FrankT
6.8 SPCII Hog Slayer
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/a...-yHdsauZcTzzFZJHftVNc4oQ9gkdECKAF3kzekMD0MKsA
I never quote cnn but this is too good!
I never quote cnn but this is too good!
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/a...-yHdsauZcTzzFZJHftVNc4oQ9gkdECKAF3kzekMD0MKsA
I never quote cnn but this is too good!
That makes it sound like they were using his equipment to machine an 80% lower. It is sort of a clip bait article and I suspect there is better elsewhere, after all it is CNN.is customers, more than two dozen of whom were legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, could push a button, pull a lever, and walk away a short time later with a fully assembled, untraceable semi-automatic weapon for about $1,000, according to court records.
They way I read it was, it would've basically paved the way for the topic to be open for discussion for other folks in a similar situation. So basically they gave the guy a deal so the judges ruling didn't get mass publicity and didn't go down as case law so it could be referenced in a future caseDon’t usually have any use for the Commie News Network either.
So if the Judges decision had been handed down then AR15 lower receivers would have no longer have been considered firearms under the existing law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My practical thoughtsI read it yesterday or day before.
What I think I remember reading was that the judge made a ruling/statement that scared the ATF/prosecutors concerning a motion from the defense attorney.
The definition, on the books, of a receiver is the piece/part that holds the firing mechanism, bolt and is threaded for screwing a barrel into it. The part that makes it possible for all the other parts to attach and make a weapon capable of firing a cartridge.
The AR15 lower doesn't fit that definition. No place for the bolt or the barrel to attach. So, by the legal definition, the AR15 lower is not a receiver. Neither is the AR15 upper receiver.
Therefore, in the opinion of the defense lawyer, the ATF was incorrectly interpreting the law when they arrested his client. The judge originally disagreed with the defense attorney but after further consideration he let the ATF know that he did agree that they had been using their power/authority to misinterpret the law to their advantage and using it to arrest/prosecute people.
That (supposedly) scared the ATF because they were afraid if the case went to trial the judge's ruling would begin to affect any future cases and have an unknown effect on previous cases.
So the ATF dropped the charges on the guy to keep from getting dumped on in other courts when this trial resulted in case law/examples that would twist their heads into knots.
But, the info is out there now. Someone finally noticed it, brought it up, publicized it and sooner or later it will be used in court.
Right, currently there should be no reason to 4473 a lower as the judge ruled it is not a weapon/receiver. so unless the definition is changed the 4473 of a lower is not required. What they will do is make the upper and lower subject to 4473 and change the definition. it is all a scam