"ATF Unhinged: Prosecutions Made Up Out of Whole Cloth – You Might Be Next…"

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,336
Likes
1,885
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
If the article is to be believed, the client got jammed up on an NFA charge over a pistol with a wrist brace, and the government tried to mislead the jury.
ATF Unhinged: Prosecutions Made Up Out of Whole Cloth – You Might Be Next…
Although many of the documents have been sealed by the Court (that should tell you a good bit already), the superseding indictment is publicly available and suggests that Mr. Wright had an unregistered short-barrelled rifle (SBR) that was not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). Regardless of whether you believe the National Firearms Act is constitutional or appropriate, at the time of writing this article, the courts have not yet found it to be unconstitutional and if merely inappropriate, one’s proper recourse is to seek a statutory deletion or revision. Thus, the possession of an unregistered SBR is unlawful. So, why is this case concerning? Unfortunately most of the informative documents have been sealed…that is, except for the Government’s Motion in Limine. (For those who don’t know what a motion in limine is, it is a motion filed by a party which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented during a trial).
Now, everything starts to come into light. The Government is contending that an extension piece that is designed as a cheek rest is actually a stock or if not, Mr. Wright had a vertical foregrip on his pistol. (We call this roping a heifer, where the Government attempts to contend that no matter how you classify the situation, you have violated some law). Now, some of you are probably saying, hold on, ATF previously issued determinations – such as in relation to the Thorsden determination request letter and ATF’s response – that cheek rests and other devices, which were not designed to be shouldered, are not stocks. (For more discussion on cheek weld determinations, see our blog article Ringing In the New Year ATF Style). And they have issued numerous determinations – such as the one regarding the Magpul Angled Fore-Grip – that angled foregrips are not vertical pistol grips. Yep, but that didn’t stop the ATF and the U.S Attorney’s Office from prosecuting Mr. Wright and seeking to preclude the jurors from seeing or hearing of the determination letters, even though, the Government never once contended that Mr. Wright actually shouldered the cheek weld extension or utilized the angled foregrip.

For those interested in what the products involved actually were, you can discern them from the Certification of Exhibits, which thankfully wasn’t sealed. And here is the docket.
 
Send it up the chain to the U.S. Supreme Court. Time We got "accessories" quashed as an issue.
Accessories don't harm anyone...
 
I'm more curious about the incident that lead up to his indictment.... but not a lot present there.
 
I can see them "sealing" documents to bury aspects of an investigation that makes them look stooopid! We all need a nice place to lay our cheeks down....
 
I'm confused. Did he have a VFG or a Magpul approved AVFG or another manf's AVFG with no ATF determination letter???
 
So for people who might own pistols, and might own AFGs and Maxim braces, don't install them? Sheesh. What was the point of those ATF determination letters?
 
I’ll explain.

Someone who works in government got butthurt.

Yes, I get that, that's the usual ATF MO, but I'm also curious to see what the accused did to get dragged into this.

The indictment actually is unsealed on pacer but I don't remember WTF my account info is....

-Mike
 
Yes, I get that, that's the usual ATF MO, but I'm also curious to see what the accused did to get dragged into this.

He’s the person who made the government person butthurt.

If you are wonder exactly how, it was probably by saying something both innocuous and true.
 
Nothing new for these monkeys by a long shot.
I have a friend in Military law enforcement who went to a multi agency training seminar and these a-holes would brag and joke about setting people up and framing people.
Somehow they though all agencies worked this way and they would be impressing everyone.
Mostly they were just disgusted.
They are like the cousin the rest of the family doesn't talk about or invite to family get togethers.
The peak of their unbridled ass hattery was during wild Bill's presidency.
 
Nothing new for these monkeys by a long shot.
I have a friend in Military law enforcement who went to a multi agency training seminar and these a-holes would brag and joke about setting people up and framing people.
Somehow they though all agencies worked this way and they would be impressing everyone.
Mostly they were just disgusted.
They are like the cousin the rest of the family doesn't talk about or invite to family get togethers.
The peak of their unbridled ass hattery was during wild Bill's presidency.

The cancer is still there, look at what they did during fast and furious... punishing whistleblowers etc...
 
This is all trench warfare. It's the slippery slope. The lines are drawn, and neither side is backing down.

The Supreme Court needs to nuke the whole battlefield and let it all be legal, except for assault or murder with a deadly weapon. That's the only f***ing gun law that should exist.
 
Hmmmm my plan for that AR pistol build is paused for an interim......or not
 
Does it even matter if things never get attached? I thought that was what "constructive possession" was all about.

-Gary

They tend not to charge that in cases where there's a sensible reason to have it. Let's say in a free state you own a pistol and a rifle, both ARs... and you have both 5.56 and .300 uppers for each. Unless there's evidence you've put one of the two pistol-length uppers on the rifle lower, chances are they're not going to charge you. Similarly simply owning a vertical foregrip and a pistol you're not (likely) going to see constructive possession charges if you own a rifle you could ostensibly install the grip on - unless they've got evidence you have or intend to install the VFG on the pistol. Then again, when shit like this happens...
 
I'm confused. Did he have a VFG or a Magpul approved AVFG or another manf's AVFG with no ATF determination letter???
It seems to suggest that he had a Magpul AVFG, however it doesn't matter as they're arguing that ATF determination letters are or should be inadmissible because "ATF FATD letters at trial creates a grave risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury."
If he had a VFG then it is an NFA violation. Not sure how the brace factors in.

This article is clear as mud.
Clear as it can be, given the sealed documents. It's pretty clear he's got either an AVFG or substantially similar thing with a cheek rest brace thingie (the technical term) and someone is attempting an end-run around existing law and policy. Like Maura's "list," this is another reason that this crap needs to be defined legislatively (or judicially, if absolutely necessary) and not at the whim of some agency or individual.
 
ATF Prosecutes Ohio Man for AR Pistol with Brace
The Prince Law Firm’s blog recently brought attention to the case of U.S. v. Wright (3:18-CR-16), in which the northern Ohio man is charged with a series of violations regarding the accessories he added to a Sharps Bros. AR-15 pistol known as The Jack. The ATF alleges that the added parts created a Short Barreled-Rifle, which the defendant did not register as required by the National Firearms Act.

According to the evidence list for the upcoming trail, the equipment that brought about the alleged infraction included a Maxim CQB Pistol AR 15 PDW brace, Stark Express angled foregrip, and a flash suppressor that added about two inches to the 7.75-inch barrel. These items were all previously approved by the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division, the arm of the ATF charged with responding to technical inquiries and testing and classifying products submitted to them for review, as well as providing technical services to the firearms industry and other members of the public.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office even went as far as trying to bar the approval letters from the ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division from being used in court. The trial pitted ATF Firearms Enforcement Officer Eve E. Eisenbise as an expert witness for the government against the defendant’s expert Richard Vasquez, a former employee of the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division. Eisenbise held that the Maxim Defense extension was a shoulder stock, while Vasquez, and the jury, contended it was not.
https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/superseding-indictment.pdf
 
"The equipment that brought about the alleged infraction included a Maxim CQB Pistol AR 15 PDW brace, Stark Express angled foregrip, and a flash suppressor that added about two inches to the 7.75-inch barrel."

IMO this isn't really a deviation at all. If you put a "foregrip" on a pistol your in violation. I know some people think the Magpul AFG is ok.. I don't think that is correct.

Hand stops only. That was the ruling as far as I knew.

As far as them bending the rules as they see fit. That's nothing new. If you get in those cross hairs your gonna get shit on. Federal LE doesn't just drop charges and apologize.
 
Last edited:
Pic on arfcom show mods to the brace that removed the arm strap and added an end cap. Weird.

pistol_PNG-721079.JPG
 
Pic on arfcom show mods to the brace that removed the arm strap and added an end cap. Weird.

pistol_PNG-721079.JPG

Ohh, so that's the modification they're talking about. That is pretty weird.... It does change how it can be used from the original intent, but how the shit does that modification make it a stock? I guess the moral of the story is don't modify your brace?

Also, what the shit with calling out the flash suppressor? Why the f*** would that matter on anything other than maybe after pin and weld making it long enough with the stock collapsed to avoid AOW status for a vertical fore grip?
 
Pic on arfcom show mods to the brace that removed the arm strap and added an end cap. Weird.

pistol_PNG-721079.JPG

That's not a brace; that is a "cheek rest" which comes from them just as show, less the end cap.
Interestingly enough I'm not seeing it for sale on the Maxim website anymore, but it was there last month.

iu



Also the AFG has been OK'ed specifically by the ATF for pistols, but the Stark has not... See question #7 here.

View: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0qyloA48O3XZWFjYjMwYTMtYTg1MC00NzVhLWI3NmMtZDRiNTMzNzdhMzUx/view



Looking at the Stark I could see why it COULD be called a "vertical grip"... I'd imagine the ATF was ok with the AFG because it's more like a handstop than a grip.

ff44d846ed4eeee1ab2e210d2c9619ce
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-11-1_19-43-37.png
    upload_2018-11-1_19-43-37.png
    36.9 KB · Views: 7
Back
Top Bottom