Follow-Up courtesy scoremoresales.com
The latest, but probably not final, installment in the saga of C.J. Grisham came yesterday when the jury sentenced him to a $2000 fine and no jail time for being found guilty of interference with the duties of an officer. Grisham says he’s pleased he wasn’t sentenced to jail time, but that he plans to appeal the verdict. He apparently rejected giving the jury the option of sentencing him to probation, saying if he had to go to jail, that was something he was willing to do rather than go through the risk of being on probation. “I didn’t want to be under the thumb . . .

and give the state another reason just to get me to violate parole. It’s just too easy these days. Obviously if a guy can get arrested for walking down a road while hiking with his son, I have no guarantees that I wouldn’t be charged with another bogus crime,” he said. “I would much rather go to jail for my convictions then succumb to having the state dictate where I can go and what I can say.” [h/t: PhoenixNFA]

A month ago we covered the story of the last primary ore lead smelter in the US closing due to EPA regulations taking effect. That closure has had people all over blaming Obama and preaching doom and gloom for the current ammunition shortage, in spite of hard evidence to the contrary. In a recent column over at bearingarms.com, Bob Owens sums it all up and tells us It’s the end of the primary lead smelter in Herculaneum (and I feel fine). The truth is the vast majority of the lead used by ammo manufacturers comes from recycled car batteries, not from smelters like Herculaneum, and as Bob says, we are “not close to seeing the end of lead ammunition manufactured in the United States, nor are we seeing an attempt at backdoor gun control.”

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says the homemade futuristic weapons ‘can potentially create a huge problem.’ Count me, again, as dubious,” writes Paul M. Barrett over at Bloomberg Businessweek*. “Undetectable weapons … could very well be dangerous,” he says, but the problem is that “bad guys want weapons that work. The 9/11 hijackers commandeered passenger jets with utility knives, box cutters, and ruthless coordination.” (*Don’t let the “Bloomberg” part of that fool you. Barrett is the guy that wrote GLOCK: The Rise of America’s Gun.)

The two Gonzaga University students who were placed on probation for possession of weapons on school-owned property filed an appeal on Monday, seeking to have the violation removed from their student records. They argue that because Gonzaga does not actually own but instead leases the building they live in that they should not be punished for not following the University’s weapons policy.

Given all the discussion about the oil-filter suppressor in today’s ugly Mosin post (and it’s not the first time it’s come up), here’s an older video of Hickok45 taking the Cadiz Gunworks Econo-Can suppressor for a test drive. Keep in mind that the Econo-Can is not a “solvent trap adapter,” it’s an actual serialized suppressor with a tax stamp that will go through your FFL on a Form 4. The filter is not (legally) user-replaceable, but is considered “servicing the suppressor,” in the same way that replacing the wipes is in a conventional model, and requires returning the Econo-Can to Cadiz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t_pcWPdSDs
.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

30 COMMENTS

  1. Whether the smelter closing will have an impact or not, I am buying everything I can get my hands on that isn’t overpriced for the current market. I will not get caught in short supply again like I did back in January.

    • Attitudes like that are the reason I haven’t been able to take my kids to the range to shoot their .22s all year. Knock that shit off.

      • Yeah, really.

        Roy, I just got a brick of CCI MiniMags at BassPro last night. Might want to check there.

      • I just got a brick of 5,000 CCI mini-mags from Midway late last week, plus 5 100 count boxes. I never saw them available (I check 3 or 4 times a day) but they did send me a back order notice. Keep trying Roy, I do think they are starting to return.

    • All of you guys who are angry at charles for stocking up on ammo are a bunch of whiney babies. Stop taking out your own inability to plan on him. Some of us were never affected by the ammo shortage because only a complete retard would think that the national ammo supply is fixed and steady. We were prepared. Stock up now, while ammo is plentiful so you can continue to shoot during tough times and so you’ll have ammo during emergencies. If a person wants to stockpile ammo so they’ll be unaffected by shortages then that’s called damn good planning. Stop painting them as bad guys. Now that ammo is back and at slightly more reasonable prices, buy now so you’re not paying $0.75 a round for 55 grain M193.

  3. “…requires returning the Econo-Can to Cadiz”
    Lol! Who is actually that law abiding? Realistically, how can the BATFE prove that you didn’t Just slap a new oil filter on?

    • I believe the filter is serialized to match the adapter. Probably engraved or etched, and yes, you could probably duplicate that, but is it worth the potential legal troubles?

          • What the hell is wrong with you? It was a question. I was confirming my assumption.

            Here’s a tip. You don’t have to be a prick. It’s not required by law or custom for you to be an asshole in every encounter with other human beings.

            FFS.

  4. Funny that you can buy those adapters ANYWHERE… I think even Amazon has them for sale. ATF agents must wake up in the middle of the night drenched in sweat imagining a the long aisles of a hardware store and the long aisles of a auto part store…

  5. Wow. What an unfree place Amerika is. It’s almost funny if it wasn’t so sad. I couldn’t go through that process to have an oil can supressor. It’s just demeaning.

  6. I knew suppressors were expensive and have not given them any thought as I do not have a barrel with the threads (or “twisty thing on the end” /politician-speak). My questions are borne of ignorance on the matter.
    What is the reason the filter cannot be user replaced and why would one need to replace it?
    As soon as I saw this I thought it’d be perfect for a 3D printer. Then I read here of a similar product for real cheap at the hardware store. I’ve not seen a solvent trapper at the hardware store, but I’ve never looked for one.
    Outside of the law, is there no functional difference between the serialized version and the solvent trapper version? If there is no difference between the two, am I to understand the only difference between jail and freedom is being caught in possession a solvent trapper with a hole in the bottom?

    • You’d cannot have spare suppressor parts lying around. That’s constructive intent. If your form 1suppressor gets shot out or has a baffle strike, you have to first destroy the old baffle then machine a new one. Can’t just have a spare blast baffle lying around. That’s constructive intent.

      Anyone is more than welcome to buy these things from Cadiz (hint: ATF won’t approve any more of the and as of a few months ago only a handful have been approved) or eBay, but when you go to federal PMITA prison, don’t say we didn’t warn you.

    • What is the reason the filter cannot be user replaced and why would one need to replace it?

      Because that’s the law. The filter screwed onto the adapter is legally the same as the baffles or wipes inside a conventional suppressor. The end user is not allowed to repair or remanufacture a suppressor; it has to be returned to a licensed agent for that. You would need to replace the oil filter because the inside of an oil filter is not terribly durable, and the heat and blast would destroy the interior structure in pretty short order. Even the metal baffles on a conventional suppressor are subject to erosion over time.

      Then I read here of a similar product for real cheap at the hardware store.

      A solvent trap is a real not-gun-related thing, but at this point on gun sites, it’s become nothing more than a euphemism for these devices.

      Outside of the law, is there no functional difference between the serialized version and the solvent trapper version?

      That’s correct. There is functionally no difference. A solvent trap adapter is nothing more than a machined piece of steel or aluminum that is threaded 1/2-28 on the inside (for threading onto the muzzle) and 3/4-16 on the outside (for threading into an oil filter). You can buy those fittings on eBay or Amazon for just a few bucks.

      If there is no difference between the two, am I to understand the only difference between jail and freedom is being caught in possession a solvent trapper with a hole in the bottom?

      There is a lot of internet keyboard lawyering about this point, but the truth is nobody really knows. The ATF has said categorically that screwing a solvent trap adapter onto your gun and screwing a filter onto that is undeniably a silencer, and if you do that without it being serialized and tax-stamped, you are definitely, unequivocally breaking the law. Once it’s been serialized, and assuming you have a tax stamp, it’s perfectly legal. As far as I know, there is no actual ruling from the ATF on where the line is drawn on constructive possession. For instance, if you had one of these adapters thrown in the bottom of your toolbox, and you had a shelf full of oil filters (or even just one), and you also own a gun with a threaded barrel, are you in constructive possession of a suppressor? I don’t know, and as I said, as far as I know there’s no ruling on paper that answers that question.

      I have heard of people picking up one (or more) of those $8-10 solvent trap adapters off of Amazon and just throwing them in the bottom of the toolbox, never to be used or seen again except in a TEOTWAWKI situation, because at that point the paperwork would be irrelevant. Are they safe doing that? Probably, unless they expect to get raided by the ATF and their house torn apart. Even then, it’s just a pipe fitting, unless there’s evidence they’ve used it unlawfully.

      Does all that make sense? (I don’t mean existentially; I’m just asking about my explanation.) Keep in mind, I’m not a lawyer, and even if I was, if there’s not a court ruling to point to for precedent (and there’s not), then it would still just be my opinion.

      • Your explanation makes sense. You also covered a follow up question concerning the solvent trapper adapter and spare oil filters….taken to the extreme, one should be mindful of possessing the adapter in their vehicle that is equipped with an oil filter…

  7. After watching the video of Grisham’s arrest, assuming that the jury saw that same video, I’m surprised that they found him guilty of anything. I would have found the police guilty of overstepping their authority and poor judgement.

    • Probably the same deal as before, the Judge gave the jury retarded instructions like “you must find him guilty if he did anything that might have inconvenienced the officer.” There wasn’t a brave juror with the balls to say “f*** that noise” this time around.

Comments are closed.