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

[Archie]

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?

The House, being controlled by Democrat, will push for a total ban on all firearms and removal of several fingers of both hands of NRA members. Will they be able to convince the Senate and then have the President sign anything?

Which is not to say the hoplophobes will surrender their obsession. That faction will fight on to disarm the citizens of the United States. Just like they did in all the other nations that have become either monolithic or socialist. Or both.

 

[labnoti]

It was this year. The case started or goes back more than a year because they dragged it on for a while, but it was in court up until just a little while ago. If the defendant violates his agreement with prosecutors, it could return to court, but if he wants to stay out of prison, he won't and the case will stay deferred.

 

[lysanderxiii]

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.

They may not be "technical" people, but to assume the anti-gun crowd are a bunch of idiots and unable to come up with a definition that suits their agenda is a grave mistake. See California's AB-2382.

Further, the anti-gun crowd has shown incredible patience in slowly chipping away at gun rights, with "reasonable" restrictions over the years rather than a full blown ban. Given enough "reasonable" restrictions (no full-automatics, no short barrel rifles, no "cheap" pistols, no "assault rifles", no semi-autos, no "non-sporting" guns, etc, etc) you effectively have a ban . . .

 

[lysanderxiii]

It was this year. The case started or goes back more than a year because they dragged it on for a while, but it was in court up until just a little while ago. If the defendant violates his agreement with prosecutors, it could return to court, but if he wants to stay out of prison, he won't and the case will stay deferred.

For a year, then it will be dropped entirely.

The prosecution and defense agreed to a deal in which Roh would plead guilty to the charge against him, but would be allowed to withdraw that plea if he stayed out of trouble for a year. Prosecutors would then dismiss the case. If Roh abides by the deal, he will have no criminal conviction and serve no time behind bars.

And there would be no legal precedent.

Roh’s case wasn’t the first time a similar argument had been successfully used.

Federal law enforcement officials — and members of Congress — have been on notice about a potential problem with the language in federal gun law as applied to AR-15s since at least 2016.

In July of that year, prosecutors in Northern California abandoned a case against a convicted felon named Alejandro Jimenez after a judge found that the AR-15 lower receiver he was accused of purchasing in an ATF undercover sting did not meet the definition of a receiver under the law.

The ruling and subsequent dismissal drew little notice but prompted a letter to Congress from then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She advised lawmakers that the judge’s decision was not suitable for appeal and that if ATF officials believed the definition should be changed, they should pursue regulatory or administrative action.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/t...-15-lower-as-a-firearm-is-in-serious-trouble/

 

[Spats McGee]

Roh was indicted back in 2014, to be clear.