HD Tactical

"Shop" providing parts and tools for 80% AR builds Busted and SET FREE, ATF fears ve!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    ATF WANTED TO DROP CHARGES because Defenses Case was so strong and could screw them on gun control if Case became "CASE LAW". ATF may have side stepped it this time but the word will spread. I'm sure DOJ/ATF are wordsmithing "Changes" right now, like BFD IS Machinegun crap.

    Cover Story
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html

    What it means or could mean!
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/t...-15-lower-as-a-firearm-is-in-serious-trouble/
     

    IronBeard

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages
    2,739
    Points
    113
    Location
    32566
    Saw this on another forum yesterday. Doesn't seem to be getting much attention or generating a lot of discussion. Looks like the issue has been successfully avoided at this time. You would think constitutionally minded people in high places would make sure this was in the forefront, but there's always always something "more important/pressing" than our constitutional rights. Seems like this could be another avenue to expose government corruption/incompetence.....
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Saw this on another forum yesterday. Doesn't seem to be getting much attention or generating a lot of discussion. Looks like the issue has been successfully avoided at this time. You would think constitutionally minded people in high places would make sure this was in the forefront, but there's always always something "more important/pressing" than our constitutional rights. Seems like this could be another avenue to expose government corruption/incompetence.....
    I saw the that CNN article posted also on another forum. I think there will be more on it relative to articles.
     

    SC-Texas

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages
    231
    Points
    0
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Next up. . . .AR15 uppers become the serialized parts in 3 . . .2 . . . 1. . .

    Sent from my SM-N976V using Tapatalk
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Wow. Legal definition changes will be coming now I’m sure. Hopefully they don’t figure out a way to regulate uppers too. This wouldn’t only apply to ARs, but also just about any semi-automatic pistol too.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    For the glock or 1911 as examples.
    For pistols the slide would be the bolt and it is contained usually by rails and the barrel is also attached to the frame is how they would do it.
    But for some pistols there could be an issue as to what is the receiver.
    In europe often it is not just the receiver that is a serialized part. I would hate to have serial numbers from my barrels going on the 4473.
    This is not really a beneficial decision for the shooting community relative to ARs. Machining at home an 80% upper could be a lot harder than doing an 80% lower for example.
     
    Last edited:

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Serial numbers can be found on multiple firearm parts depending on the Mfg. Sig 556 and P556 have the same general nomenclature names of parts but Mfg serial number is on the "Upper" which IS the Reciever.

    The KEY POINT of the Story is What is Law that is enforceable and what is "policy" ("BATFE has long held that....... B.S.) that BATFE "projects as law" but in fact has no legal foundation. Here it's what the Law defines a Firearm, receiver as opposed to what BATFE has been stating and enforcing.

    I'll give you another example:
    Installation of a forward verticle grip on a handgun. There is no law that says its illegal, Law does state that rifled barreled handguns are SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT from being AOWs. ATF has lost in two cases reqarding this issue. ATF still persists with their old memo (ATF has long held.....) on the subject and mention in their Q&A Section that people desiring forward vertical grips on handguns must go the NFA AOW route: Your manufacturing or possesing a unregistered NFA AOW. It fails on several points noted in the Cases. It's less "manufacturing" than installing a scope and does not change the "originally designed" single handed use which is still available. We need only review every LE (including BATFE) Firearms training and qualification standards to demonstrate two handed handgun use is taught and required. Yet, BATFE "Policy" which is in direct conflict with the NFA as written into Law: continues as a threat of criminal prosecution. Please Note that some forward "Angled devices" have been approved by ATF and there is no restriction mentioned on the installation of forward "horizontal grip(s)" though ATFs Policy justifications could be applied to any "direction or allignment" if they desire it to.

    Some may say just do the paperwork pay the $5 Tax and move on. That path supports a false requirement, burdens the owner with transport and resale restrictions and could deprive owner of use/access pending the Approval, engraving Required Data can reduce firearms value.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and the above are my personal opinions and specifically should not be taken as a legal premise for any firearm modification or accessory installation.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Serial numbers can be found on multiple firearm parts depending on the Mfg. Sig 556 and P556 have the same general nomenclature names of parts but Mfg serial number is on the "Upper" which IS the Reciever.

    The KEY POINT of the Story is What is Law that is enforceable and what is "policy" ("BATFE has long held that....... B.S.) that BATFE "projects as law" but in fact has no legal foundation. Here it's what the Law defines a Firearm, receiver as opposed to what BATFE has been stating and enforcing.

    I'll give you another example:
    Installation of a forward verticle grip on a handgun. There is no law that says its illegal, Law does state that rifled barreled handguns are SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT from being AOWs. ATF has lost in two cases reqarding this issue. ATF still persists with their old memo (ATF has long held.....) on the subject and mention in their Q&A Section that people desiring forward vertical grips on handguns must go the NFA AOW route: Your manufacturing or possesing a unregistered NFA AOW. It fails on several points noted in the Cases. It's less "manufacturing" than installing a scope and does not change the "originally designed" single handed use which is still available. We need only review every LE (including BATFE) Firearms training and qualification standards to demonstrate two handed handgun use is taught and required. Yet, BATFE "Policy" which is in direct conflict with the NFA as written into Law: continues as a threat of criminal prosecution. Please Note that some forward "Angled devices" have been approved by ATF and there is no restriction mentioned on the installation of forward "horizontal grip(s)" though ATFs Policy justifications could be applied to any "direction or allignment" if they desire it to.

    Some may say just do the paperwork pay the $5 Tax and move on. That path supports a false requirement, burdens the owner with transport and resale restrictions and could deprive owner of use/access pending the Approval, engraving Required Data can reduce firearms value.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and the above are my personal opinions and specifically should not be taken as a legal premise for any firearm modification or accessory installation.

    Most of what is in the CFR or code of federal regulations is not what the law makers wrote, and is what the regulatory agencies wrote as to how the law is to be carried out. In theory when ever there is a change proposed to the regulations there is suppose to be period for comments and other actions by the public over new proposed changes. However a letter proposed by EPA, OSHA or ATF of an interpretation is something you have to obey and is not normally optional. You maybe able to fight it court. Sometimes it varies from one region of the country vs another.
    Not a lawyer, but i watch TV lawyers and did stay at a holiday inn once.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Agencied are directed to take Administrative Authority to implement the Law. They can not change Congresses Specific Written Intent as that is not up for Administrative Interpretation and exceeds the Administrative Authority granted by Congress and compromises the Separation of Powers.

    This is the case with the Subject topic, the DOJ/BATFE Rewrite of THEIR applied definition of "Machinegun" to include B.F.Ds. and A.O.W: "Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition." (26 USC SS 5845, Definitions (b) &(e)) clearly state Congresses specific intent and they do not support DOJ/ BATFE administrative "Policies".
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Agencied are directed to take Administrative Authority to implement the Law. They can not change Congresses Specific Written Intent as that is not up for Administrative Interpretation and exceeds the Administrative Authority granted by Congress and compromises the Separation of Powers.

    This is the case with the Subject topic, the DOJ/BATFE Rewrite of THEIR applied definition of "Machinegun" to include B.F.Ds. and A.O.W: "Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition." (26 USC SS 5845, Definitions (b) &(e)) clearly state Congresses specific intent and they do not support DOJ/ BATFE administrative "Policies".
    Can not rewrite the specific intent is more like are not suppose to rewrite the specific intent. It may not support DOJ/ BATFE administrative "Policies", but you can be arrested for violating those rewrites last I heard.
     

    donr101395

    Master
    Super Moderator
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages
    2,984
    Points
    83
    Location
    Crestview
    This has been going on for a while. It's the reason Jim Fuller at Rifle Dynamics stopped doing on the road build classes. He stopped doing build classes all together when this first happened.
     

    wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Can not rewrite the specific intent is more like are not suppose to rewrite the specific intent. It may not support DOJ/ BATFE administrative "Policies", but you can be arrested for violating those rewrites last I heard.

    True, that is the Threat of Prosecution under "their" Policies. Both Cases on vertical foregrip on a handgun being a AOW: Defandants won! Can you find one where there was a conviction on a vertical foregrip on a handgun? I've only found one and that was a Plea Deal to a lesser single Charge and other charges were dropped. It doesn't stand up to any level of judicial scrutiny in open Court because Congress specifically exempted rifled barreled handguns and adding a verticle foregrip doesn't eliminate it from being a rifled barreled handgun as originally designed. The problem is there's either no violators, no violators being caught or there are pre-court deals like agreeing to forfeiture/surrender of firearm in lieu of Prosecution, maybe a Warning but I've never heard of them on NFA violations. Yet we have a Plea Deal of amazing generosity by prosecutor/Court in OP Topic Case because defendant has superior leverage on the ACTUAL LAW!
     

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,416
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    If you are prosecuted for a crime and get acquitted, does the government pay your attorney fees?

    Yeah, didn't think so. Court-appointed attorney, or it's your own dime.

    When comparing who has the deepest pockets for extended trials, appeals, etc, it's easy for the government to strong-arm a plea deal. The defendant usually can't afford to fight it, and good luck finding a competent law firm who will foot the bill.

    And don't bother saying the NRA will save you...

    Chalk up another "detriment to society" for the lawyers and crooked bureaucrats.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    True, that is the Threat of Prosecution under "their" Policies. Both Cases on vertical foregrip on a handgun being a AOW: Defandants won! Can you find one where there was a conviction on a vertical foregrip on a handgun? I've only found one and that was a Plea Deal to a lesser single Charge and other charges were dropped. It doesn't stand up to any level of judicial scrutiny in open Court because Congress specifically exempted rifled barreled handguns and adding a verticle foregrip doesn't eliminate it from being a rifled barreled handgun as originally designed. The problem is there's either no violators, no violators being caught or there are pre-court deals like agreeing to forfeiture/surrender of firearm in lieu of Prosecution, maybe a Warning but I've never heard of them on NFA violations. Yet we have a Plea Deal of amazing generosity by prosecutor/Court in OP Topic Case because defendant has superior leverage on the ACTUAL LAW!
    Very good points. If they take plea deal there is case law established. Federal courts have regions and relative to acquittals if that is in one region, then another regions is still good to good. Get an antigun activist judge in associated with future democratic control of the presidency and all sorts of bad things could happen.
    Pro-constitutional supreme courts judges, well things can happen to them. After watching the Feinstein vs Kavanaugh Senate hearings, anything is possible.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,897
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Here is a good analysis I copied from the highroad:

    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.
    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-to-avoid-hurting-gun-control-efforts.857507/
     
    Top Bottom