AR-15 Design May open legal loophole

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?
 
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?
 
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:
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.
 
...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
You'll have to do better than that

Atkins v. US UNITED STATES v. ATKINS et al. ATKINS et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.

Guedes v ATF is part and parcel of the bumpstock challenge that is still ongoing and subject to appeal

I don’t need to do better because they prove you wrong.

You said the ATF has never won. There’s two. You can just admit you were wrong. It’s not hard.

They unilaterally changed the definition of machine gun and the courts sided with them. The legal definition uses the term “by a single function of the trigger”. The ATF changed it to be single pull of the trigger.

The Atkins accelerator was legal, the ATF said it was legal, until years later they said it wasn’t. Bump stocks were legal. They said they were legal. And years later they said they were not. The courts in both cases sided with the ATF. They agreed the ATF changing the term “single function of the trigger“ is appropriate.

Maybe even worse the ATF also interprets pulling the trigger to simply mean keeping your finger stationary. If you push the trigger into your finger multiple times that is a single pull. Because the ATF says so. And the courts agree.

The fact you don’t care about bumpstocks is irrelevant and doesn’t make you right.
 
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 standard answer to how many I have is "Somewhere between not enough and none of your business"
 
1. That’s not what you said. You said they can’t do anything because there are laws!

2. The Atkins accelerator and bump stocks both relied on the exact same re-interpretation of the machine gun definition. I have no idea why you keep talking about frames and receivers.

The ATF on their own changed the word “function” to mean “pull”.

They then changed what the word ‘pull’ means.

But I digress, because jpk, and I don’t know why, but you apparently have such a strong desire to argue with everything I say that you have just been arguing with yourself. Literally. I’ve been posting your own posts I copied from this thread:

 
Inquiring minds want to know...

Under the ATF’s own definition, which is written into federal law, one of the definitions of a firearm is a frame or receiver. And defines a frame or receiver as . . .

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.
An AR lower clearly doesn’t meet that definition. While it houses the hammer, it doesn’t provide or housing for the bolt or breechblock and it isn’t threaded to receive the barrel.

But . . .

pistol-frame-ttag.jpg



Per the ATF, this is also a firearm. But without a slide, that thing above no more meets the legal definition of a firearm than an AR lower does.

So the question is, if an AR lower isn’t a firearm under current law, why is this thing a firearm?

 
Because the government does what they want, no matter what some silly words say. Whether it’s the Constitution or a statute or even an administrative rule, if they want it to mean something else, that’s what it means. Courts are very willing.
 
Because the government does what they want, no matter what some silly words say. Whether it’s the Constitution or a statute or even an administrative rule, if they want it to mean something else, that’s what it means. Courts are very willing.

Heller has gone completely ignored so yep, that sounds about right.

And I'd be amazed if SCOTUS heard a 2A case worth hearing.
 
Back
Top Bottom