AR-15 Design May open legal loophole

dhuze

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
9,141
Likes
3,071
Location
An island surrounded by land on three sides
That "definition" could change tomorrow, at the whim of BATFE. They define a piece of machined steel the size of a quarter (auto sear) as a "machine gun"!
They define a piece of plastic that is nothing but a stock as a machine gun.


No it cant

there is a statutory definition adopted by congress and signed into law by the president

the ATF cannot just wave its magic wand and rewrite/over ride what congress passed.......

Any change requires both houses of congress to pass new language and for the president to sign it into law......but new language is going to have a great many downstream/unintended consequences (burdens) so new language will result in massiive discussions/arguments/conflicts so dont count on it happening soon/easily

THIS is why the feds dropped a case that challenged the law on these criteria instead of losing the case and establishing a precident
Again, They are calling a piece of plastic that does not meet any of their definitions as a machine gun and they did it with no changes to any law.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
20,603
Likes
15,664
Again, They are calling a piece of plastic that does not meet any of their definitions as a machine gun and they did it with no changes to any law.
AND this is in currently in court being challenged and we all know its going to be struck down......

Do you have a case/example that is as flagrant as ATF going against statutory law where they've WON?
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
37,742
Likes
15,837
If by state you mean MA, "Firearm" is defined differently on a MA state level. Unlike the Fed definition, in MA a firearm needs to be able to fire for it to be a firearm. So on a state level, a stripped lower is not a firearm, but on a Fed level it is.
Whenever someone asks how many guns I have I ask if they are using the state or federal definition of gun in that question. In either case, my answer is always the same - never bothered to count them.
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,595
Likes
5,289
Whenever someone asks how many guns I have I ask if they are using the state or federal definition of gun in that question. In either case, my answer is always the same - never bothered to count them.
My typical response is "more than some, less than others"
 

dans

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
2,096
Likes
648
No it cant

there is a statutory definition adopted by congress and signed into law by the president

the ATF cannot just wave its magic wand and rewrite/over ride what congress passed.......
Was I dreaming or didn’t the BATFE unilaterally declare bump stocks as machine guns?
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,595
Likes
5,289
False. You always need more.
NEED WANT these are complicated concepts. Did I need to buy that gun, or did I want to buy that gun. Isn't it enough to say I bought that gun and let it go at that 🤓
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,428
Likes
767
Location
Mass
AND this is in currently in court being challenged and we all know its going to be struck down......

Do you have a case/example that is as flagrant as ATF going against statutory law where they've WON?

"We all" don't know anything of the sort. Just because logically, by the law, and due to them being already determined by those same people to not be machine guns does not mean that the courts won't use the "But guns" doctrine rule them machine guns and send the guy challenging the law away forever. This case should have taken about 5 minutes to decide, "The ATF loses, rule thrown out."

But instead we will get years of litigation to an uncertain end. In the end the antis won even if we win, how much money flushed down that hole to get back what we already had? How many cases that would get us larger gains pushed aside to fight this one? How long did we have this BS accessory banned before it was righted, just to have them ban some other nonsense we will have to fight?
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
20,603
Likes
15,664
"We all" don't know anything of the sort. Just because logically, by the law, and due to them being already determined by those same people to not be machine guns does not mean that the courts won't use the "But guns" doctrine rule them machine guns and send the guy challenging the law away forever. This case should have taken about 5 minutes to decide, "The ATF loses, rule thrown out."

But instead we will get years of litigation to an uncertain end. In the end the antis won even if we win, how much money flushed down that hole to get back what we already had? How many cases that would get us larger gains pushed aside to fight this one? How long did we have this BS accessory banned before it was righted, just to have them ban some other nonsense we will have to fight?
My point is that there's no existing precident that anyone can point to where the ATF enguaged in a similar flagrant violation of duly passed law.....

Nothing else matters......
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
20,603
Likes
15,664
Maadi-Griffin
You mean Robert Wilson Stewart?

Guy plead guilty and was convicted of having an unregistered MG circa 1993 and then subsequently circa 2000 was raided/arrested again by the ATF for manufacturing and selling firearms as a PP?
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
37,742
Likes
15,837
You mean Robert Wilson Stewart?

Guy plead guilty and was convicted of having an unregistered MG circa 1993 and then subsequently circa 2000 was raided/arrested again by the ATF for manufacturing and selling firearms as a PP?
He was selling kits that many feel did not meet the definition of firearm as the way to participate in the market as a convicted felon. The ATF basically said we will use a quacks like a duck definition of firearm rather than the precise legal definition (although opinions differ on that).
 
Last edited:

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
20,603
Likes
15,664
He was selling kits that many feel did not meet the definition of firearm as he way to participate in the market as a convicted felon. The ATF basically said we will use a quacks like a duck definition of firearm rather than the precise legal definition (although opinions differ on that).
He was a PP that previously pled guilty to having a MG and was manufacturing firearms in addition to selling "kits"

People that had purchased hits as I have read got their kits back from ATF..... after they raided his place

The issue with this guy was that he was a convicted felon/PP

The definition in US code of what constitutes a MG is very broad while what constitutes a frame or reciever is very narrow.

Frame or receiver. 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.
(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
37,742
Likes
15,837
The real problem with the Maadi-Griffin guy is he tried to play stupid games.

1. Use a technicality to stay engaged in the gun business as a PP. Not going to work when the other side has the tools to make your life hell, even if you are right about the technicalities.

2. I think he basically told the ATF to FOAD when he was asked nicely to "stop doing that shit", so he largely brought it upon himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpk

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
19,803
Likes
17,543
Location
Back from Motherland
...

2. I think he basically told the ATF to FOAD when he was asked nicely to "stop doing that shit", so he largely brought it upon himself.
I have more similar stories, but basically this happens quiet often and is the best example that ATF is running a tyranny based on threats, i.e. there are domestic terrorists who arbitrarily police the populace with fear.
 

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
19,803
Likes
17,543
Location
Back from Motherland
Play stupid games
Win stupid prizes

Moral of the story is "Dont be stupid"
comrade, Gulags were full of people who were smart, stupid, everything in between.

ATF's agenda is make everyone not play at all.

This is the reason why innovation and gun business in general is stagnating. The atmosphere of fear, uncertainty drives people out of the business and sooner or later we will end up just like Brits.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
20,603
Likes
15,664
comrade, Gulags were full of people who were smart, stupid, everything in between.

ATF's agenda is make everyone not play at all.

This is the reason why innovation and gun business in general is stagnating. The atmosphere of fear, uncertainty drives people out of the business and sooner or later we will end up just like Brits.
Completely agree on all points

My "play stupid games" comment was regarding a pp for knowingly and willingly violating NFA to become a PP not just once but multiple times over years and years.....and the ATF even gave him a warning and he disregarded it before they dropped the hammer on him.

Its like losing your license for driving over 100 in a 30 zone while drunk......then getting your license back 5 years later and picking up where you left off driving 100 while drunk......then getting a friendly warning and doing it AGAIN......

Are all of our laws/regulations just/fair/constitutional?

Hell no.....but you cant change them via civil disobedience when you're the only one doing it......

"We" changed CCW laws by working within the law/legislatures across the country......we didnt do it via civ d
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
12,261
Likes
8,051
Location
Granite State of Mind
As for ATF and what everyone knows to be clear, bright line, black letter statute law: we all know that under federal law, "antiques" are not firearms, and that the law defines an "antique" as anything made before January 1, 1899. If one rifle was made on December 31 1898, it's an antique not subject to federal law under the Gun Control Act of 1968. If the very next serial number of an identical rifle was made January 1 1899, it has the same legal status as one made yesterday.

Flash back 20+ years. I was on a listserv for collectors of curios and relics (I'm still on its current iteration). One fellow on the list was buying pre-1899 Mausers, some of them parts guns, "gunsmith specials", and sometimes just bare receivers. However they came to him, he would build them into trued actions bedded in modern stocks. Then he sold them as antiques, which they legally were.

He received a warning letter from the ATF, then a more sternly worded threat of legal prosecution for manufacturing firearms without a license. He quit doing it, even though ATF still classified those rifles as non-GCA antiques.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
20,603
Likes
15,664
As for ATF and what everyone knows to be clear, bright line, black letter statute law: we all know that under federal law, "antiques" are not firearms, and that the law defines an "antique" as anything made before January 1, 1899. If one rifle was made on December 31 1898, it's an antique not subject to federal law under the Gun Control Act of 1968. If the very next serial number of an identical rifle was made January 1 1899, it has the same legal status as one made yesterday.

Flash back 20+ years. I was on a listserv for collectors of curios and relics (I'm still on its current iteration). One fellow on the list was buying pre-1899 Mausers, some of them parts guns, "gunsmith specials", and sometimes just bare receivers. However they came to him, he would build them into trued actions bedded in modern stocks. Then he sold them as antiques, which they legally were.

He received a warning letter from the ATF, then a more sternly worded threat of legal prosecution for manufacturing firearms without a license. He quit doing it, even though ATF still classified those rifles as non-GCA antiques.
Its not quite that clear cut unfortunately

As per 26 U.S. Code § 5845. Definitions

(g) Antique firearm
The term “antique firearm” means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
So. according to this it appears that guns like those pre 1898 Mosins and a lot of others may not qualify under the defn "any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898"
 

dhuze

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
9,141
Likes
3,071
Location
An island surrounded by land on three sides
AND this is in currently in court being challenged and we all know its going to be struck down......

Do you have a case/example that is as flagrant as ATF going against statutory law where they've WON?
So are you going to run around showing your bump fire stock since you believe it will be struck down sometime in the next 10 years?
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
20,603
Likes
15,664
So are you going to run around showing your bump fire stock since you believe it will be struck down sometime in the next 10 years?
Thought it was a dumb idea, never interested me so its a non issue....nonetheless the ATF decision is directly contrary to their own findings and the statute as passed by congress......

Go ask the folks that bought/own them.......nearly 520,000 of them were sold....the people that bought them appear to be holding onto them.......


less than 600 out of 520,000 turned in

epic legal fail
 

dhuze

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
9,141
Likes
3,071
Location
An island surrounded by land on three sides
Thought it was a dumb idea, never interested me so its a non issue....nonetheless the ATF decision is directly contrary to their own findings and the statute as passed by congress......

Go ask the folks that bought/own them.......nearly 520,000 of them were sold....the people that bought them appear to be holding onto them.......


less than 600 out of 520,000 turned in

epic legal fail
I knew you were going to say you don't own one. So let me put it this way.

If someone sent you one would you go around saying it's it's "probably" going to be overturned and let everyone know you have it? Or, like most other people going to wait and see what happens?


My point is, as of this point it is their "interpretation" and IS the law. You aren't going to get arrested and go to court and say "it's probably going to be overturned" and walk out like nothing ever happened.

I'd be willing to bet that if it get's overturned there WILL be a new law made making them illegal soon after.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
20,603
Likes
15,664
I knew you were going to say you don't own one. So let me put it this way.

If someone sent you one would you go around saying it's it's "probably" going to be overturned and let everyone know you have it? Or, like most other people going to wait and see what happens?


My point is, as of this point it is their "interpretation" and IS the law. You aren't going to get arrested and go to court and say "it's probably going to be overturned" and walk out like nothing ever happened.

I'd be willing to bet that if it get's overturned there WILL be a new law made making them illegal soon after.
Doesnt really matter who owns one/more

What matters is that people are not turning them in AND the issue is working its way thru the court/legal system

Doesnt matter if you or I like it or not.....thats current reality.....whining/kvetching about it accomplishes nothing

If you dont like it then work within the legal/legislative system to change it
 
Top Bottom