NEWINGTON — Gun maker Sig Sauer has agreed to suspend a federal lawsuit it filed against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, while the ATF reconsiders its decision to classify a “muzzle brake” Sig wants to take to market as a silencer.

By agreement, approved by the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire, Sig will “stay” it’s lawsuit against the ATF until Sept. 17. In the meantime, both sides agree, Sig will send the ATF a sample of its muzzle brake for review and the ATF will issue a ruling, its third, by Aug. 6.



Faced with the federal lawsuit, which also names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as a defendant, the U.S. Attorney’s office notified Sig that it would reconsider its two prior decisions that call Sig’s muzzle brake an item “intended only for use” when making a silencer. The ATF asked the federal court to give it time to “review the matter and issue a new decision,” according to court records.



Terms of an agreement, filed with the federal court, say that if the ATF’s decision is agreeable to Sig, the Newington firearms manufacturer “will have obtained the relive sought without further litigation,” If the ATF again rules that Sig’s product is a silencer component, the federal civil suit will proceed, according to the agreement approved by federal Judge Paul Barbadaro.



Sig’s lawsuit says gun silencers are “subject to burdensome legal requirements” and by calling its muzzle brake a part for a silencer, the federal agency is subjecting the local company to “economic injury.”



“If classified as a silencer, no market exists for the subject device given that it will not silence, muffle, or diminish the report of a firearm and yet it would still be subject to the burdensome requirements set forth above as if it really is a silencer,” Sig argues it its lawsuit.



Sig claims it designed the muzzle brake which “effectively reduces recoil and muzzle rise when a shot is discharged” and as such, is not subject to regulation under the federal Gun Control Act.



“Accordingly, it will be highly marketable to consumers and will generate profit,” according to the suit.



If classified as a silencer or muffler, “no market would exist for the device,” because consumers would not subject themselves to the “required burdens” associated with silencers, to buy a device that doesn’t perform as a silencer, Sig claims.



A rifle with Sig’s muzzle brake was to the ATF on April 4, 2013 for evaluation, said Sig which describes the disputed device as 9.5 inches long and permanently attached with a weld to a 6.5-inch barrel, making the overall barrel length 16 inches. The ATF responded, by letter dated Aug. 26, 2013, that the device is constructed as a silencer component commonly referred to as a “monolithic baffle stack,” the suit states.



“Welding it to a barrel does not change its design characteristics or function,” Sig says it was informed by the ATF.



Sig appealed for reconsideration in September 2013, while reporting that sound meter testing proved the device amplified, not muffled sound. It also included evidence showing the device offsets and corrects recoil of a firearm when attached, Sig claims.



By letter dated Feb. 21, 2014, the ATF stuck to its original finding, stating that Sig’s device is a part intended only for use in making a silencer. Sig argues in its subsequent suit that the ATF did not examine its data and the gun maker will suffer economic consequences as a result.



Sig is asking the court to set aside the ATF’s determination as unlawful, to declare that its muzzle brake is not a part only intended for use in silencers, and to award it costs and damages.