.

            As far as I know he doesn’t even host or produce any images or videos showing them in use as suppressors.

          • junyo

            There’s at least one video online of PD demonstrating how to turn a solvent trap into a suppressor, again with all the disclaimers of “this is not designed as a suppressor, but if you decide to make one, do the proper paperwork and don’t do this if it’s illegal in your area.” But the video is old, so might have been before they got tapped last year. But they’ve also still got kits online with spiky stand-off caps for their solvent traps.

          • Patrick ONeil

            Oh yeah. Don’t like those spiked things. You could always be some metal head who wants your solvent trap to go with the posters of White Snake and Quiet Riot on your walls.

          • RSG

            Doesn’t necessarily have to be assembled, though. Just like if you have a sbr upper, a lower receiver in another room, and a rifle stock in the basement, you can still be arrested because it was implied that at some point you’d put together all 3 parts.

          • junyo

            Well first, there’s no such thing as an SBR upper; there’s uppers than become an SBR only if assembled in a certain configuration. In another configuration they’re a perfectly legal pistol. And they’d pretty much have to prove that that’s the only thing you could do with those parts; if you’ve got an AR pistol and a standard length rifle, you clearly can make an SBR in roughly 20 seconds, but this has always been allowed.

            Second, it’s actually slightly different. It’s like having an 10″ upper, a rifle stock, and an 80% lower. Unless/until I manufacture the lower or broadcast my intent to do so, I haven’t assembled jack. So in this case, alleging that the possession of solid/undrilled freeze plug is constructive intent seems a little ‘Department of PreCrime’-y.

          • Patrick ONeil

            Simply having freeze plus and a metal tube Weirton which they fit perfectly is in no way illegal or a suppressor. Drilling holes in the middle of each freeze plug is in no way illegal, even with a metal tube to put them in. The whole thing only magically becomes illegal if BOTH end caps get holes in them such that all the parts together can be mounted on a firearm and even slightly reduce the sound level of fire.

            It is the final hole in the one end cap that is magic. All the other holes make it a solvent trap.

          • jay

            Although, in your situation, if you have no trigger kit installed in the lower, it can be argued that it’s not anything, as yet. Just the gross parts. Well it could be argued in most free states, probably not in kaliforniastan, though.

      • jay

        The liberal pathology is, if you can’t win an argument, you change the meaning of the words used, so that you win.

    • RSG

      So why don’t they shut down NAPA auto parts, too?

  • TDog

    Being veteran owned does not grant them the right or privilege to skirt the law. “We’re veteran owned!” And? Did I miss the part where veterans are given a special waiver to do as they see fit?

    • Sianmink

      A waiver to sell a legal product without being harassed by the feds?
      Not much difference between an 80% lower and an 80% suppressor. Are they going to try regulating oil filter cans next?

      • Rick O’Shay

        Except one when completed is not an NFA-regulated item, and the other is. My issue with this whole thing, is that for those who are complying with the law and filling out the forms before they make their own suppressor, now have one less source for buying the components. Is SD tactical guilty of selling suppressors? Not as far as I can tell. So I’m not sure how “suppressor parts without licensing” is a valid point. A chore boy scrubbing pad is a suppressor part, if you’re going to define engine block freeze plugs as suppressor parts.

        • OgBrog

          It requires machining to turn it into a suppressor, it is not a suppressor in and of itself. By your argument any rifle could be considered a illegal SBR because you could take a hack saw to it and cut down the barrel.

          • OgBrog

            This just in, every AR15 lower in the US in now considered is a unregistered machine gun because you could drill a hole for a sear pin if you wanted.

          • PK

            Funny you should say that… there’s been a bit of a problem with fake sear pins, where it’s a circle engraved on the outside of the receiver. Apparently, that’s a MG whether it can accept any trigger parts or not.

      • TDog

        When they’re advertised as gun parts, you bet.

        • Joseph Goins

          And that is exactly what happened. The article failed to mention SDT’s marketing. If you look at their website, it was very evident that they sold these as “Form 1 Ready” in violation of NFA and GCA.

    • OgBrog

      How about the fact that they did nothing but try to follow the law as written? What SD tactical sells is NOT a suppressor. It requires machining to function as such. ATF has strict rules already written in their handbook, freeze plugs are not considered baffles unless drilled. Without the ability for a bullet to pass through it the tube is not a suppressor. ATF has decided to randomly change their opinion on this at the drop of a hat. Allowing decisions like this to stand just give precedent for them to decide that anyone who owns an AR15 pistol and a AR15 rifle also owns a illegal SBR because the lower and upper may be readily swapped.
      Sorry, but our founding fathers never intended for law to be changed by bureaucratic agencies at a whim of a particular agent.

      • TDog

        No, it’s not trying to follow the law – it’s pushing boundaries like children. “You didn’t say I couldn’t” is the surest way to get them to change their minds.

        In this instance, the moment they turned it into a gun part, they put it on the ATF’s radar. The law has two components – the word and the spirit and when folks try to skirt the edges of the word by outright breaking the spirit, things get messy and never in our favor.

        Save the “it’s not weally a siwencer” baby talk pushing-boundaries nonsense for the parents and their kids and leave the rest of us out of it.

        • nadnerbus

          “Spirit” of the law is bunk. The law is supposed to be what it says in plain English, no more and no less. If the politicians are too ill informed to write what they actually mean, then they should write new legislation that does so. A free country doesn’t continually think about how draconian a law was meant to be and then limit itself accordingly.

          ATF has wiggle room in how it interprets law. Once precedent is established, though, it should not be changed arbitrarily.

          We are already becoming a nation ruled by men, not laws. Don’t give them any more latitude than they already have.

          • TDog

            The spirit of the law is not bunk and anyone who says so is either a lawyer or a cheat.

          • nadnerbus

            Well, the spirit of the CA AW law was to ban all AR15 completely. A court ruling invalidated part of it, opening up the bullet button loophole, which was obviously not intended.

            In your estimation, should bullet buttons have never been sold, despite complying with the law as written (and judicially modified), and if so, should owners of them be subject to criminal prosecution for not interpreting the law as intended, but as written?

          • TDog

            See, therein lies the issue: intent and wording versus consequences. The fact is that Bullet Buttons, for all of their supposed idiocy, do fall within the intent of the CA AWB – it slows people down and hinders their reload time. Can someone reload a bullet button as fast as a regular, unaltered gun? Sure. But most of the time they can’t due to a lack of training – as if anyone would want to train with that sort of thing…

            Where these “solvent catchers” run afoul of everything is that but for some very simple modifications, you have a silencer. We’re not talking an 80% lower, which requires more machining skills than the average American possesses to make into a fully functioning firearm. As is, “solvent catchers” were pretty much put on the no-go list as far back as 2014.

            So you can try to argue this point as much as you want, but the fact is when you push limits, the state will push back. Unlike parents, they really don’t have to tolerate this and therefore they won’t.

          • Saint Stephen the Obvious

            There has yet to be one criminal that has been caught with a ‘bullet button’ firearm.

            😉

        • OgBrog

          Except the ATF have previously written opinions stating that the parts sdtactical sells aren’t legally a silencer. SDtactical has been visited for annual inspections previously and the ATF never said a thing. They literally changed their mind from what they have been telling the industry for years with no explanation.

          • TDog

            No one is disputing those things weren’t silencers – it was a grey area they were hoping to exploit and shouldn’t have. “Solvent catcher”? Really?

            Don’t play games because you will never be as clever as their ability to shut you down and make it a problem for all of us.

      • Patrick ONeil

        Freeze plugs have to be drilled to work in a solvent trap too. The kits also supply a fine metal mesh to insert in the drilled plugs to capture particulates flushed from the barrel (leaving you with a reusable volume of solvent in the bottom). If you drill the closed end cap it converts a solvent tap into a suppressor.

        I suppose if you also form the freeze plugs to have a 40 degree or greater conical shape, that might signal intent away from solvent trap but without an exit hole for gas and bullets it cannot act as a suppressor.

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      I absolutely respect and appreciate those good men and women who have served to defend my rights, but like the saying goes “Your DD-214 is not a license to be an @&$.”

      My comment is not at all targeted at the veterans mentioned in the article, just as a general statement that targets a certain mindset that veterans can do no wrong. The vast majority are good people, but there are a few others…

  • Scott Tuttle

    couple dozen more to go on ebay

  • nova3930

    Better hit Lowes next. I hear they have suppressor tubes on the plumbing aisle. Pre-threaded and everything…

    • Patrick ONeil

      That would make on heavy assed suppressor.

  • William Elliott

    I seem to recall they were selling some kind of baffle stack last time I went by there, where you had to send in your can to purchase it, but I could have sworn they had gotten the licensing for that.
    Hopefully the administration will get the hearing protection act before long and this case will be moot.

    • OgBrog

      They have a agreement with Sire arms to offer a recoring service for form 1 suppressors. You have to send a previously completed suppressor along with tax stamp to Sire for the service.

      • William Elliott

        AH, okay, that makes sense.

    • Rick O’Shay

      It won’t make it moot, any more than states “legalizing” pot let out all the folks awaiting trial for possession charges.

      • William Elliott

        It does if the federal government takes Suppressors off the NFA list. Then what they did would be no more an issue than selling AR parts. [Which last I checked did not take a special government license…only selling a complete rifle you manufactured as a business does]

      • Bradley

        That is exactly what it would do. I’m not sure what you think the proposal is, but if suppressors weren’t NFA then it would not matter unless you were manufacturing and selling completed ones.

  • Spencer

    More political news brought to you by “firearms not politics”

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      wrong

      • iDreamOfWeenie
      • Joseph Goins

        That’s impertinent.

      • Cymond

        Yeah, there’s clearly nothing political about an agency of the Executive branch reinterpreting a gun control law.

        • Pete – TFB Writer

          News is news.

          A political story is partisan rhetoric taking a side one way or the other. Political analysis.

          By your logic, we couldn’t discuss anything because regulation and laws surround every part of this industry we love.

    • iDreamOfWeenie

      This has nothing to do with politics.. nobody voted on this. Furthermore it might inform people that a firearm accessory they own may now be considered illegal.

      • Joseph Goins

        Yeah. Because the NFA, GCA, and others weren’t approved by Congress.

  • Ambassador Vader

    This just in….. The ATF shuts down anyone who has ever made a cylindrical, round, flat, or metal part just to be safe.

    • Koolhed

      “If it saves just one life…”

  • Zach Haag

    How about contacting SDTA and doing a proper article… 1 thing of many you missed pointing out they have been inspected multiple times over the course of at least 2 yrs in wisco and also hold an SOT… this was an uninformed IOI in AZ and it is starting to look like things may go back to normal…. seriously, do some research before you use your platform to spread nonsense.

    • Arthur

      What’s your source for this information?

    • Joseph Goins

      Regardless of their licensing, it is illegal to sell “any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler” without going through the steps of the NFA. By selling their “solvent traps” and encouraging people to then Form 1 the parts, they broke the law and were caught.

      • Zach Haag

        Are you in the firearms industry?

        • Joseph Goins

          No, but I am in law.

          • Zach Haag

            Then you should know if something is illegal you get arrested… especially when it comes to the feds.

            Obviously this is not illegal, nor is selling plans to build a machineguns.

            Intent falls on the person making the item, you nor i can prove someone isnt buying a solvent trap to catch solvent. And the guys that do use them for suppressors have permission from the gov to build them from whatever they want..

            Bottom line is, this has been blown wayyyy out of proportion. It was a local IOI that didn’t understand the determination on solvent traps (probably never seen them)

            I understand you being in law enjoy showing everybody what you know. If i were you I would probably stop while i wasnt to far behind.

          • Joseph Goins

            Intent is proven by the company marketing it as “Form 1 Ready.” (Interesting enough, they have a dozen videos on how to convert it to a suppressor but not one on how to use it as a solvent trap.) At that point, they illegally created an unregistered suppressor. What happened is that the ATF visited their new location to verify it and saw the traps there. The ATF agents then told the owners that they cannot sell the parts because it’s illegal. I would wager to say that the agents went back to their office and opened an investigation into the sale and distribution of unregistered suppressors.

            18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
            The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

          • Zach Haag

            I dont think you understand how long solvent traps have been around… yea they are going to start an investigation now after 3yrs because they finally realized SDTA was committing a felony after multiple visits.

            LMAO, i guarantee you the ATF knows about every site that sell solvent trap parts and only intervenes when part are sold as suppressor parts (holes in endcaps/baffles, explain how quiet the parts make the report of the host etc) SD tactical has done none of that.

            Like i said quit while your not to far behind, no matter how many times yoh quote 18USC you will be wrong.

          • Zach Haag

            Huh would you look at that the local ATF in AZ must be learning something

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/203d812664d7129672f074b4b0167280ab404037a1db3ad601ca06d4cc012edb.png

          • Bootlickers

            Strange that would happen, since according to the resident bootlickers that the ATF has their balls in their hands with those felonious solvent traps and all….lol.

          • Zach Haag

            Lol, usually 2 things happen wben this stuff happens..

            Someone goes to prison, or the agent is wrong and his superior slaps his peepee and tell him to drop it!

            Especially with trump jrs view and fathers ear, atf knows they are on thin ice since the FBI could do their job. And he has 17 agencies in his sights for shutdown already.

          • Patrick ONeil

            In that case, all they need to do is remove the term “form 1 ready” and, to go the extra mile, perhaps move the forum thread off site.

          • Joseph Goins

            Which is what I have said from the beginning. You can’t sell parts intended for use in a suppressor or to be turned into a suppressor. You can sell parts to a solvent trap if the parts are intended for a solvent trap. They erred in this regard. The company has since said that this is what the ATF told them.

  • Moonman45

    Moonman here, im here to say,
    if you wanna hear silence, solvent trap is the way
    noncompliance is protest whether you like it or not.
    I dont have 2k to blow on hearing less of my shot
    Obama and Feinstein on the Bill of Rights they tramped
    Ill tell the ATF where they can stick that stamp

    • OgBrog

      If you want to commit felonies that’s your business. But do yourself and everyone in the gun community a favor and quit broadcasting it on the internet.

      • Moonman45

        My identity’s protected just like I was strapped
        You sound like a douche that’s about to get slapped
        If there’s anything that the pro gunners need less
        its a try hard beard-bro playing pretend vet

    • Scott Tuttle

      NFA was put into effect back in 1934. dont let me interrupt your alt-facts though.

      • Sam Damiano

        The former Obama Administration played fast and loose with anything that could restrict legal sales and gunsmithing.

        • Scott Tuttle

          maybe SD tactical can take this to court and get a ruling so we can have some definition on it similarly to what was done with the 80% (or some random percentage) ar lower kits.

          • Zach Haag

            Intent would be what they would rule on… if it went south say goodbye to sig sto… I mean braces

          • Moonman45

            Looks like we got ourselves a fudd,
            content with laws that are clear as mud.
            laws have more to do with who enforces it seems
            but dont let me stop you from using liberal memes.
            you get your news from huff po, and other pond silt
            drop your daughter off at the refugee center for some ‘white guilt’

          • Scott Tuttle

            hoping for a ruling isnt being content with clear as mud. man you got a stick up your ass.

          • Arthur

            Maybe take a break from /pol/, friend. Memes aren’t everything after all.

          • PK

            “80%” receivers have no ruling or firm law/definition. They’re considered by the ATF on a case-by-case basis.

          • Joseph Goins

            Not needed. GCA defines silencer as “any combination of parts” intended to make a complete silencer.

  • OgBrog

    ** I want to preface this by saying that we have covered the legality of solvent traps time and time again, they are not legal and can place you in a position that you do not want to be in. NFA laws are serious and should be taken serious. **
    Except in all previous posts on solvent traps your page has agreed that they are perfectly legal when used as solvent traps, just as they are perfectly legal to use as suppressors after you file a form 1 and receive a tax stamp. You might want to update your article to reflect that.

    • some other joe

      Not to echo Joe Goins again, but by advertising the product as “Form 1 Ready,” they establish that this item or collection of parts is a silencer part(s) and intended to be assemplbed into such. Therefore, according to the law, the part or parts constitute a silencer, based solely on the advertising’s statement (Form 1 ready) that they are perfectly suited to the purpose.
      Without that statement, there is an argument that the products are just car or flashlight parts. With it, that is taken as a statement of intent, a confession, by the regulatory agency.
      Lesson: stop poking the bear. We all know what and and are for, so stop drawing attention to it. I mean, none of use would use a in a manner inconsistent with its intent to create a de facto , right? Solvent traps are perfectly legal, but they stop being solvent traps when you advertise them as suppressor parts, in this case by using the phrase “Form 1 ready.”

      • noob

        If nobody exercises their legal rights, especially in the gray areas, then why would a government need to make that thing illegal?

        If nobody is doing the gray area thing, then it might as well be banned. This is known as the “Chilling Effect”. It’s a kind of self censorship.

        The United States Congress is prohibited from passing retroactive (Ex Post Facto) laws under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. That’s not an amendment, that is in the original document.

        The States are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws under Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

        Now if you’re in Australia, there is no such protection. They could ban something tomorrow, and then announce an Amnesty for formerly law abiding people to give up their property or be charged.

        In America, you have the right to keep doing something that is not explicitly banned until there is a test case or law which clearly makes it illegal. After that only new violations can be prosecuted from the date the new law comes into effect.

        If you don’t defend all of your Constitution and the people who operate under its protection, why bother saying you have rights? Rights only exist if you exercise them. Without rights, your daily activities are just things that are tolerated or ignored at the whim of people more powerful than you. Such a capricious judicial environment deters profit and progress for all but the most highly connected oligarchs.

        • Cymond

          I don’t understand your 5th & 6th paragraphs about Australia vs the US.

          In Australia, they can ban something tomorrow and then demand people give up their property or be charged.

          They can (and have) done that in the US, also.

          In the US, if they can ban something on Tuesday, they cannot arrest you for what you did on Monday. However, if you do not comply, they can arrest you on Wednesday.

          I don’t understand the difference.

          • noob

            I live in Australia and they can and will arrest and charge retroactively. However they tend to reserve that for situations where the population is on side eg designer drugs and precursors. Gun owners are still treated by the politicians with a little fear that hovers between disgust and respect.

          • Patrick ONeil

            You may note that ALL gun laws that get passed in the US have an explicit protection in them for those who own/use a restricted weapon prior to passage of the law. Any assault weapon ban never criminalize the weapon or owner of the weapon if owned legally prior to the laws passage.

            This is part of the reason that during the original assault weapon ban, pre-ban rifles did not suddenly become illegal, nor was there any attempt to confiscate them. Instead, their value shot up by 2 or 3 times. In a way, I almost welcome a new ban because it would instantly turn my $1500 rifle into $3000 or $4000 rifle. A ” large capacity mag ban” would turn my $5 mags into $15 or $20 mags.

            In no case am I required to hand it all over, nor am I criminalized. Not true for Australia or Britain.

          • Cymond

            So far, most bans have not been retroactive, but they could be. There have been confiscations in some places like CA. It was before my time there, but there was something about certain SKS rifles being banned retroactively.

            Also noteworthy is that the CA magazine ban forbid transferring “assault weapons” and mags. It outlawed selling, importing, or manufacturing magazines. (Buying and possessing were still legal, but you can’t buy when no one is selling.) If another ban like that were to pass, your $1500 rifle and $5 magazines wouldn’t have any financial value, except on a black market.
            Many people in CA did “rebuild” their preban mags with PMAG bodies. Of course, that made it even more impossible to tell which mags were genuinely preban.
            Starting in 2017, preban mags are no longer grandfathered. They’re flat out illegal to possess in CA.

          • jay

            Or kaliforniastan.

      • RSG

        This might be the entire case right here. What they are advertised for. And why NAPA auto stores aren’t being raided nationwide.

  • Anonymoose

    Who?

  • Politically Incorrect

    I’m still confused/concerned at how the ATF can just decide to do something like this because it seems these guys weren’t technically doing anything illegal.

    Guilty until proven innocent?

    • Joseph Goins

      Is a manufacturing a firearm muffler without a license a crime? Yes.
      Is tax evasion a crime? Yes.

      SD Tactical was a criminal enterprise.

      • matt

        Could you provide some proof how they were manufacturing a suppressor without a license and tax evasion? You can’t because they didn’t. They sold, very clearly, Solvent Trap parts…all of which are legal. Threaded pipes, threaded end caps for said pipes, and automotive freeze plugs. When put together still is not a suppressor….a bullet cannot pass through. Legal.

        Where they selling items that had holes drilled in the center as to allow a bullet to pass? no.

      • Politically Incorrect

        But the ATF has allowed “solvent traps” to be made and sold before.

        The only thing SD Tactical did was sell the solvent traps and hardware that already existed on the common market. They technically did no wrong based on what the ATF had previously allowed.

        But how does the ATF determine what constitutes a suppressor? Is there no definition that they go by? If not this is an agency that can get out of control.

        • Joseph Goins

          #1. SD Tactical marketed the “solvent traps” knowing full well what people were intending to use them for: suppressing their weapons. Even if suppressing was a side effect and the product was really intended to trap solvent, it still was a violation of the law.

          #2. Stop peddling this nonsense about suppressors being defined. It’s legally incorrect. There is a definition which was supplied by the Gun Control Act of 1968. Congress amended the National Firearms Act of 1934 to include this definition.

          18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)
          The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

          18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
          The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

          • Lyingbootlicker

            “and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.” Are you retarded enough to make the argument that flashlight tubes and freeze plugs have no other lawful purposes than to be made into a suppressor? Last time I check they were intended to be used as automotive parts and lighting. There is nothing illegal here as a solid piece of metal is not a baffle. It has to have a hole in it for the projectile to pass through in order for it to function as a baffle. We can call things whatever we want, that doe not make it fact. A non drilled freezplug is no more a baffle than than the bottom of a coke can. If it is illegal for SD to sell this, than it is illegal for Advance Auto Parts to sell freezeplugs and flashlights in the same store (the very same things!), Guess they better quit selling washers too! Oh and those steelwool pads. How about those evil oilfilters and thread fittings they sell? You miss the point of what courts ruled in the Thompson Center case. And that was it was legal so long as their was a lawful configuration of the parts possible. In this case there is obviously a legal configuration possible. Go lick some more government boot. Stop trying to scare people with your lies.

          • Joseph Goins

            The crime is that they marketed them as “Form 1 Ready” which legally means that they (1) manufactured an unregistered suppressor, (2) sold an unregistered suppressor, (3) illegally shipped a suppressor, (4) evaded the excise tax on a suppressor, (5) and conspired with their clients to evade the excise tax. Simply looking at their YouTube account and an archive of their website shows that. That is a crime.

          • Lyingbootlicker

            Every claim you make is based on the assumption that they actually sold an NFA item, which they obviously didn’t. Furthermore, by that logic, if I sell you a car as “straight pipe ready”, does that mean the EPA can jack you up for emissions because the seller said it was conversion ready into a noncompliant format? Which line of USC did they violate? I see nothing there mentioning solvent traps. I can call something anything I like, say it can be made into this and that, that doesn’t make it true. Does this mean all the companies selling ar and ak pistols as “sbr ready” are in fact selling nfa items? I think hardly not, and it is the exact same thing in this case. Perhaps when the ATF raids Century over their “sbr ready” AK pistols, you might have a point. In the end, at no point did their product meet the legal definition as a suppressor, and infact did have other legal uses. This is protected by prior case law (see the Thompson Center ruling), and runs into dangerous turf on the grounds of ex post facto. In the event that Sd tactical seems serious about taking their chances in court,I bet the ATF backs down. They can not risk a ruling against them on something like this with our current political climate.

          • Joseph Goins

            It comes from the definition of “silencer.” The law defines it as including “any combination of parts” that are intended to make a suppressor. They provided the intent by their marketing. (They have a dozen videos on YouTube about how to turn their product into a silencer and none demonstrating how to use it as a solvent trap. They have how-to guides on archived copies of their website.)

            18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
            The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

          • bootlickers

            You keep forgetting that part about “and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication” How disingenuous of you. Once more, the parts they sold have legitimate legal uses. By your logic, gun manufactures should be charged because their products CAN be used in an unlawful manner by the consumer. Like I said, reference the Thompson Center ruling! So long as there is a possible legal configuration of the parts, there are no charges! The parts they sold are not form one ready, they require machining. The parts they sold, in their present state, will not silence anything. By your logic, the Coca Cola company better watch out, selling those two liter .22 suppressors and all. And don’t even get me started on Fram with those “oil filters”. Saying that something can be turned into an item is not illegal, hence none of the ar and ak pistol makers being raided for their “sbr ready” models. The parts were not even sold as suppressor parts. If they were in violation of NFA, the ATF would have the DOJ throw a charge at them. The ATF won’t make an arrest because the ATF and DOJ know that a court will strip their ability to scare people with fiat rulings.

          • Joseph Goins

            #1. The “and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication” phrase is independent from “any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler.” There are three possible types of silencers under US law:

            A. Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm,
            B. Any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and
            C. Any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication

            —————————————————————————————

            #2. I’m not sure that you know what the rule or analysis was behind United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company. Thompson Center shipped a pistol, a stock, and a 21″ barrel. The government accused them of manufacturing an unregistered SBR since they sold the parts together despite the fact that a SBR was not actually made. SBRs were not defined as including the parts needed to make conversions. Simply having the SBR parts is not a crime whereas having the parts with intent to make a suppressor is a crime. Please read the legal definitions below. That’s why it was legal for me to acquire a Sig MPX and a folding rifle stock for it. Until I put the two together, I haven’t done anything wrong. (The two are separate until I get my tax stamp in the next few months.)

            26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)
            The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

            26 U.S. Code § 5845(c)
            The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

            18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
            The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

            —————————————————————————————

            #3. These were intended to be converted by the end user into a suppressor. Because of that, SD Tactical violated the law because you can’t make “80% suppressors” without the proper licensing, registration, approval, Form 1 tax stamp, etc. Using the non-profit Internet Archive, I pulled a few screen caps dated 11/6/2016 from from their website on a page that has since been deleted. As you can see, they were fairly disingenuous about selling solvent traps not intended for people to turn into a suppressor. Since linking to their YouTube is finicky on here, I’m also including a few relevant pictures of their videos. They have no videos on YouTube and no instructions on their website for how to use their product as a solvent trap which was supposed to be it’s purpose.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d62476074aedab842d279b47b2386250fe8e9ee8f41c2ea00bb4a64aac093464.png
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6a2e2422f754b4962735190438936399174028d0c729f62f02eec8d928c9a73e.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e29bcddcb024b23153a8a300c4a38e28973ca06d28726ddc4253a9fd94f5b9e.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2f96e6f356c7ad5a23dd5bd41d1c6e55f30683f0124858450f4d225f6ee45a10.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9572c7bb6d577bf8e6f00b75735ddd6d96d980962320bb34637cb0913420d836.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e84f0c87df95b617182f5af281b8cf793ac75285b0a95c62055b9656e1df5eb.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ed5dc800531eebcc8dc23be6b2639812a59d7499a46089d98864e5bced7e3974.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8af889442bfbe23fd236edab75dd8725375a967907f07bc839701fdefa1d858.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05655da4f6652a1125c8b687a452730786f96ab1b686da567fdc199605382b6a.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0185b091ef0c27e5f0914cc5006b75f7c565c8b5cae9878dc5bc0ea39bed4edc.png

      • kcshooter

        Why don’t you just take your liberal agenda and lies elsewhere?
        Criminal enterprise? What laws were broken? What charges were filed?

        • Joseph Goins

          Why do you think I have a liberal agenda? You are the one bringing politics into this.

          • kcshooter

            Why do you answer every one of my questions with another question, liberal?

  • Joseph Goins

    Patrick – Would you rather want them to go to jail for ten years? I think your main problem is that you are looking at the company as being a “small Veteran-owned business” (your words) fighting against a corrupt system of “vauge [sic] laws or opinions” (SD Tactical’s words). The FaceBook announcement was written in such a way that shows me that wanted to be seen as just a good ol’ company being the victim of a big government when they are entirely in the right. In reality, they have proven to be a criminal enterprise (tax evasion, unregistered manufacturing, conspiracy, etc.) no different than a money laundering operation run by the mob. The “solvent traps” accounted for 99% of SD Tactical’s income. The federal government probably offered them a settlement whereby they close the company and avoid criminal charges. According to the Gun Control Act,

    18 USC § 921(a)(3)
    “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.”

    18 USC § 921(a)(23)
    “The terms ‘firearm silencer’ and ‘firearm muffler’ mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.”

    • matt

      You seem to be as misinformed as the ATF here.

      They sold, very clearly, Solvent Trap parts…all of which are legal. Threaded pipes, threaded end caps for said pipes, and automotive freeze plugs. When put together still is not a suppressor….a bullet cannot pass through. Legal.

      Where they selling items that had holes drilled in the center as to allow a bullet to pass? no.

      • Joseph Goins

        Which, when assembled as SD Tactical showed numerous times, creates a suppressor. Otherwise they could have eliminated the whole tube, baffles, and endcap.

        • iksnilol

          I dunno, if you fired a gun with the “suppressor” mounted it’d fly off and also potentially damage your barrel.

          So… no, not a suppressor.

          • Joseph Goins

            The legal definition of a suppressor includes “any combination of parts that can be designed or redesigned or intended to be used to manufacture a firearm muffler or firearm silencer.” So, yes, it is a suppressor by definition.

          • Edward Franklin

            Except for the fact if you dropped a pile of standard freeze plugs into their solvent trap, threaded the solid end cap on, screwed it onto a barrel and then proceeded to fire the weapon it would.
            A. Blow up in a shower of metal fragments because you fire into a closed canister filled with metal plugs.
            B. Blow the end off the solvent trap.
            C. Overpressure your rifle and fire gas out every conceivable opening.
            Nothing SDTA could be readily assembled into a working suppressor unless you intentionally altered said components.

          • Joseph Goins

            Which is what they intended when they included baffles (freeze plugs) in the design and previously included on the website a page on how to drill a hole in the middle of them. Therefore, it is a silencer.

          • Edward Franklin

            I’m fairly certain said videos also pointed out it’s illegal without a completed and approved Form 1. How this is any different than the ATF cracking down on a hardware store is a mystery. I can buy everything for a suppressor there as well. Also everything for an SBR, SBS, and a lightning link if I wanted to commit all the felonies.

          • Joseph Goins

            All true. However, by doing so they were basically selling it as an 80% suppressor that you could then Form 1. That arrangement is illegal under the Gun Control Act as it is considered a silencer. This definition applies to both NFA and the GCA.

            18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
            The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

          • Edward Franklin

            What the ATF should do is station an agent at every store that sells freeze plugs, valve retainers, and any other small metal cone, any tubes threaded or otherwise, and any place that sells a Maglite or hacksaws. That way they can properly vet everyone buying steel tubes and metalworking equipment to make sure they aren’t building a suppressor. I’m fairly certain you can download the plans for a lightning link for ‘educational purposes’ nearly anywhere and an enterprising felon with a hacksaw and files could throw together a couple of those in an afternoon. ATF should go after the entirety of the internet and anyone buying plate steel.

          • Joseph Goins

            What the ATF should do is prioritize their work to aid the lawful users instead of focusing on catching lawbreakers. An example of that would be processing Form 1s in a decent time frame instead of setting up entrapment schemes like Fast and Furious.

          • matt

            Without a hole in the middle it is not and cannot be a suppressor.

          • Joseph Goins

            False. They sold the “solvent traps” as being Form 1 ready. It’s illegal.

            18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(24)
            The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

          • kcshooter

            Exactly. That requires a hole in the middle.

            Not sure how clueless can be, but if you bought his parts and just put the together as they came out of the box, screw it on your gun and fire, your gun blows up.

            How is that a suppressor by any definition?

          • Joseph Goins

            That’s not the issue. The issue is that they sold the parts intending for them to be resigned into a suppressor. That’s the crime. If they just sold it only as a solvent trap, purged the website of support the DIY silencers, and disclaimed its use as a silencer, then they would be in total compliance. They would also be in total compliance if they kept marketing it as “Form 1 Ready” but sold it only to people with verifiable and approved Form 1s. (This is what the ATF told them they could do.)

          • kcshooter

            False. The seller is never responsible for the end users.
            The parts were merely parts until a bullet can pass thru.
            He was not charged with a crime because there was no crime committed.

            Again, I’ll ask you’d what makes you an expert on this? Explain your claim of legal expertise in this area. I’ve asked you this over and over but you wont answer.

            I am tired of repeating myself to you. I’ve explained the situation several times. I can’t make you get it any more than I can fix stupid.

          • kcshooter

            False. That is exactly the issue. Whether or not a bullet can pass thru it is precisely the qualifier for whether it is or isn’t a suppressor or suppressor part.
            Also, a seller is not responsible for the end users misuse of a product. Thought you were a legal expert? You don’t know this?
            The parts were merely parts until a bullet can pass thru.
            Crime? What crime? He was not charged with a crime because there was no crime committed.
            Again, I’ll ask you, what makes you an expert on this? Explain your claim of legal expertise in this area. I’ve asked you this over and over but you wont answer.
            I am tired of repeating myself to you. I’ve explained the situation several times. I can’t make you get it any more than I can fix stupid.

    • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

      No, I wouldn’t. I much prefer that they shut down instead of prison time.

  • guest

    “solvent trap parts”, in the same Entrapment Isle as the “handguns”, “braces” and “muzzle break baffle extensions” are located

    I swear this is Darwin’s theory of evolution translated perfectly into the world of weapons.

  • May

    If you don’t like the law write to your rep or to president Putin; but as long as the law is on the books you’re committing serious felonies by skirting and breaking it like this, and all that does is hurt the case to get the law changed.

    • Bradley

      Your representatives can’t do anything about it directly because it isn’t even technically a “law.” The atf has free reign to interpret the actual laws and decide at any time that something is violating them.

      • May

        The reason why the ATF is allowed to interpret the law is because the laws they’re interpreting are vague, if the law was explicit then they’d have no such reign.

        • mrsatyre

          Are these actually laws or regulations? I seem to remember something decades ago that explained that federal agencies (pick one) had been given leeway by a president back in the early part of the 20th century to create regulations in lieu of Congress drafting and ratifying a new law (I think the FDA was one of the first such agencies with regulatory power where their agents could arrest and prosecute anyone breaking their regulations); regulations that were immediately enforceable as if they were laws. But I guess in reality, they both amount to th same thing.

          • FarmerB

            I don’t know how it works in the US, but many other countries have laws that basically enables extension and interpretation of the law based on a regulation promulgated by some named official. If that official publishes a change to the regulation in the Federal Register, it’s basically new law and no congress/parliament required. Think of a list of prohibited weapons named in a gun law. At the bottom of the list is a sentence that says “or as specified in regulation by the commissioner of police”. So some company comes up with a new gun called “AAR-15”, so the police chief just publishes the name of the new gun in the equivalent of the Federal Register and three days later it’s just as banned as all the others.

  • Justin

    Until we see actual documentation on why the ATF shut them down then this is all he said, she said.

    • Joseph Goins

      It is very likely that they were offered a settlement: no criminal charges and you quit selling the product. Given that 99% of their income was from the solvent traps, they would then have likely decided to close the business.

      • Justin

        That’s the thing, were the nailed for the solvent traps or for the suppressor cores they sell to SOT’s and manufacturers, we just don’t know any details other then the company is shutting down and apparently it’s the ATF’s fault.

        • Joseph Goins

          No. It’s their fault for selling solvent traps to the commercial public and promoting it as “Form 1 Ready” in violation of the law.

          • kcshooter

            Dude, you are just sooooo damn dumb!

      • kcshooter

        There were no charges. Because they broke no laws.

  • JoelM

    If you consider this with the light of the upcoming HPA being cast upon it…. after the HPA passes silencer tubes will be the same, legally, as firearm receivers. They won’t be able to sell them without them being serialized and going through an FFL. They’d have to leave them less than 80% completed in order to sell them on their website direct to consumer.

    This is simply the ATF mopping the floor before it’s wet.

    The ATF likely didn’t anticipate the HPA having ANY chance under a Clinton admin, and now they see that it might actually have a chance to become law. So they’re looking to prevent people from buying up “completed receivers” to easily assemble after the law passes.

  • RetroG

    I’d really like to know exactly how they were violating the NFA laws. Charging those selling a collection of threaded pipes and freeze plugs would put most hardware stores and auto parts stores in violation of the NFA. Until a bullet can pass through them unimpeded, I just don’t see it as a Constitutional law, as it would be too vague.

    • Joseph Goins

      It’s also a GCA violation. The definition of a silencer — as per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) — includes “any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler”. By selling the “solvent traps” as Form 1 Ready, SD Tactical broke numerous laws.

      • kcshooter

        Then why wasn’t a single charge filed, and why are they still in business selling such a highly regulated product like suppressors.

        Buddy, you sound more foolish with every post.

  • Alex Waits

    The law, as written, was not broken. The parts sold were not suppressor parts any more than a block of aluminum is a post 86 M16. They still take machining to manufacture them into a full boat suppressor. By this logic, anyone with access to a lathe is a suppressor manufacturer and should be fined and jailed appropriately. Or Polymer80 is shipping handguns and ar lowers straight to your door because it only takes a little work to make them into working receivers.

  • Bill

    Nice to see the usual inane “this isn’t illegal” shtick in play. That argument doesn’t work when you have all the ingredients for a meth cook or IED build in one place, but just haven’t started mixing. Don’t expect it to work now.

  • clay

    In one breath “solvent traps are illegal” and car parts are not. I wish you would in fact be clear when you say “solvent traps are illegal” because they are in fact NOT illegal. Suppressors are also “not” illegal. Parts for either are NOT illegal. You can speak your opinion but your facts are wrong.

    • Joseph Goins

      What SD Tactical did was illegal because they marketed it as a “Form 1 Ready” parts kit. By doing so, they — not the end user — manufactured an unregistered suppressor.

      18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
      The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

      • clay

        Never said what SD Tactical was doing was lawful, I said solvent traps are NOT illegal. I said this because they are NOT illegal.

        • Joseph Goins

          That is true; solvent traps bought and sold for the purpose of being a solvent trap are not illegal. They took an innocent product and turned it into an unregistered combination of suppressor parts. I was merely stating what the legal justification for shutting it down was.

          • kcshooter

            They aren’t shut down. The broke no laws or they would have been.

      • kcshooter

        Wrong. If that was true they would be arrested and out of business. They aren’t.

        • Joseph Goins

          Trolling now, huh?

          • kcshooter

            Its called correcting. You kept posting false information. I corrected you.
            Call it what you want.

  • imtoomuch

    “While we are no politics here…” That’s news to me because politics are mentioned more than I’d care to see.

    I hope Trump rights this by legalizing silencers without a money grabbing permit.

  • S. Plankenberg

    This article should have been proof-read before it was posted.

  • James Larkins

    Honestly, I’m baffled…

  • kcshooter

    The issue is that SDTA is now manufacturing built suppressors, and those suppressors are using the parts that were originally designated as solvent trap parts. Since these parts can be used in the pre-built suppressors, they are now not solvent trap parts but suppressor parts.
    Nothing is illegal about any of the solvent trap tubes until the holes are drilled. You can order parts, engrave them, fit them, everything but creating a way for a bullet to pass thru the device, completely legally. All this creative intent bullshit is, well, bullshit.

    • Joseph Goins

      There is nothing illegal about a solvent trap. There is something illegal about buying and selling parts that are intended to be redesigned into a suppressor.
      That is what they were doing. Don’t kid yourself.

      • kcshooter

        No, it isn’t, dumbass, you have no clue what you are talking about. It’s so legal, they have a letter from the ATF telling them so.
        Parts are parts until there is a hole drilled thru them. This is a legal and legitimate Form 1 builders method and until the end user breaks the law, no laws are broken.
        They also offer an engraving service for the legal Form 1 stamping requirements.
        Its completely legitimate until they started selling Form 4 suppressors using the same parts.

        The amount of cluelessness about NFA laws is part of the problem. Upvote his post and you peg yourself as ignorant. Good work.

        • Joseph Goins

          No, they have a copy of a letter that states that “solvent traps” are legal to buy and sell if they are bought and sold with the intention of being a “solvent trap.” They sold the parts as being “Form 1 Ready” and at one point called them “suppressor parts.”

  • valorius

    A little proof reading goes a long way toward article quality.

  • Darrell Amy Kress

    This is Darrell the owner of SD Tactical Arms. This article needs some clarification. The ATF said we can no longer sell solvent trap parts because they are silencer parts. I have the proper licensing to sell silencer parts. They said I can sell silencers under form 4. Today after much discussion they said I can sell my parts to approved form 1 holders but they must verify and prove their stamp. This was a step in a good direction for us as it allows us to make money while we fight the legal battle that my parts are solvent trap parts until altered. Any of you are just as guilty of having a NFA item if you own a hacksaw and a shotgun. The issue is that the items I sold could be made into a silencer with modification. The agent even said that NAPA was guilty of selling me silencer baffles (freeze plugs). So I see misunderstanding on their thought process and am forced to lawyer up. Guess what? I have been in contact with the NRA’s top pick to help me here. I will fight for our freedoms and hopefully win.

    Thank you, Darrell Kress

    • Joseph Goins

      “This article needs some clarification. The ATF said we can no longer sell solvent trap parts because they are silencer parts. I have the proper licensing to sell silencer parts. They said I can sell silencers under form 4. Today after much discussion they said I can sell my parts to approved form 1 holders but they must verify and prove their stamp.”
      Let’s be clear: your license only allowed you to sell parts to Class 3 dealers and to those with a Form 1. Nothing changed with respect to what you were legally allowed to do. This arrangement is what you should have been doing in the first place. The way you were conducting business could have landed you in prison. Be thankful that you haven’t been arrested yet.

      “This was a step in a good direction for us as it allows us to make money while we fight the legal battle that my parts are solvent trap parts until altered.”
      You have already lost that battle, dude. You can call the things “solvent traps” all you want but everyone knows it is thinly veiled. You don’t even tell people how to use the product as a solvent trap on your website or YouTube. You give instructions encouraging people to buy your parts and then fill out the Form 1, wait for approval, and then drill away. (See pictures below.) That arrangement has been illegal since the definition of “firearm silencer” was changed in 1986 to include any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler as found in 18 USC § 921(a)(24). By marketing the parts as being basically “Form 1 Ready” and selling to those without approval, you were violating the letter and the spirit of the law. That’s why there is no company selling “80% suppressors.”

      “Any of you are just as guilty of having a NFA item if you own a hacksaw and a shotgun.”
      Bullshi†! First and foremost, SBRs/SBSs actually require someone to create the product and it cannot include simply having the requisite parts as per the Thompson Center ruling. Silencers, machine guns, and destructive devices are categorized as either being whole units or any combination of parts. That’s what you were selling. See above.

      “The issue is that the items I sold could be made into a silencer with modification.”

      “The agent even said that NAPA was guilty of selling me silencer baffles (freeze plugs).”
      The agent was incorrect. It was illegal for you to buy “any combination of parts” since you intended on packaging them with some other parts to make a DIY silencer kit. See above.

      “So I see misunderstanding on their thought process and am forced to lawyer up.”
      I do have to ask: did you really not have an attorney before this ordeal started? You are in one of the most dangerous industries a machine shop can be in, and you already have a SOT license.

      “Guess what? I have been in contact with the NRA’s top pick to help me here. I will fight for our freedoms and hopefully win.”
      Please don’t associate yourself with the gun community. You will likely make all of us look dishonest.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d62476074aedab842d279b47b2386250fe8e9ee8f41c2ea00bb4a64aac093464.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6a2e2422f754b4962735190438936399174028d0c729f62f02eec8d928c9a73e.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e29bcddcb024b23153a8a300c4a38e28973ca06d28726ddc4253a9fd94f5b9e.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2f96e6f356c7ad5a23dd5bd41d1c6e55f30683f0124858450f4d225f6ee45a10.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9572c7bb6d577bf8e6f00b75735ddd6d96d980962320bb34637cb0913420d836.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e84f0c87df95b617182f5af281b8cf793ac75285b0a95c62055b9656e1df5eb.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ed5dc800531eebcc8dc23be6b2639812a59d7499a46089d98864e5bced7e3974.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8af889442bfbe23fd236edab75dd8725375a967907f07bc839701fdefa1d858.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05655da4f6652a1125c8b687a452730786f96ab1b686da567fdc199605382b6a.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0185b091ef0c27e5f0914cc5006b75f7c565c8b5cae9878dc5bc0ea39bed4edc.png

      • kcshooter

        Dude, you are legally a moron. You don’t know the laws, and you are completely out of your element.
        Shut up now before you say anything else stupid.

        • Joseph Goins

          Oh, do you have a law degree from a major university and have worked in the legal field for the last decade? No. Ok then…

          And there is nothing to say that the ATF didn’t go back to the field office to start an investigation. They may still be arrested. (If you didn’t know, this is how almost all federal investigations go.)

          • kcshooter

            So you are telling me you are a lawyer!?!?
            You are serious!y ignorant of the law, I find that hard to believe, but I guess there the worst doctor in the world somewhere too.

            Do you think the ATF didn’t know about them? They were in the final stages of approval for a suppressor manufacturing license! Do you think they would have NOT shut down the business and NOT arrested anyone if laws were being broken??

            Seriously, if you can’t follow logic thru this, I don’t care what your degree says, you’re an idiot.

          • Joseph Goins

            Of what law do you think I am ignorant? Please cite the relevant statutory and case law. You are nothing more than a cousin of the dreaded jailhouse lawyer: the gun shop lawyer.

            They actually already had the 7/2 licensing. They were always allowed to manufacture and sell the parts if the buyer already had a Form 1. This is what the ATF told them.

            You don’t know how federal investigations are done. They don’t arrest people on the spot. They actually investigate rather than relying on the prima facie evidence. Even then, the government could have decided not to pursue the issue, issued a warning, dropped their licensing, came to an arrangement, etc. They have a wide array of tools at their disposal other than simply arresting them.

          • kcshooter

            The fact that you think that they wouldn’t shut down the business right then and there, as they historically have done in cases such as this, proves you have no legal experience in this are.

            Maybe you are a lawyer, which would explain the ignorant confidence, but maybe this is outside the scope of fixing traffic violations.

  • Joseph Goins

    You do know that the website is absolutely good for nothing, right?

    • BLK RFL DIV

      How was M855 saved from being banned for commercial sale? It started with one of these petitions as well as calling local reps. It started awareness and activism.

      On Instagram, most people have no clue what the NFA is, how it controls their 2A Right, so at least it educates some of them who are oblivious to the laws and where they stemmed from. It’s a start.

      Or we can just say these petitions are “good for nothing” and do absolutely nothing while our Rights are being suspended. That’s the California motto! And it’s no wonder CA gun owners are sucking pole bc we are “doing nothing”. Ever go to a pro gun march in CA or your home State, besides them being “good for nothing”? Why bother, it’s a joke, no one shows up. Joseph, imo, what’s useless are the people who do nothing and are all talk. There seems to be a hell of a lot of them.

      • Joseph Goins

        Strawman. The website is pointless. Before the Trump administration deleted all the existing petitions, most of them were some variation of “arrest W for violating X,” “free Y,” “legalize weed,” “build a Death Star,” etc. It was created to make people feel heard. When petitions actually got the required number of signatures needed to get a response, the response was typically “we can’t do anything about it as you need to contact Office Z. (Although the response to the Death Star petition was actually pretty good but pointless as expected.)

        • BLK RFL DIV

          Strawman, are you serious?

          Explain to me how M855 was saved. I’m all ears.

          • Joseph Goins

            That’s not the issue. Even if it was because of the website – which it wasn’t – it is still the lone example. It’s because what they were planning on doing was illegal and we raised hell. They wanted to redefine M855 as “armor-piercing ammunition” despite the fact that it does not meet the legal requirement as set forth in 18 USC § 921(a)(17)(b).

  • the atf excercising tyranny once again

    • Joseph Goins

      What’s tyrannical about the actions of the ATF here?

      • restricting constitutional rights guaranteed to citizens by the constitution? and don’t give me the line about they are just doing their job enforcing laws passed by congress. following unjust orders doesnt absolve responsibility

        • Joseph Goins

          That’s not tyrannical and it has nothing to do with the ATF. “Tyranny” is defined as the “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.” Nothing that the ATF has done in this instance meets that definition. Since the Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986 changed the legal definition of suppressors to include either a whole unit or “any combination of parts” that can be designed or redesigned with the intent of manufacturing or assembling a suppressor, selling “solvent traps” with the intent of people turning the parts into a suppressor has been a crime. (Just look at archived versions of their website and you will see that this is what they were doing.) There is a reason why no one sells 80% silencers. The law is what it is. Your view — regulating firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment — has been thoroughly rejected by the only body that can decide the law for everyone in the country.

          • just because the courts have ruled that way doesnt mean that they are right. Also I dont know why ATF apologists hang out on firearm blogs like this

          • kcshooter

            More stupidity. Why would you talk about something you are so ignorant of?
            Suppressor were regulated 50 years earlier, dumbass. And that whole statement is complete B.S. Until there is a hole drilled thru it it is completely legal. No intent exists until that is done.
            These are the laws. Sorry they don’t fit your liberal agenda.

          • Joseph Goins

            How fuçking stupid are you? I explicitly said that FOPA “changed the legal definition of suppressors.” Logically, that means that there had to be a legal definition prior to the change. Please do a modicum of research before you make stupid comments. And yes, “any combination of parts” constitutes a silencer if the intent is to design or redesign the part. As I said previously, there is a reason why no one sells 80% silencers. Please read the change FOPA made here:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c604e51b5155efd41568f23687cdd553f95c4e62383f5701d7d41e593130722.png

          • kcshooter

            ….which has been interpreted as saying, it’s legal until a bullet can pass thru it.

            Call the ATF. Ask if I’m wrong. They’ll set you straight.

          • Joseph Goins

            What statute, regulation, and/or case interpreted it as such?

          • kcshooter

            Read the letter the ATF sent to the business owner. It is very clearly stated as such on that document.

          • Joseph Goins

            What letter sent to the business owner? They never received one addressed to them. On FaceBook, they are passing around a copy of an unverified letter found on only on the website of RoninPro which is another solvent trap dealer. I doubt the authenticity of the letter simply because it was uploaded in text format instead of as a PDF which is what most companies do so that customers can see that it is authentic and can print it off. If, however, it is legitimate and was given to RoninPro (fact: it wasn’t written to SDTA), there is a very real difference between the “solvent traps” sold by each. SDTA shows how to turn their product into suppressors and encourages people intending to Form 1 a suppressor to purchase their parts (which would be entirely legal if the customer already had approval) RoninPro expressly states: “RoninPro does not advise, promote, nor condone making any alterations and or modifications of our products to produce silencers or suppressors, even for a legal purpose. Our products are not designed nor manufactured to be used as sound suppressors and cannot be used as a sound suppressor, unless the solvent trap parts are modified by the purchaser with the intent to create a sound suppressor.”

          • kcshooter

            Then why has there been no busts, raids, shutdowns, or any other ramifications to the dozen or more online solvent trap part sellers?

            The answer is “because it isn’t illegal!” Dumbass.

          • Joseph Goins

            Deflection. Just what I expected.

          • kcshooter

            Deflection? I simply asked you another question that you can’t answer, just like the half dozen other questions I asked but you couldn’t answer.

            You keep repeating disingenuous and erroneous statements, claim to be an expert, yet won’t back anything you say up.

            You’ve been corrected a dozen times by half a dozen posters here with legitimate experience, claim you know more, back that up with nothing, then spout more lies.

            You’re a joke.

  • N Man

    worried for a sec then remembered the Order I placed last week was with 5d tactical.
    whoops

  • camosoul

    They haven’t threatened or attacked me. Again. Yet… Then again, my products aren’t “Form 1 ready.” I have been getting lots of strangely worded emails from “customers” lately… ATF playing word games trying to put meanings in places where they aren’t. And people wonder why I don’t publish a phone number?

  • Tp

    They should have never had the option to have the freeze plugs included with the tube. The law does state that you cannot have all the parts to build one at hand, and then stating that it can be made into a silencer right on their site basically proves they are selling silencer kits. Oh, not to mention bragging about the high strength aluminum for it doesn’t blow up while you are pouring solvent in it.
    Hopefully they don’t get nailed with heavy fines or and jail time, after all they were not a dark wed site, they were right in the public eye.

  • uisconfruzed

    would

  • l2a3

    Just unregulated regulators making law. They would likely not win in court, as this seems to be their opinion and they did not test it, to prove that these parts are a silencer, not just look similar. JMHO

    • glenn cheney

      This is one of obummer’s last minute hitches in ATF giddy-up.
      This is WHY Pres. Trump had to muzzle the muzzies and their allies within various agencies.
      They will be identified and neutralized in due course.
      There is serious looks at NFA and other relevant legislation being looked at at staff levels, but, until Sen. SESSIONS is confirmed as head of DOJ, we will publicly hear little on this suppressor noise.
      The Hearing Act will be passed into law, plus lots more to come.

      • Larry Glock

        Larry Glock glenn cheney • a few seconds ago

        “…until Sen. SESSIONS is confirmed as head of DOJ…”.

        That’ll take a while.

        Aside from absolutely stonewalling any of Trump’s Supreme Court picks, blocking Jeff Sessions from becoming Attorney General is the Numero Uno objective.

        So, suppressor regulation is going to be way don’t on the priority list for awhile.

        • glenn cheney

          DEMS get to put it off one week.
          If legislation is drafted, and concensus is there, Ryan may surprise how quickly the bread comes out of the oven.
          Hearing is in that category.

        • glenn cheney

          DEMS can only put off the Sessions nomination one week, so this week coming up, the committee will have to discuss the matter.
          The initial priorities will be the low fruit, those issues in bill form, or ready for drafting.
          House committee origination can be bypassed by Senate, if their version is delivered in a different protocol.
          Ryan can find sponsors no problem.
          Momentum bar has been set, first week. There is great incentive to maintain the pace, it’s a “priority.”

        • glenn cheney

          Update, We expect vote on Sen. SESSIONS as early as Wed. of this coming week.
          That’s about 72 hours from this post, give or take a few hours.
          We’ll see.
          If you search my posts on other venues, comp. the time lines, you’ll see I have yet to be incorrect.
          I can’t call the exact second, but I know where this train is headed.

  • ToddB

    SD tactical did it to themselves. They pushed the envelope and found the edge. Im going to say it was the instructional videos explaining how to convert their ‘solvent traps’ into a suppressor that did it. That sort of implies intent. Solvent trap sellers did it to themselves. Had they kept it a gun show, or web site thing, might have been okay. But when they had pages of the solvent trap kits on Amazon, with machined or stamped ‘battery spacers’ that no battery would fit in and served no actual purpose being a solvent trap, that was the bridge to far. SD tactical acts like they are being oppressed for selling freedom, when everybody knew what they were selling. Who exactly needs the strength of titanium to catch cleaning patches out of a rifle? And be full of ‘battery spacers’?

    • kcshooter

      In what industry is the manufacturer responsible for the end users actions?

  • whamprod

    My question is, what, if anything, happens to all those people who built Form 1 cans using SD Tactical parts? I assume that, since they’ve got their stamps, they’re good to go. But is there any indication from ATF that they’re going to revoke stamps for Form 1 cans if they can determine that it was made with SD Tactical parts?

    • kcshooter

      Why would they???

  • Colonel K

    Bringing a dose of reality to this debate is simply not fair. I call micro-aggression!

  • ** I want to preface this by saying that we have covered the legality of solvent traps time and time again, they are not legal and can place you in a position that you do not want to be in. NFA laws are serious and should be taken serious. **…

    “I am not a lawyer so the legalities of the matter are not something I can comment on..”

    Make up your damn mind.

  • OldGringo

    Please write your 2 senators and your one congressman and urge them to support the hearing protection act and the national concealed carry act. They count letters and if they don’t get vary many, neither will pass. Now, I am a retired attorney as a second career, including 8 years prosecuting cases and putting folks in jail. I was military police in the army and an investigator in the air force as well as a couple years as a local police officer and a state park ranger,. I am 40% VA hearing disabled due to military service Yes I am old, be that as it may the ATF is right in this case. If you sell a tube that looks like a silencer and then a bunch of parts that can be converted into an illegal device in 20 minutes, then you are guilty of selling silencer parts. Just think of the defendant testifying, when asked “when you sold this legal threaded tube, why did you also select freeze plugs, the exact size to fit this tube?” “oh then what did you intend for your customer to do with these freeze plugs?” “So you knew that it was logical for people who wanted to illegally create a silencer with a customized package of items including freeze plugs exactly the same size as your tube?” “So basically you could have made and sold a legal tube, but you went ahead and made it large enough to fit common freeze plugs on the market that could be easily drilled into illegal baffles that would convert the tube into an illegal suppressor:” ” Oh yes, one more question. did you actually put threads on your tube so it would actually fit common rifles that are intended for use with suppressors?” OK, I could add a couple more dozen questions to pin these guys into a corner. But you get the idea, if I were the prosecutor my summation would be OK, people of the jury, nobody likes the federal government and all their gun regulations, but it is clear they have violated the law by creating a package of legal stuff for sale to folks that want to commit an illegal act. And those parts can be used by gang-bangers and other bad people to kill other people like me or you, or one of your kids or grandkids …yes the defense might object, but the jury will convict these guys because it is clear beyond any doubt they were trying to skirt the law….so write those letters to your 2 senators a one 1 congressman to support the hearing protection act, so we can all have suppressors if we want without that $200 tax and 7 month delay and permanent tracking by the silencer police. Thanks for your endurance.

  • Core

    We need to ask Trump will step in and make sure no rifle or pistol’s voice goes unsilenced..

  • glenn cheney

    I posted a reply, don’t see it.
    We expect a vote on Sen. Sessions WED. of this week.
    Might be Thurs. if something comes up.
    WED. IS supposed to be the day. DEMS had option to put vote off ONE WEEK and did.
    DOJ post is most important priority, then America will see turbo-chargers added to the legal system including new enforcement policies.
    48 hours…..T-minus snd counting.