Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Lower receiver not a reciever? ??

Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by drewp, Oct 28, 2014.

  1. drewp

    drewp 503pdx Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    973
    Likes Received:
    543
    Has anyone followed the ares armour dispute with the atf.

    Well there is a good read to be had here.... But im worried the language is going to make the lower and upper equal...the lower is missing the breech face and threaded barrel portion which the upper contains...so either both parts will be regulated or maybe lowers will not be a regulated thing...we will see.



    http://aresarmor.com/store/Ares-Arm...=Update - Ares Armor dispute with ATF.content
     
  2. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    6,663
    Where did you read that language? I read though much of it but did not see it

    EDIT: Scratch that. I see what your talking about in the very last post of the complaint
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  3. SOrez

    SOrez SOR Active Member

    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    168
    It definitely could change could a lot depending on the court and judge.
     
  4. drewp

    drewp 503pdx Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    973
    Likes Received:
    543
    Well what did you read then...to me who has 10+ ar rifles and 8 of which I put together by parts and pieces and i like this but dont like thism
     
  5. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    6,663
    They are not going to change the classification of the lower. There are a million (or there abouts) AR lower receivers that are currently registered as a firearm. They cant call both the upper and the lower a firearm, it has to be one or the other. (other words it would be considered two firearms) I cant see that there is any bearing to the sale of completed guns or lower receivers.

    They might do something to try and prohibit "80%" lowers but I think that is unlikely as well. There becomes a point where it is just a block of material. Are they going to outlaw blocks of aluminum?
     
  6. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    6,663
    I started at the top and read all the news reports and files so the very last complaint was the last thing I got to.

    I have at least as many AR's as you. Only one was bought as a complete rifle. However none of mine where built from 80% lowers and are all serial numbered receivers. Personally I have no need of a un numbered lower. I dont think there is anything wrong with building one, however it costs more money to build one yourself than to buy a built one and you still have to do a good job of building it. I prefer to leave the machining to others.
     
  7. drewp

    drewp 503pdx Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    973
    Likes Received:
    543
    Although ares is known for there 80% lowers and I have 4 of there anodized 80% ers...the whole language was about "stripped lowers"... thats what intrigue me about this. ..
     
  8. drewp

    drewp 503pdx Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    973
    Likes Received:
    543
    And you did click on "view full declaration" on the 10/27/14 update. ...thats where it gets good
     
  9. jbett98

    jbett98 NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,468
    Likes Received:
    7,678
    From what I understand, it's the different colored areas of plastic that outline where to mill the 80% lower that's what at issue here.
    "A manufacturer made an 80 percent receiver in plastic with a different material and colors which show exactly where the customer can drill making it easier and cheaper to build. The ATF said it is illegal.
     
  10. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    6,663
    I did, It is interesting. My personal feeling is Ares pushed there luck fighting back over the poly lowers after they where deemed a "firearm". I think they should have fought it. But they should have turned them over immediately and then fought. I hope it turns out in there favor. It should as any reasonable person can see they at the very least where following the intent of the law if not the letter of it. The whole "it was a cavity before it was filled" argument the FEDs put forth is not much to stand on. Everything was empty before it was filled, The fact is either is is full or empty now. The two polomer thing could bite them though if they can prove that the part that fills the trigger group cavity can be removed without machining (like they claim)
     
  11. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    6,663

    I dont think that is quite it. The issue is they claim that the part was made with the cavity and then filled. If it was then when the trigger group cavity was made it became a firearm. It does not matter that they later filled it in.
     
  12. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    6,663
     
  13. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    6,663
    They Ares guys claim that the plug existed first, thus the cavity could not have existed prior.

    Its a convoluted mess...
     
  14. jbett98

    jbett98 NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,468
    Likes Received:
    7,678
    Sounds like all you need to make this work is a decent x-acto knife, hand drill and a dremel tool.
     
  15. drewp

    drewp 503pdx Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    973
    Likes Received:
    543
    I guess the idea that any reciever poly or not is not a "reciever"......past the ares issue
    the guy supporting there argument brought up a good thought process
     
  16. IronMonster

    IronMonster Washington Opinionated Member Diamond Supporter

    Messages:
    4,186
    Likes Received:
    6,663
    Agree, However the ATF has ruled that is is. So there ruling supersedes the definition (would be my guess)