Sig MCX Extended Brake Ruled Suppressor by Judge

Nathan S
by Nathan S

Sig Sauer has lost what is likely is first round of legal battles against the BATFE on the legal definition of the MCX’s “Muzzle Brake.” Granting summary judgement (a rare ruling typically on used when the judge believes the overwhelming or primae fascia evidence is in one party’s favor and that a trial would be a foregone conclusion).

The full ruling is available, but the juicy bits are boiled down below:

  • The judge agreed that it was the intent of the brake to be a suppressor.
  • The judge agreed with the ATF’s assertion that it was primarily  a baffle stack.
  • Judge agreed that muzzle brakes are functionally 2-3″ long.

In my mind, what is most worrying is the ATF continues to not disclose its test to determine if an item meets the NFA. Specifically, Sig sued as they believed the ruling was “arbitrary and capricious” as they did not have a formal framework by which to determine the items classification.

Rather than disclose its actual test, the ATF was successful at using a judge to make a determination. With the judge’s ruling, it will be difficult for Sig to challenge the ATF, as they would have to dispute a Judge’s ruling rather than the definition.

I hope they continue the good fight.

Nathan S
Nathan S

One of TFB's resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR's, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.

More by Nathan S

Join the conversation
3 of 86 comments
  • CavScout CavScout on Oct 04, 2015

    WHO CARES, give me the .40S&W MPX already!

  • Mike Mike on Oct 04, 2015

    Not surprised at all with the common sense ruling.

    • Lucusloc Lucusloc on Oct 04, 2015

      @Mike you mean the ruling that threw out the letter of the law in favor of pushing an agenda to infringe on our rights?