atf prosecutes man for ar pistol with brace

[taliv]

https://www.range365.com/atf-prosecutes-ohio-man-for-ar-pistol-with-brace

i haven't seen this discussed anywhere, but it seems surprising to me.

if reported accurately, i guess it's a good thing that a jury said not guilty. but it seems like there must be more to the story as there are about a million dudes with ar pistols and braces running around. why did they single this guy out?

anyone have more details?

 

[Texas10mm]

Could it have been the foregrip? I didn't think you were allowed to install a foregrip on a pistol.

 

[DeepSouth]

I thought that to but he had an angled fore grip, and they are allowed unless I’m badly mistaken.

 

[badkarmamib]

Sounds like a case of ignorance coupled with an axe to grind. Prosecution was trying to say that the brace was a stock, and trying to make the approval letters inadmissible, since they were contradictory. I am just glad (and I am sure the defense is, as well) that the jury wasn't prejudiced against firearms and could think for themselves.

 

[DeepSouth]

Is it possible they saw him use it the brace as a stock and that’s the problem? If so I can see why they (the ATF) had an issue and I could also see 12 reasonable people coming to a not guilty verdict.

 

[kanook]

The most important part is "Part of this issue will center on the implications modifications that Kelland Wright made or had made to the firearm, including the addition of an extension piece to the rear of the firearm."
https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/...made-up-out-of-whole-cloth-you-might-be-next/

 

[SharpDog]

Annnd, this is why I bought my AR pistol stock with a brace (Sig PM-400 PD) and have not modified the brace / stock portion. I have added an RDS angled front grip and light, love that front sight post !

 

[Gtscotty]

From what I've seen on other forums, it wasn't even a Maxim CQB PDW brace, it was a Maxim CQB extended cheek rest like this:

https://www.preppergunshop.com/maxi...r-ar15-black-8523976141-no-box-but-brand-new/

Apparently the owner had loosely tied a rubber cane tip to the end so that it would stand up in his gun cabinet without sliding. The ATF took the position that he had used the 1" diameter cane tip to extend the cheek rest assembly to get a longer lop for use as a stock. That, of course, makes no sense, but that didn't stop the ATF from costing the guy a lot of money in legal fees. The most ominous part to me is that the .gov tried to keep the ATF's own opinion letters on the legality of the rest, afg, etc from being used in court on the grounds that the letters were not addressed to the defendant.... What's the message there? The ATF's opinion on the legality of an accessory depends on who you are? Or just that the ATF doesn't want to be limited by it's own prior honest assessment of an accessory when it's bent on making an example out of someone?

Does the ATF think that everyone should request a letter for every brace, etc that they consider buying just to be safe, in case the rules are different for them than for someone else, or for the manufacturer. I hope they get inundated with a flood of requests as a result of these low down shenanigans.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Lots of supposition and guesswork, which makes discussion worthless. If anyone has some actual documentation regarding ATF’s decision to prosecute, send me a PM, and I’ll consider reopening the thread.

Note that if he was charge it means that a grand jury indicted him.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We’ve been promised some additional information. So I’m re-opening this thread.

Please keep the discussion focused on what we know — not what we guess.

 

[Gtscotty]

I asked that this thread be re-opened, as I believe that discussion of the topic at hand is interesting and important for those of us with AR pistols and those considering an AR Pistol.

I've included what information on and discussion of the suit I can find, if anyone has other information, please post it up. I for one am interested in how those with legal experience interpret all of this.

Here is a link to where this story was first published, there are links to PDFs of lots of pertinent information in this article, I've attached a few as well below:

https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/...made-up-out-of-whole-cloth-you-might-be-next/

The expert witness testimony

https://www.scribd.com/document/391881746/Vasquez-Expert-Report

The only picture of the firearm I could find:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/66797/maximpdw_PNG-721064_png-721090.JPG

TTAG article on the topic:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-loss-in-ohio-short-barrel-rifle-prosecution/

 

[pdsmith505]

The take-away from TTAG's article is that there is a double-secret length restriction on arm braces of 13.5" as measured from the bow of the trigger to the end of the brace parallel to the bore. Otherwise commonly referred to as the length of pull. Apparently, this length was selected because it was the shortest length of pull for stocked weapons that the ATF had to go off of, and had only been made known in private letters from the tech branch to manufacturers... not to the public.

In this case, the ATF did not make the measurement parallel to the bore and came up with 13.75". Done properly, it came out to 13.5".

The ATF also argued that those letters, not being addressed to the defendant and not being about the particular firearm in question, were not germane to the trial and would only serve to confuse the jury.

Also, picture of the firearm from TTAG

 

[<*(((><]

My takeaways after reading about this a week ago is:

1. Make sure the brace you are purchasing has been approved by the ATF, meaning the brace company submitted detailed pictures, measurements and information to the ATF regarding their consumer product and it met the ATF guidelines. (I know that the ATF has gone back and forth, but at least one will know that the brace meets some of these less than public knowledge measurements such as having a shorter LOP than 13.5", and how it is measured)
2. Do not modify any braces from their original design. The cane tip on Mr. Wright put on the end of his adjustable brace (while didn't) could've changed the LOP to be longer than the ATF allows for.
3. Utilize parts that are intended for use on pistols. (For example: I wouldn't be using a standard buffer tube, but rather buy a buffer tube specific to a pistol application)

 

[pdsmith505]

3. Utilize parts that are intended for use on pistols. (For example: I wouldn't be using a standard buffer tube, but rather buy a buffer tube specific to a pistol application)

The ATF has ruled that the type of buffer tube doesn't matter.
https://johnpierceesq.com/which-buffer-tubes-can-i-use-on-my-ar-pistol/

The problem, however, is that the ATF also argued that letters to individuals are not applicable to anyone other than the addressee...

 

[WestKentucky]

The ATF has ruled that the type of buffer tube doesn't matter.
https://johnpierceesq.com/which-buffer-tubes-can-i-use-on-my-ar-pistol/

The problem, however, is that the ATF also argued that letters to individuals are not applicable to anyone other than the addressee...

So if letters to individuals are no longer applicable, and legally binding, then we are to a point where ATF is truthfully arbitrarily making rulings. What is a felony for one man is legal for another. This one actually sounds like a good one to throw up to the Supreme Court so that they could rule that enforcement by interpretation rather than legislation is illegal. That’s a premise this country was founded on, that if it’s not explicitly illegal, then it’s legal.

 

[<*(((><]

So if letters to individuals are no longer applicable, and legally binding, then we are to a point where ATF is truthfully arbitrarily making rulings. What is a felony for one man is legal for another. This one actually sounds like a good one to throw up to the Supreme Court so that they could rule that enforcement by interpretation rather than legislation is illegal. That’s a premise this country was founded on, that if it’s not explicitly illegal, then it’s legal.

Exactly.

 

[DannyLandrum]

So my post was deleted by a moderator, stating as follows:

"You continue to post conclusions and opinions without backup."

We'll I've got news for this moderator. My opinions have plenty of "backup" - I practiced law for 19 years - did you? This is absolutely absurdity. If this moderator deletes the posts of people the most experienced with the law, then heaven help you guys with this "expert" at the helm. I suggest you re-instate it, as it was DARNED good advice. You simply don't know what the heck you're talking about if you think otherwise - I'd say that you are definitely guilty of "deleting good and sound advice and conclusions without backup." You've got exactly backwards - I'm pretty much the only one giving good advice. Truly nonsense. Why not challenge it so I could then provide all the backup you could ever want - which I can? Instead, you simply delete since you think you know something that you clearly don't? What kind of forum is this?

If the alert would have simply told me who it was, then I could have addressed them directly, obviating the necessity of this public post. You gave me no choice. You gonna delete this one too?

 

[Frank Ettin]

So my post was deleted by a moderator, stating as follows:

"You continue to post conclusions and opinions without backup."

We'll I've got news for this moderator. My opinions have plenty of "backup" - I practiced law for 19 years - did you?....

I was admitted to the Bar in December of 1976. Although I retired from the practice of law in 2007, I remain an active member of the California Bar.

If you have back-up, include it in the post. Lay out your opinion and argument, and cite the authority that supports it.

...This is absolutely absurdity. If this moderator deletes the posts of people the most experienced with the law, then heaven help you guys with this "expert" at the helm....

As far as my deleting your posts being absurd, see the THR Legal Forum Guidelines:

....Comments and opinions should be based on legal principles and supported where appropriate with reference to legal authority, including court decisions, statutes and scholarly articles....

.....Why not challenge it so I could then provide all the backup you could ever want - which I can? ....

I don't have to challenge your comments. You have the burden of proof, and without posting back-up your comments can be dismissed out of hand.

 

[MEHavey]

Good grief.

Here's the salient issue cited by Gtscotty:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-loss-in-ohio-short-barrel-rifle-prosecution/
1. So to sum up, not only was Wright unaware of the double-secret 13.5-inch length of pull limit, but his gun didn’t even exceed it. The jury found him not guilty in less than an hour.

2. The Prince post also mentioned that the ATF asked for and was granted an order sealing a number of documents used in the case. As a part of their defense, Wright’s attorneys used a selection of those opinion letters the ATF had issued to manufacturers in connection with specific products under consideration. The ATF argued against releasing those for use by the defense in the trial, but lost that fight.

My only question at this point is (drum roll please): are ATF communications/interpretations that confuse -- or even outright contradict the ATF case -- now under restrictive seal or not?

A 'Reasonable Man' wants to know.


.

 

[F-111 John]

My only question at this point is (drum roll please): are ATF communications/interpretations that confuse -- or even outright contradict the ATF case -- now under restrictive seal or not?

A 'Reasonable Man' wants to know.

IF you read the TTAG article just a bit further, you would have seen:

The ATF then, reasonably enough, sought to have those letters sealed and not included in the public record of the trial because they contained potentially sensitive competitive information concerning the companies involved…not because they were trying to hide any internal ATF decision-making from the public. Those documents were never intended for public disclosure unless the companies themselves decided to release them.

 

[MEHavey]

That was not why the ATF originally sought to exclude them.
It was because "...it would cause confusion."

From TTAG article cited:
First, the ATF has never issued an official public opinion letter
stating that AR pistols with such accessories — cheek rests,
pistol braces, etc. — must have a length of pull of no more than
13.5 inches to avoid being considered an SBR.

The ATF had communicated that fact to various manufacturers
in private opinion letters concerning their specific products over
the years (and some of those companies have chosen to make
those letters public), but nothing has ever been communicated
to the general gun-buying public by the agency.

As a result, the defense argued that Wright had no reasonable
way of knowing about the 13.5-inch length of pull limit.

Moreover, I would add that the ATF communiques would exhibit
it's own understanding of the issue -- public or not.

So I ask again, are ATF communications/interpretations that
confuse -- or even outright contradict the ATF case -- now under
restrictive seal or not?

 

[F-111 John]

The letters were introduced into evidence, and the letters were sealed due to concerns that they would reveal trade secrets, but the companies that the letters were addressed to are free to release them if they see fit.

So, no, ATF communications/interpretations that confuse -- or even outright contradict the ATF case -- are not under restrictive seal.

 

[boom boom]

The Federal FOIA Trade Secret Exemption 4 has been litigated. The general intention of FOIA laws is the right to know what government and its employees are doing and requiring a judge to adjudicate any disputes.

However, if the information is relevant to a defendant's case, then a Supreme Court decision Brady v. Maryland applies. But the interplay of FOIA and Brady has apparently not been well adjudicated. After a little research, I found this case seems to be prominent that involves the interplay of FOIA and constitutional discovery permitted by defendants.

Richardson v. US DEPT. OF JUSTICE, 730 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D.D.C. 2010) at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2475952/richardson-v-us-dept-of-justice/

On something like trade secrets, this involves the trade secrets of a third party(s) in those ATF letters to the manufacturer. On the other hand, the Constitutional right to a fair trial and to confront the evidence against the defendant also applies. It is a settled doctrine of the court to make decisions using the presumption of constitutionality guiding the interpretation of the statute. Thus, in this case, the Court accepted the records under seal and allowed the defense to introduce them at trial if the TTAG story is correct.

It also creates a counterbalance to the Olofson case where the 7th Circuit allowed the trial judge's in-camera decision to exclude ATF letters involving M16 surplus parts being allowed (or not) in AR production. That judge ruled that the letters were not exculpatory and thus not relevant to the defendant's case and thus the FOIA exemption issue did not need to be considered. However, we will have to take that judge's word on that as the 7th Circuit affirmed the trial judge's decision.

 

[Ignition Override]

Did an LEO see the guy with the "questionable" attachments, or did somebody at a range simply run Tattle Tale, to report on the guy?

 

[Zerodefect]

Atf does visit ranges.