SayUncle points out a recent post on the SubGuns forum where one of the guys asks if hes paranoid or not, to think that owning one of these Tipton brand “Patch Catcher” devices could be considered intent to manufacture a suppressor.
From the product description:
Innovative design! Cleaning the barrel on your firearm can be messy. Solvent spatter, drips and dirty patches always seem to end up where you don’t want them. Solvents and gunk can stain clothes. Solution? The Tipton™ Catcher.
Attach it to the end of the muzzle of any gun. Screw an empty water or soda bottle into the threaded end. Dirty patches and solvent are safely and cleanly contained. Then just toss the bottle!
In my opinion, just having the product “as is” and using it to catch patches would never be considered intent.
I’d say it would be a completely different story though if you were caught shooting with the patch catcher on, and a bottle attached. Worse yet, if you were caught with the patch catcher and a bottle that had something that looked like it had baffling, spacers, wipes etc.. I think it would be safe to say you would be in a load of trouble.
There are quite a few videos on YouTube of people making plastic bottle suppressors and using them on their 22LR. It’s hard to tell with background noise and crappy cameras if the sound is actually being suppressed. I wouldn’t want to take any chances though.
Tipton patch catcher on Sportsmans Guide – HERE
Hat Tip: SayUncle
Comments
8 responses to “Possible intent to manufacture suppressor?”
According to the BATF possession IS intent. Like if you owned a civilian semi-auto AK-47 and you also had the parts to convert it to full auto would be grounds to prosecute for “intent to manufacture an unregistered machine gun”. However there is also a letter that has been posted from the BATF that said using a shoelace to hold down the disconnector in an AR-15 is considered a machine gun. They haven’t prosecuted anyone for that to my knowledge, but by the the rules the BATF has come up with they could for mere possession of shoelaces.
Be wary of an organization that continually has to justify its existence in a country where violent crime is going down every year.
Ty,
Possession in this case would just be of a “patch catcher” and a bottle though right? Do you really think there could be a problem unless you were using it for something else like I mentioned in that one paragraph?
Funny you mention that shoelace post, I actually wrote a post up on that a while back and will post it any day now!
They’ll push it. Count on it. http://cmblake6.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/follow-along-now-ill-get-there-in-juuust-a-minute/
Great article cmblake6!
Thank you. You guys are a regular read, even if I don’t comment all the time. Feel free to use the contents of my post to write something of your own, we need all the exposure on this we can get.
Oh, the soda bottle does work. That, and a bit of duct tape.
I know Im a bit late in this topic but after seeing this product on SPGs website I had the same thoughts everyone else had. “This thing looks like a soda bottle silencer.” Thus the quick google that led me here.
Now I have not seen one of these things in person, nor have I ever attempted to strap a soda bottle to any of my firearms, but Im thinking it could, at least in theory, work as a silencer for a low powered firearm.
Only problem I have is it looks cheaply made and would probably not hold up to even the mild forces of a .22LR for very long. As the ludicrous plethora of YouTube videos (appear) to prove, the same results could be obtained with the same bottle and duct tape for a lot less cost not to mention less risk of it being interpreted by the BATF as “intent”.
In the end Im sure someone out there has tried this. Im sure eventually a YouTube video will surface. But why spend $15 to do something (stupid) that you could do for just a few cents? Wait I think my “Stupid” qualifier may have answered my own question.
About a year ago I looked and thought the same thing. Haha Gun minds think alike