ATF raid for client list

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • 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!
  • john_bud

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    2,045

    Ab_Normal

    Ab_member
    Feb 2, 2010
    8,613
    Carroll County
    I hear what you're saying, and I agree to a point. However, I deal with CFR and USC construction on a daily basis, so I read it as:

    A) Defines a type of item as a firearm, and then B)further defines the frame or receiver of the weapon, by itself, also as a firearm. Correct. The frame or receiver of the weapon defined in (A) is a firearm - note it does not say the frame or receiver for the weapon defined in (A) which is how the law is currently and incorrectly being applied. That additional letter r makes a world of difference.

    Yes, B) depends on the definition of A), but it's not so tightly defined as to only define B) when it is in the configuration of A)... otherwise, there would be no point to separate definitions. But there is a point. That point is that once a frame or receiver is configured to meet the requirements of (A) - expel a projectile - then the frame or receiver itself becomes that type of firearm pretty much forever. Hence the reason that a stripped frame or receiver can be configured as any legal type of firearm to meet the definition of (A). It is also the reason why the firearm in (B) - the frame or receiver of the weapon in (A) can only be assembled in lawful configurations from then on. In other words without (B) one could take the receiver from an (A) firearm and reconfigure it pretty much however they wanted - lawfully. Without (B) a person could take the receiver of an originally configured rifle and legally make it into a handgun and NOT run afoul of the law regarding SBR's. The reason being is that without (B) the removal of the frame or receiver from the totality of parts required to meet the definititon of (A) would effectively and legally divorce the frame or receiver from the type of firearm it was originally configured as.

    The general rule is that if an interpretation of a clause (not plain language of the clause) renders another clause meaningless or redundant, then the ambiguity is resolved in favor of the interpretation that does not render the other clause meaningless.

    Since your interpretation would mean that there is no distinction between A) and B), then the application of that principle of ambiguity resolution means that we must resolve in favor of the other interpretation - that is, the interpretation where B) refers to a specific part of A) at all times, rather than when B) is configured as A) only.

    IANAL.

    See my responses in green.




    18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions

    (3) The term “firearm” means
    (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
    (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

    (7) The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
    (8) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
     

    Robert1955

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 25, 2012
    1,614
    Glen Burnie
    Besides the fact Ares was fighting over a billboard they had also requested clafification from BATF on the question about helping to mill out the 80 lowers like EP had been doing. That I think is what brought such direct attention to Ares.
     

    jpo183

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 20, 2013
    4,116
    in Maryland

    john_bud

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    2,045
    Besides the fact Ares was fighting over a billboard they had also requested clafification from BATF on the question about helping to mill out the 80 lowers like EP had been doing. That I think is what brought such direct attention to Ares.

    I think you have that backwards. EP asked for clarification, Ares had been doing build parties.

    The goofy thing is that the ATF is sticking with the story about the FC pocket being formed THEN filled. From a mold making perspective, it's a lot more logical (and industry usual) to make the center plug and inject the polymer around it.
     

    jpo183

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 20, 2013
    4,116
    in Maryland
    Do you really thing Ares would be making a huge stink as well as EP and Polymer80 taking down their products if it was truly build parties?

    I think everyone in CA knows build parties will get you a stay at the grey bar hotel.
     

    smdub

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 14, 2012
    4,644
    MoCo
    To play devil's advocate (something I tend to be good at):

    Statement: Poly lowers that are made w/ 2 different plastics are 100% receivers and need an FFL and background check to sell.

    Supporting arguments: If a receiver was cast to 100% no one would argue that its an "80%" lower. It would require an FFL to sell no matter if it was cast from aluminum or plastic. In a casting process, a mold is used to control where material does and does not flow. The mold is typically made of one or more pieces that are removed after casting. The mold is sometimes reusable (but not always - sand casting is a good example). W/ an EP lower: How is a plastic part of the mold that controls flow and gets removed later not considered part of the mold? It was never a homogeneous part of the receiver. The receiver was cast as a 100% around the mold. The plastic that makes up the receiver NEVER assumed the shape of a filled FCG (like competing solid plastic or aluminum 80% receivers do.). Therefore it was cast as a 100% and is illegal.

    Discuss;)
     

    Fishguy

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 30, 2009
    5,080
    Montgomery County
    To play devil's advocate (something I tend to be good at):

    Statement: Poly lowers that are made w/ 2 different plastics are 100% receivers and need an FFL and background check to sell.

    Supporting arguments: If a receiver was cast to 100% no one would argue that its an "80%" lower. It would require an FFL to sell no matter if it was cast from aluminum or plastic. In a casting process, a mold is used to control where material does and does not flow. The mold is typically made of one or more pieces that are removed after casting. The mold is sometimes reusable (but not always - sand casting is a good example). W/ an EP lower: How is a plastic part of the mold that gets machined out not considered part of the mold? It was never a homogeneous part of the receiver. The receiver was cast as a 100% around the mold. The plastic that makes up the receiver NEVER assumed the shape of a filled FCG (like competing solid plastic or aluminum receivers do.). Therefore it was cast as a 100% and is illegal.

    Discuss;)

    Still have to drill 3 holes and make the trigger hole in the receiver.
     

    smdub

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 14, 2012
    4,644
    MoCo
    Still have to drill 3 holes and make the trigger hole in the receiver.

    Yes, but the ATF has ruled many times that if that is all that is left to do, that is already a complete receiver. The aluminum 80% forging guys aren't even allowed to engrave the top of the FCG pocket with where to mill. It was deemed one step to far (can't remember who tried it and got rejected by the ATF.). Have you seen anyone selling lowers that only need those holes drilled to complete that have ATF approval?

    The ATF seems to approve everyone that leaves the FCG area untouched in homogeneous lowers. The EP lowers can be argued (successfully IMO) that they went WELL past that point by molding the area hollow.
     

    jpo183

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 20, 2013
    4,116
    in Maryland
    To play devil's advocate (something I tend to be good at):

    Statement: Poly lowers that are made w/ 2 different plastics are 100% receivers and need an FFL and background check to sell.

    Supporting arguments: If a receiver was cast to 100% no one would argue that its an "80%" lower. It would require an FFL to sell no matter if it was cast from aluminum or plastic. In a casting process, a mold is used to control where material does and does not flow. The mold is typically made of one or more pieces that are removed after casting. The mold is sometimes reusable (but not always - sand casting is a good example). W/ an EP lower: How is a plastic part of the mold that controls flow and gets removed later not considered part of the mold? It was never a homogeneous part of the receiver. The receiver was cast as a 100% around the mold. The plastic that makes up the receiver NEVER assumed the shape of a filled FCG (like competing solid plastic or aluminum 80% receivers do.). Therefore it was cast as a 100% and is illegal.

    Discuss;)

    By that logic it would be like me saying to you if you did not have a forged lower 80% everything else is considered a complete.

    The process does not matter as long as the rules are followed.
     

    Tyeraxus

    Ultimate Member
    May 15, 2012
    1,165
    East Tennessee
    But there is a point. That point is that once a frame or receiver is configured to meet the requirements of (A) - expel a projectile - then the frame or receiver itself becomes that type of firearm pretty much forever. Hence the reason that a stripped frame or receiver can be configured as any legal type of firearm to meet the definition of (A). It is also the reason why the firearm in (B) - the frame or receiver of the weapon in (A) can only be assembled in lawful configurations from then on. In other words without (B) one could take the receiver from an (A) firearm and reconfigure it pretty much however they wanted - lawfully. Without (B) a person could take the receiver of an originally configured rifle and legally make it into a handgun and NOT run afoul of the law regarding SBR's. The reason being is that without (B) the removal of the frame or receiver from the totality of parts required to meet the definititon of (A) would effectively and legally divorce the frame or receiver from the type of firearm it was originally configured as.

    Except that the A and B definitions are of "firearm," not handgun, SBR, rifle, etc. Those have their own definitions in the law. By strict plain language of my reading of the statute, an item that is only the receiver of an item in A is still defined as a firearm, regardless of whether it has ever been configured as such or not.

    If I were building a spec/requirement, and I said "The analysis ("weapon designed to expel...") is a deliverable. The data table ("receiver of such a weapon...") of the report is a deliverable." Then I mean that the data table is a deliverable whether it's standalone or part of the report with the analysis, and whether its physically in the report or not.

    I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one - we seem to be reading the construction of the language differently.
     

    Armadillofz1

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 25, 2012
    4,874
    DM-42
    To take it one step farther, a 100% complete aluminum receiver filled with candle wax back to the point of 80% is essentially the same as what they claim.
     

    jpo183

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 20, 2013
    4,116
    in Maryland
    To take it one step farther, a 100% complete aluminum receiver filled with candle wax back to the point of 80% is essentially the same as what they claim.

    Incorrect, the part that needs drilled out is formed first then the mold around it. The piece never results in a 100% back to 80% it is ALWAYS a 80%. The argument is similar to a cork bat.

    Is it a real bat or no.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Are you representing EP also?

    No I am not. The way this is unfolding and due to additional counsel being retained I am going to decline to answer anymore public posts about this issue.

    I'm used to posting about my Second Amendment cases like Baker v. Kealoha and Young which are important appeals but let's be honest involve somewhat more academic issues than what's going on right now.

    Besides I need to get back to work on keeping up a sign.
     

    Armadillofz1

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 25, 2012
    4,874
    DM-42
    Incorrect, the part that needs drilled out is formed first then the mold around it. The piece never results in a 100% back to 80% it is ALWAYS a 80%. The argument is similar to a cork bat.

    Is it a real bat or no.

    Yes. That's why i wrote "is essentially the same as what they claim." I looked at mine and i can't honestly see how it was done, but i can see that their claim is at least possible.
     

    john_bud

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    2,045
    To play devil's advocate (something I tend to be good at):

    Statement: Poly lowers that are made w/ 2 different plastics are 100% receivers and need an FFL and background check to sell.

    Supporting arguments: If a receiver was cast to 100% no one would argue that its an "80%" lower. It would require an FFL to sell no matter if it was cast from aluminum or plastic. In a casting process, a mold is used to control where material does and does not flow. The mold is typically made of one or more pieces that are removed after casting. The mold is sometimes reusable (but not always - sand casting is a good example). W/ an EP lower: How is a plastic part of the mold that controls flow and gets removed later not considered part of the mold? It was never a homogeneous part of the receiver. The receiver was cast as a 100% around the mold. The plastic that makes up the receiver NEVER assumed the shape of a filled FCG (like competing solid plastic or aluminum 80% receivers do.). Therefore it was cast as a 100% and is illegal.

    Discuss;)

    As I understand things, the injection mold has the kevlar support structure placed in it, the pocket for the FCG has a loose mesh "core" placed, then the mold is closed around it and the polymer is injected to completely fill the cavity. The parts are then popped out and the allowed holes are drilled and threads are tapped etc. The ATF "assumed" the part was made, THEN the core was placed and filled.

    I KNOW* that is not the case as the core has the body polymer inside it. The core has 'windows" in it so that the polymer when injected is forced inside it. That can't happen if the ATF assumption is correct.


    The ATF seems to approve everyone that leaves the FCG area untouched in homogeneous lowers. The EP lowers can be argued (successfully IMO) that they went WELL past that point by molding the area hollow.


    But, from what i can determine (educated assessment from a 30 year engineering background and having hollowed out said area), the area was NOT molded hollow.

    If it was not molded hollow ,then filled --> why is it a firearm and not a paperweight?



    * ok, I don't really "know", but am pretty sure .
     

    john_bud

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    2,045
    No I am not. The way this is unfolding and due to additional counsel being retained I am going to decline to answer anymore public posts about this issue.

    I'm used to posting about my Second Amendment cases like Baker v. Kealoha and Young which are important appeals but let's be honest involve somewhat more academic issues than what's going on right now.

    Besides I need to get back to work on keeping up a sign.



    Thanks for the reply and best of luck to you and those you represent.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,491
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom