Quantcast

He sold illegal AR-15s. Feds agreed to let him go free to avoid hurting gun control efforts

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Oct 11, 2019.

  1. Aim1

    Aim1 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    997
  2. mokin

    mokin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,298
    Location:
    Western Colorado
    I found the article interesting. Didn't live up to the headline. It could have just as easily read "Man Plays Stupid Game With ATF, Wins Stupid Prize".

    in the end I think this will lead to one more infringement though.
     
  3. Bogart999

    Bogart999 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2015
    Messages:
    4
    Cliff notes please, I won't go to any CNN links
     
    czhen, JR24, milemaker13 and 2 others like this.
  4. labnoti

    labnoti Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,294
    The defendant manufactured 80% lowers. Then they got into the business of CNC build parties where customers could push a button to complete the lower. ATF prosecuted for manufacturing unserialized receivers and selling firearms without a license. A judge tentatively ruled that a AR-15 lower receiver did not meet the definition of a receiver (because it does not contain the breech block or accept the barrel per the legal definition) and therefore the ATF's practice of regulating it as such was disconnected from federal law. The ATF recognized that if this ruling became permanent, it would jeopardize the way they regulate most (they estimated 90%) of firearms in the US. Because the judge was also going to find the defendant guilty of selling completed firearms without a license, the ATF was able to cut a deal to defer prosecution for a year and then dismiss the case in exchange for the defendant exiting the firearms business. The defendant did not have to go to prison for the dealing without a license charge that was deferred/dismissed. The judge's ruling that the lower receiver does not meet the definition of a receiver under federal law was not made permanent and is therefore not case law nor can it be used as a precedent. The reasoning behind the judge's tentative ruling remains sound. The defense's argument that the ATF is regulating based on internal policies rather than federal law is certainly true.
     
  5. Shanghai McCoy

    Shanghai McCoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,072
    Location:
    The,sort of, Free state
    ^^^
    A clear and concise explanation. Thanks. :thumbup:
     
  6. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,164
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    What's more amazing is that end-user AK owners are afraid that the US govt. will magically discover that one or two "possibly" US-made parts in their AKs (the words "US-made" are Not required) were swapped for foreign parts, which are not required to have any markings of origin: 922r regulations.
     
    Bfh_auto likes this.
  7. mrmike7189

    mrmike7189 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2018
    Messages:
    237
    Location:
    MA
    Fascinating case ,but....my head hurts from all the legalize mumbo jumbo! I have zero issues with him making parts, but selling to gun traffickers to mexico,I think we can all agree that is no beuno!
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
    theotherwaldo and Shanghai McCoy like this.
  8. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,429
    Location:
    Virginia
    922(r) is directed against assembly, and not against possession. The government would have to prove that the end user assembled the gun with foreign parts without the requisite number of U.S. parts. That's an impossible burden. AFAIK, no end user has ever been prosecuted for a 922(r) violation. This is something that is relevant at the manufacturer/importer level.
     
    DerMerchant and theotherwaldo like this.
  9. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,164
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    AlexanderA: True, and I already knew everything you described, having read numerous discussions on AKfiles.

    But people are Still afraid to swap a single part. The fact that the ATF has never even attempted to prosecute for this -- unless you are a bank robber, drug dealer etc -- hasn't stopped law-abiding people from worrying about their "parts count", and some of the anxiety supports a huge aftermarket parts industry.

    After the publicity about the main legal case in this thread, it would be even more ludicrous to have any concern about 922r.
     
    SharpDog likes this.
  10. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,429
    Location:
    Virginia
    This just goes to show that American gun owners are scrupulously law-abiding. They fall all over themselves trying to obey even obviously unenforceable or ridiculous laws.

    How does this square with all the crowing about "will not comply!" when it comes to further infringements? Methinks those are just empty words. The people who really don't comply with gun restrictions (southern and eastern Europeans, for example) are very quiet about it.
     
    Shanghai McCoy likes this.
  11. roscoe

    roscoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    NV
    Is this just a case of determined civil disobedience? If so, pretty interesting outcome.
     
  12. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,154
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    This is proof that the BATF remains a rogue government agency. It will be interesting to see if the Courts uphold the bump-fire stock ban.
     
  13. Good Ol' Boy

    Good Ol' Boy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2,130
    Location:
    Mechanicsville, VA




    Bingo!

    However I think you underestimate how many of those folks are out there.

    And the word that should be used to describe those folks is patriot, nothing less.


    We all try to be overly law abiding, until that law doesn't meet the criteria of the constitution, at which point it's not credible law. Some go along, others are patriots. Theres certainly a lot of the former but the latter is widely underestimated I think.
     
  14. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,120
    Location:
    Tennessee
    ^^^^ :thumbup:
     
    theotherwaldo and Shanghai McCoy like this.
  15. Dibbs

    Dibbs Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2018
    Messages:
    598
    Skirting the law is playing with fire. When the ATF loses, they don't just pack up their tents and go away. A store
    owner where I used to shop found this out the hard way, screwed up, they played "count the felonies". It's been
    over five years now, so maybe his parole officer has been born, at this point ...
     
    Phaedrus/69 likes this.
  16. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,972
    Location:
    Northern KY
    Is there a bump stock case before a court anywhere?
     
  17. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,440
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    It's just another example of using the iron fist against those that are trying to be law-abiding, while using the velvet glove on the scoff-laws - especially if the results of the case may be embarrassing to the law makers... .
     
  18. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    20,280
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    There are several - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock#Federal_lawsuits


    Guedes, Codrea, Firearms Policy Coalition - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/guedes-v-batfe
    The Firearms Policy Coalition and other groups sued in the U.S. District Court of District of Columbia - A petition for Supreme Court review on the merits is pending.

    Gun Owners of America - Gun Owners of America filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Western Michigan. The case is currently pending before the Sixth Circuit on the merits.

    Aposhian - A lawsuit by the Utah Shooting Sports Council was filed in the U.S. District Court of Utah. The case is currently pending before the Tenth Circuit on the merits.
     
  19. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    1,583
    Location:
    North Carolina
    This proves that the courts will not hold up ATF "rules" with the force of law.

    Under the US Code of Federal Regulations (aka, the law), a firearm "frame or receiver" is defined as: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

    Roh's lawyer argued that the AR lower does not meet the definition of a "receiver or frame" under the law, and called the ATF's decision to classify it as a firearm nonetheless, the result of “secret, in-house decision-making.”. The Judge, a Ninth Circuit Court Judge at that, agreed.

    This is not a good situation for the gun-owning population.

    Just about all modern guns have a "receiver or frame" that falls outside the strict legal definition, not just ARs. The M1 and M14 receivers do not "provide housing for the hammer... and firing mechanism", same for the FAL, the HK417/416, AR-180, SIG MCX, etc have uppers and lowers similar to the AR. The list is long, and some can be argued better that others, but the existing definition, as spelled out by law, is seriously flawed.

    The definition of a "receiver or frame" will have to be defined more rigorously in the lawbooks, and I am afraid that this new definition will expand the "receiver or frame" to any part of a firearm that is unique to said firearm. This would make the manufacture, sale or transfer of all spare parts regulated.
     
    Spats McGee and theotherwaldo like this.
  20. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,429
    Location:
    Virginia
    I agree that the definition of a receiver will have to be clarified.

    The new definition can be "subtractive" instead of "additive," as compared to the current definition. An "additive" definition would be based on all the current components that are to be housed in the receiver -- in the case of the AR-15, that would be the bolt carrier and firing mechanism. Following that line of thinking, both the upper and lower would be part of the "receiver" and would have to be controlled and serialized. That's clearly unworkable.

    A "subtractive" approach would take away some of the elements of the current definition. The "receiver" could then be the part that houses either the firing mechanism or the bolt, depending on a case-by-case determination (of each design) by the ATF. That would comport with current real-world practice, and cause the least disruption.
     
    theotherwaldo likes this.
  21. lysanderxiii

    lysanderxiii Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Messages:
    1,583
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Yes, it work out to just "maintain the status quo"... But, given the current state of Congress, what do you thing the current House will push for?
     
  22. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,429
    Location:
    Virginia
    The definition of a receiver is a technical issue. I don't think that members of Congress are able or willing to get into the technical weeds.(Their profound ignorance of guns is proof of that.) They're after bigger fish, such as wholesale gun bans. These people are generalists, not technicians.
     
    Basura Blanca likes this.
  23. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Location:
    Arkansas
  24. Pat Riot

    Pat Riot Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    Messages:
    1,214
    I would bet that this issue along with a boatload of ignorance is why AB 2382 was signed into law in California. Now “precursor gun parts” (whatever that means) are to be regulated like guns.
     
  25. Archie

    Archie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,293
    Location:
    Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
    WHEN - WHAT YEAR - did the case get into court?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice