TFA and suppressor construction

[Inquisitive]

Does the new TFA legislation allow for construction of a sound suppressor by an individual who doesn`t have a form 1 from the BATFE ( Just a regular "Joe" )? Reading the legislation, the term attachments is used & a suppressor is an attachment. I realize that Made in TN would have to be put on the suppressor if it is allowed. I also realize that should it cross state lines to go to another individual, it would have to go through an FFL from what I understand.

Does anyone know for sure, if construction of one is permissible without all of the federal involvement?

Thank you for any help in this matter.

[TacticaLogic]

Before you do this... Are you willing to be the guinea pig on testing the Tennessee Firearms Freedon Act? I would hold off on any construction were I you. This situation is not quite yet resolved...

See this thread:

Alaska has stated that they will fully back anyone that is federally charged with a federal firearms violation once their 10th Amendment legislation goes through... That will be a good test of what will happen nationally. I'm not personally willing to risk 10 years/$10,000 just to see how far the feds will push the issue.

Regards,
Mike

[Inquisitive]

Mike,
Thank you for your opinion. I think right now, alot of folks are wondering about this subject. Someone will have to step up to the plate & go to bat for the underdog. No one knows clearly how it could turn out. Being Bubbas girlfriend for 10 years & losing alot of money in fines is not attractive to me. If our state has said it is legal, I believe that`s good enough for me. The Feds may have a hard time trying to "persecute" someone in a state where it is legal to do what the state has deemed is legal. Kudos to Alaska for their support of someone in this situation who does what the state deems as legal. I hope they can get their legislation passed too. Montana is working on legislation now as I understand it to challenge the Feds authority also. We need some teeth to cause the Feds to back down on this issue. I think I may be preaching to the choir here on this one. I hope the state can put the government in their place when it comes to matters such as these. I just hope it doesn`t take years to figure out what one can do legally in their home state when the state they live in has made the things legal, then the government says, is illegal. I guess time will tell.

[TacticaLogic]

I think you and I are on the same page... I guess I would pursue a locally manufactured suppressor if I knew Tennessee would do what Alaska is saying they will do. Alaska is not only going to back their citizen verbally, but is willing to provide them legal council as well, based upon what I have read. I don't think old Phil Bredeson would go that distance for a Tennessean. Perhaps a strong, conservative governor that understands the full meaning of the Constitution would - but that is not what we have.

I think the best thing that could happen on this front is for all the states (that have passed 10th Amendment legislation) to get together and file suit against the federal government. This would skip the district federal courts and would go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. That way, we could get a final answer one way or the other. If the USSC went against the constitution, it would cause states to seek relief through other means. I would hope that the USSC would have enough sense to know what that would mean and therefore find in favor of the states.

In the mean time, I will support my state in this battle every way I can. But I am not willing to be made an example of by the BATFE and their interpretation of law according to "which way the wind blows, or whether they've had their morning coffee, or whether or not their wife/girlfriend just left them." My family needs me here... Some of the people with BATFE believe strongly that the general public should not have any firearms at all... These are the same people that believe the government tells the people what to do instead of the other way around. They love to go after people that "dare question the authority of the BATFE." (Not all of them think that way, mind you... Some are good guys just trying to do a job. But my opinion is that those good ones are leaving the ranks everyday, and most of their replacements don't feel the same way they do.) It used to be that there were enough real criminals to keep the agency (when it was much smaller) busy. But just like any other bureaucracy, it has grown and must justify its existence. When there is a shortage of criminals, they either have to cut back on personel and budget or they have to find (create) more criminals. Its just the "life cycle" of any bureaucracy - have work, hire more people so that existing employees don't have to work too hard, then they run short of work, so they make more work in order to retain people and budget. It doesn't matter what agency it is... that's the way it works.

I personally believe that anyone that can otherwise legally own a firearm should be allowed to own what ever firearm they wish regardless of whether or not it is a class III weapon or a matchlock, and that they should be allowed to own any accessories that they wish as well, including suppressors. But that being said, I personally have no NEED for a class III weapon or suppressor at this time. Note: there is a difference between WANT and NEED... I WANT one of every firearm made! But I have, right now, what I NEED... If there comes a time (before we get this 10th Amendment issue resolved) that I NEED a full-auto weapon and/or a suppressor, I will acquire one via "battle field pick-up." While I am doing that, I will supplement my ammo supply as well. If we do get the issue resolved in our favor, I will have a full-auto weapon and a suppressor shortly thereafter - I would just make my own. But as it stands right now, I avoid even owning materials that could even be misconstrued as suppressor or full auto parts, as I have seen cases of people being convicted of "owning suppressor parts" just because they owned a sack full of "fender washers" out in the garage, or had an AR-15 purchased second hand with one M-16 part in the fire control system (won't fire full auto without all the M-16 fire control parts along with an M-16 bolt carrier - but even possession of 1 M-16 part not even in the AR-15 rifle is considered possession of a machine gun in the eyes of BATFE.)

Like I said, I believe that anyone that can otherwise legally own a firearm should be allowed to own what ever firearm they wish. I also believe that descretion can be the better part of valor... If it comes down to it, I would rather be free until the issue is resolved one way or the other. If in our favor, great. If not in our favor, I'm free to fight whatever battles might lie ahead. I don't want to go down to the first volley fired in a 10th Amendment battle.

Stay safe, stay armed,
Mike

[Inquisitive]

"I think you and I are on the same page... I guess I would pursue a locally manufactured suppressor if I knew Tennessee would do what Alaska is saying they will do. Alaska is not only going to back their citizen verbally, but is willing to provide them legal council as well, based upon what I have read. I don't think old Phil Bredeson would go that distance for a Tennessean. Perhaps a strong, conservative governor that understands the full meaning of the Constitution would - but that is not what we have."

I do believe Sir, that we are on the same page. We do need a good governor who would support his state & defend the meaning of the oath as he took it. I hope the next election will be beneficial to the peoples of this great state in which we live. More & more people are waking up to the fact of what is going on & REALLY want to correct the problems. I have never seen or heard so many people having total disgust for the politicians which have been elected & then did what they wanted to do versus doing what the people desired them to do.

"I think the best thing that could happen on this front is for all the states (that have passed 10th Amendment legislation) to get together and file suit against the federal government. This would skip the district federal courts and would go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. That way, we could get a final answer one way or the other. If the USSC went against the constitution, it would cause states to seek relief through other means. I would hope that the USSC would have enough sense to know what that would mean and therefore find in favor of the states."

That statement sounds like something that makes good sense to me. I surely would like to see that happen. It too, might be a little more speedy & efficient.

"In the mean time, I will support my state in this battle every way I can. But I am not willing to be made an example of by the BATFE and their interpretation of law according to "which way the wind blows, or whether they've had their morning coffee, or whether or not their wife/girlfriend just left them." My family needs me here... Some of the people with BATFE believe strongly that the general public should not have any firearms at all... These are the same people that believe the government tells the people what to do instead of the other way around. They love to go after people that "dare question the authority of the BATFE." (Not all of them think that way, mind you... Some are good guys just trying to do a job. But my opinion is that those good ones are leaving the ranks everyday, and most of their replacements don't feel the same way they do.) It used to be that there were enough real criminals to keep the agency (when it was much smaller) busy. But just like any other bureaucracy, it has grown and must justify its existence. When there is a shortage of criminals, they either have to cut back on personel and budget or they have to find (create) more criminals. Its just the "life cycle" of any bureaucracy - have work, hire more people so that existing employees don't have to work too hard, then they run short of work, so they make more work in order to retain people and budget. It doesn't matter what agency it is... that's the way it works. "

It`s that "which way the wind blows" statement that makes me nervous. They should fear us, not the other way around.

"I personally believe that anyone that can otherwise legally own a firearm should be allowed to own what ever firearm they wish regardless of whether or not it is a class III weapon or a matchlock, and that they should be allowed to own any accessories that they wish as well, including suppressors. But that being said, I personally have no NEED for a class III weapon or suppressor at this time. Note: there is a difference between WANT and NEED... I WANT one of every firearm made! But I have, right now, what I NEED... If there comes a time (before we get this 10th Amendment issue resolved) that I NEED a full-auto weapon and/or a suppressor, I will acquire one via "battle field pick-up." While I am doing that, I will supplement my ammo supply as well. If we do get the issue resolved in our favor, I will have a full-auto weapon and a suppressor shortly thereafter - I would just make my own. But as it stands right now, I avoid even owning materials that could even be misconstrued as suppressor or full auto parts, as I have seen cases of people being convicted of "owning suppressor parts" just because they owned a sack full of "fender washers" out in the garage, or had an AR-15 purchased second hand with one M-16 part in the fire control system (won't fire full auto without all the M-16 fire control parts along with an M-16 bolt carrier - but even possession of 1 M-16 part not even in the AR-15 rifle is considered possession of a machine gun in the eyes of BATFE.)"

Yeah I don`t have a need for any of the above. It is a want more than anything else. I have fired fully automatic weapons & they are a joy to shoot. Wish more could experience it. Suppressed is fun too. I am not James Bond running around using suppressors to get rid of unscrupulous characters so I don`t have a need for one of them either but feel that if I want to own one, I shouldn`t have to worry about the Feds or Bubba. I have heard of others saying to not worry about class 3 stuff either because if something were to happen, as you stated, "battle field pick up" is a possibility. Who is going to worry about being prosecuted at that point?

"Like I said, I believe that anyone that can otherwise legally own a firearm should be allowed to own what ever firearm they wish. I also believe that discretion can be the better part of valor... If it comes down to it, I would rather be free until the issue is resolved one way or the other. If in our favor, great. If not in our favor, I'm free to fight whatever battles might lie ahead. I don't want to go down to the first volley fired in a 10th Amendment battle."

I understand you completely & you have made several good points. I just hope we can see a resolution in our favor before we breathe our last breaths. Court battles are where we stand our best chance of coming to a conclusion without resulting to other means. I just hope that it will be a good conclusion & one that is in line with the framers design of our wonderful constitution.

At this junction in the road, going to wait things out & see what happens.

Mike, thank you for the advice & time given to put your thoughts out here for others to ponder.