JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.

Sounds like more anti gun BS.

Ignoring how it is written (especially the leadup to the details/etc.), the gist of the case is very interesting; the judge basically points out that the ATF has made rules that don't follow the letter of the law. This might get torn apart later if appealed all the way up - courts have more often gone with the spirit of the law than the letter - but on the other hand, courts have also often gone with the "plain reading" of the law.

So I can see why the gov didn't want to take a chance.

The whole principle behind the defense's case and the judge's decisions, would undermine much of what the ATF has done over the years and recently (e.g., bumpstocks) making triggers 'machine guns' and so on. The guy had a good lawyer, and he was smart to take the deal and not press further; he had as much chance at loosing as the gov. did, probably more, given precedent.

The guy also knew he was on the dangerous edge of the law and ATF regs and should have guessed that he would sooner or later be busted for it. If he had stuck to just selling 80% lowers and other parts he would be fine, but the "build parties" went over the line and there was precedent and warnings from the ATF that it was over the line.

Sure, the GCA, NFA and ATF regs are unconstitutional, but violate them, especially as a business, and you will probably find yourself in court if not prison. He was lucky he found a good lawyer and a judge who agreed with his lawyer. Smart too, to get out of the business.
 
Ignoring how it is written (especially the leadup to the details/etc.), the gist of the case is very interesting; the judge basically points out that the ATF has made rules that don't follow the letter of the law. ...

The article is well worth the read. To expand on your point, the C.F.R. in question defines a 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."

Because the sentence is written as "A, B, and C" -- every element must be met for the device to be a receiver. If it was "A, B, or C", then one or more element would qualify an object as a receiver.

Even a passing familiarity with an AR lower would make a person realize that the only thing the lower houses, is the hammer and the parts of the firing mechanism that make up the trigger group. It's also not the only type of firearm with such an arrangement, so ruling that a receiver is what the law defines it to be, rather than the ATF's arbitrary determination of what a receiver is, would have some wide ranging effects on the DIY market.

Here is the C.F.R: 27 CFR § 478.11 - Meaning of terms. (to find the relevant definition, search for "Firearm frame or receiver"
 
The article was pretty poorly written. There are a few issues here that all got jumbled together: felons possessing firearms, 80% receivers, ATF's rulings on helping others finish receivers, etc. None of which is really relevent to the issue of the judge's ruling, which was that ALL AR lowers fail to meet the definition of a receiver under the law.

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more press, as it closely relates to the bump stock issue- that the ATF has exceeded its authority to interpret and administer statute and has crossed into creating law.

Regarding the "damage" to federal gun control done by forcing the ATF to follow the law, I'm unsympathetic. Congress is paid a lot of money to write laws, if they're too stupid to make the language match their intent, so sad. You can fix it next legislative session if you have the votes.
 
The ONLY question we should be asking is Why Not???
There is ulterior motivation behind this decision, I'm sure of that.

The ulterior motive is this: If an AR lower is not a receiver, then a person can buy a finished lower and a finished upper, then plug the two together and have a functional firearm without any BG check and without doing any DIY machining. The same could be true for other firearms. The upshot is, the Feds don't want a legal ruling that would make it possible for essentially commercial firearms to be sold in easily assembled separate pieces and thereby avoid BG checks.
 
The AR upper is what seems to me to fit definition of the law. It seems strange they chose the lower instead.

The upper is missing most of the components of the firing mechanism. The trigger and hammer are in the lower, only the firing pin is in the upper. To be a receiver, 100% of the definition must be met by virtue of the word "and".
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top