AR-15 Design May open legal loophole

garandman

Instructor
NES Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
23,623
Likes
24,230
Location
Boston Hahbah
Feedback: 13 / 1 / 0
Couldn’t find a related thread via search.


“A subtle design feature of the AR-15 rifle has raised a technical legal question that is derailing cases against people who are charged with illegally buying and selling the gun's parts or building the weapon.

At issue is whether a key piece of one of America's most popular firearms meets the definition of a gun that prosecutors have long relied on.

For decades, the federal government has treated a mechanism called the lower receiver as the essential piece of the semiautomatic rifle, which has been used in some of the nation's deadliest mass shootings. Prosecutors regularly bring charges based on that specific part.

But some defense attorneys have recently argued that the part alone does not meet the definition in the law. Federal law enforcement officials, who have long been concerned about the discrepancy, are increasingly worried that it could hinder some criminal prosecutions and undermine firearms regulations nationwide.
 
I sort of laughed at this crap when I started building them a while ago. The lower is just a hammer, spring and release system.

So is a claw hammer and a nail. Or a really good rock. If these laws weren't made by idiots, the barrels would be the only thing which would be serialized and require a background check and 4473.
 
I sort of laughed at this crap when I started building them a while ago. The lower is just a hammer, spring and release system.

So is a claw hammer and a nail. Or a really good rock. If these laws weren't made by idiots, the barrels would be the only thing which would be serialized and require a background check and 4473.
The hammer/sprint/release system are NOT part of the "lower" if by "lower" you mean the part of the AR15 that meets the current federal definition of a rifle.
 
The reporters seem to have a grasp of the AR design or had good sources. Someone deliver this to the State AG's orifice please.
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.
 
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.
Not that it would make any difference to Healy but this decision by the court would seem to affirm the Massachusetts designation as a non-firearm.
 
The hammer/sprint/release system are NOT part of the "lower" if by "lower" you mean the part of the AR15 that meets the current federal definition of a rifle.
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"!
 
I'm on my phone, so can't search.

There is a thread on here, I think it's related to Ares, or maybe to the guy that was doing the build parties in...CA?
 
The Ohio judge's ruling is quite clear, and based on a careful reading of the statute. According to this precedent, an AR-15 lower receiver is not a firearm. Now, in order for that precedent to become settled, someone somewhere is going to have to get prosecuted for selling unserialized lowers, get convicted, and then fight it up to the federal Circuit level and perhaps SCOTUS.

Who wants to go first?
 
I'm on my phone, so can't search.

There is a thread on here, I think it's related to Ares, or maybe to the guy that was doing the build parties in...CA?

it wasn't Ares, some dude was nabbed for letting people finish 80% in his shop and apparently charges was brought against him on manufacturing, so his attorney had argued that AR receiver is technically not a receiver. I've seen the thread, just not sure if it was on NES.

This is not really new. AR180 was originally classed as upper being a receiver. On SAR80, it still is. On AR180 lower is now the "receiver", but there are lowers in the wild from the early days when it "wasn't a receiver."

Also on AKs ... originally AK trunnion was classed as the receiver and on AK shotguns ... it still is, actually.


ATF absolutely f***ing will rewrite shit and people are going to take without lube. Where are we going with this, "firearms components" will start getting serialized and registered.Brace for this shit.
 
I'm on my phone, so can't search.

There is a thread on here, I think it's related to Ares, or maybe to the guy that was doing the build parties in...CA?

 
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.......

What they can do and what they have lawful authority to do are not the same thing. The ATF can and has changed the meaning of things at their whim.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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"
 
Back
Top Bottom