Messages
1,962
Reactions
3,991
So this I just don't get. Supposedly the DC attorney general is suing polymer80 and has imposed and ordered them to pay a $4mil fine. The reason... for selling illegal firearms and making false claims. The false claim being that polymer80 has advertised that their products are NOT firearms and do not require serialization or an FFL to purchase. The AG has determined that to be false.

Did I miss something?

There is the new "ghost gun" Brandon rule, that hasn't even gone into affect yet, and.... the ATF's DOJ lawyer was just put on record, in a different law suit against the ATF's "ghost gun" rule, stating that 80% lowers are NOT firearms under the new rule and may be sold to consumers. The only illegal aspect is IF the lower is sold with a jig, drill bits or instructions included that would make that lower (by the rule definition) "readily made" into a working firearm.

Is this major backpeddling by the ATF in light of the spanking the EPA just got from SCOTUS for deciding to start making up laws all on their own? Will there be a dramatic change in the final "ghost gun" rule previously presented? Regardless.... the ATF is now on record saying 80%'s aren't firearms under the new rule.

So... from the ATF's own attorney, he's saying 80%'s AREN'T firearms, it's the stuff being sold together with them that is the problem... and on the other, DC's attorney general is fining Polymer80 for illegally selling firearms, falsely claiming they are legal.... while.... the ATF's overreaching "ghost gun" rule hasn't even gone into affect yet... which doesn't make 80%'s illegal, anyway....

I'm confused. :s0140:
 
Messages
1,962
Reactions
3,991
The outcome doesn't matter. They are using our tax dollars to harass and bankrupt a legitimate company. THAT's the purpose.
So... it's perfectly alright for an elected state offical to file frivolous lawsuits not based on any law, and impose illegal fines on private businesses at whim... because he feels like it? Isn't there some kind of oversight or repercussions for that?

Can polymer80 sue the AG for damages, legal costs and loss of revenue... or is the AG protected against any legal action?

Genuine question.
 
So... it's perfectly alright for an elected state offical to file frivolous lawsuits not based on any law, and impose illegal fines on private businesses at whim... because he feels like it? Isn't there some kind of oversight or repercussions for that?

Can polymer80 sue the AG for damages, legal costs and loss of revenue... or is the AG protected against any legal action?

Genuine question.
This is what modern day tyranny looks like. Why do Americans keep electing the same ole same ole politicians who’ve proven over decades to be ineffective….
 
Messages
1,962
Reactions
3,991
This is what modern day tyranny looks like.
This seems a bit of a step beyond the typical veiled tyranny that's so rampant. I mean... how do you get away with, "well, it's not a law at the moment, but we're going to charge them anyway because it might be someday soon."?

Granted, I might be missing something... which is why I brought it up and asked.
 
Messages
17,422
Reactions
26,858
So this I just don't get. Supposedly the DC attorney general is suing polymer80 and has imposed and ordered them to pay a $4mil fine. The reason... for selling illegal firearms and making false claims. The false claim being that polymer80 has advertised that their products are NOT firearms and do not require serialization or an FFL to purchase. The AG has determined that to be false.

Did I miss something?

There is the new "ghost gun" Brandon rule, that hasn't even gone into affect yet, and.... the ATF's DOJ lawyer was just put on record, in a different law suit against the ATF's "ghost gun" rule, stating that 80% lowers are NOT firearms under the new rule and may be sold to consumers. The only illegal aspect is IF the lower is sold with a jig, drill bits or instructions included that would make that lower (by the rule definition) "readily made" into a working firearm.

Is this major backpeddling by the ATF in light of the spanking the EPA just got from SCOTUS for deciding to start making up laws all on their own? Will there be a dramatic change in the final "ghost gun" rule previously presented? Regardless.... the ATF is now on record saying 80%'s aren't firearms under the new rule.

So... from the ATF's own attorney, he's saying 80%'s AREN'T firearms, it's the stuff being sold together with them that is the problem... and on the other, DC's attorney general is fining Polymer80 for illegally selling firearms, falsely claiming they are legal.... while.... the ATF's overreaching "ghost gun" rule hasn't even gone into affect yet... which doesn't make 80%'s illegal, anyway....

I'm confused. 80:s0140:
Do they have a local law that would qualify the Poly80 products as firearms?
 
Messages
1,962
Reactions
3,991
Do they have a local law that would qualify the Poly80 products as firearms?
They may, but that wouldn't give them the authority to bring suit against a company outside of their state jurisdiction, and that company wouldn't be guilty of false advertising claims if their claims where true in most every other state in the union, right(?)

Unless that company was selling and shipping 80%'s to people and locations within a prohibited state, they would be in full compliance of the law... as it stands today.

I would think too that they could ban 80%'s, but can they legally redefine law on what constitues a firearm at the state level?
 
Last Edited:
Messages
7,664
Reactions
12,702
I would think too that they could ban 80%'s, but can they legally redefine law on what constitues a firearm at the state level?
Absolutely. States can and do define what a firearms are and can prosecute those laws at the state level. Its not that states redefine what a firearm is. They are states. They have their own laws. Sometimes state gun laws mirror federal laws and sometimes they get way off in left field.
 
Messages
1,962
Reactions
3,991
Absolutely. States can and do define what a firearms are and can prosecute those laws at the state level. Its not that states redefine what a firearm is. They are states. They have their own laws. Sometimes state gun laws mirror federal laws and sometimes they get way off in left field.
I could be wrong, but I believe they can only define what is legal and what is not in their state, but they can't... say.... decide all semi-autos are now machine guns and all pistols are now SBR's.... or... 80%'s are now firearms. KWIM? Federal laws trump state laws in that regard.

They can make semi-autos, pistols and 80%'s illegal, but they can't redefine what they are. At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, even if they CAN redefine firearm classes within their state, they can't legally impose suit against entities in another state based on that. Like polymer80 in NV.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
7,664
Reactions
12,702
I could be wrong, but I believe they can only define what is legal and what is not in their state, but they can't... say.... decide all semi-autos are now machine guns and all pistols are now SBR's.... or... 80%'s are now firearms. KWIM? Federal laws trump state laws in that regard.

They can make semi-autos, pistols and 80%'s illegal, but they can't redefine what they are. At least, that is my understanding.

Regardless, even if they CAN redefine firearm classes within their state, they can't legally impose suit against entities in another state based on that. Like polymer80 in NV.
Try to buy a 16" barrel folding stock AK in Michigan. They call that a SBR and they can prosecute you in state court for owning an SBR without paperwork. The feds wont because they dont consider that an SBR. States can add to the federal baseline law but they cannot take away. On the flip side Texas says you can build a silencer in Texas no paperwork. Sure. Texas wont prosecute you but the feds can. Marijuana in Washington. Not illegal in the state but if the feds ever want to rear their ugly heads and shut all the shops down and jail a LOT of people they sure can.

If Polymer 80 was shipping to DC then DC courts can prosecute Polymer 80 under their ( territorial? ) DC laws. They may not have been. I dont know. If they are coming into DC through a third party vendor then it may just get thrown out. I know other companies sell a lot of those things and those companies may be liable under DC law.
 
Messages
1,962
Reactions
3,991
Try to buy a 16" barrel folding stock AK in Michigan. They call that a SBR and they can prosecute you in state court for owning an SBR without paperwork. The feds wont because they dont consider that an SBR. States can add to the federal baseline law but they cannot take away. On the flip side Texas says you can build a silencer in Texas no paperwork. Sure. Texas wont prosecute you but the feds can. Marijuana in Washington. Not illegal in the state but if the feds ever want to rear their ugly heads and shut all the shops down and jail a LOT of people they sure can.

If Polymer 80 was shipping to DC then DC courts can prosecute Polymer 80 under their ( territorial? ) DC laws. They may not have been. I dont know. If they are coming into DC through a third party vendor then it may just get thrown out. I know other companies sell a lot of those things and those companies may be liable under DC law.
Michigan is a little convoluted with their terminology. Under 30" (or was it 26"? I forget) folded, they use the eroneous term "SBR", but it's not the same animal as the Fed SBR definition that is an NFA and requires a tax stamp. As far as I understand in Michigan their "SBR" is a "pistol" and must be registered in the state pistol database to be legal (vs. requiring a tax stamp).

Texas... they just passed a law that makes silencers made and used within TX exempt from fed regulation (if it sticks), but that is based on the fact that the tax stamp issue comes from interstate commerce laws. TX's arguement is.... if a TX made silencer never passes outside it's borders then interstate commerce laws do not apply. However, if it ever does... as soon as it crosses it's illegal without the stamp.

In that case, they haven't changed the definition of what a silencer is though. They are arguing that it doesn't fall under federal jurisdiction so the fed laws don't apply... if it never leaves the state.

Both of those cases though only work within their respective states. They can't... say... sue a mfg in Montana for making folding stock AK's and/or silencers.

The AG suit against polymer80 is for illegally selling "firearms" and polymer80 claiming that they are not.. "firearms". Polymer80 has time and again proven that they do not sell or transport any of their products to States in which they are not allowed. The DC AG is, as far as I understand it, trying to use the new ATF rule (which isn't even active yet) to argue that their 80%'s ARE firearms and in violation of federal laws.... now!

I kind of agree as posted earlier that they probably don't care about the legality (or lack of it), or the outcome so much as they are just trying to bury polymer80 in legal fees to put them out of business.
 
Messages
7,664
Reactions
12,702
Just because they pass a law doesnt mean it violates the US constitution any more than if it was a state that did it. They are a city with a mayor and a city council that can pass whatever laws they want that are in compliance with the US constitution. The US constitution sets a baseline that the city can expand on legally. If the city council passes a law saying an 80% receiver is a gun in the cty and bans the sale in the city and an out of distrct company sends them into the city then the cities counsel can sue.
Michigan is a little convoluted with their terminology. Under 30" (or was it 26"? I forget) folded, they use the eroneous term "SBR", but it's not the same animal as the Fed SBR definition that is an NFA and requires a tax stamp. As far as I understand in Michigan... their "SBR" is a "pistol" and must be registered in the pistol database to be legal (vs. requiring a tax stamp).

Texas... they just passed a law that makes silencers made and used within TX exempt from fed regulation (if it sticks), but that is based on the fact that the tax stamp issue comes from interstate commerce laws. TX's arguement is.... if a TX made silencer never passes outside it's borders then interstate commerce laws do not apply. However, if it ever does... as soon as it crosses it's illegal without the stamp.

In that case, they haven't changed the definition of what a silencer is though. They are arguing that it doesn't fall under federal jurisdiction so the fed laws don't apply... if it never leaves the state.

Both of those cases though only work within their respective states. They can't... say... sue a mfg in Montana for making folding stock AK's and/or silencers.

The AG suit against polymer80 is for illegally selling "firearms" and polymer80 claiming that they are not.. "firearms". Polymer80 has time and again proven that they do not sell or transport any of their products to States in which they are not allowed. The DC AG is, as far as I understand it, trying to use the new ATF rule (which isn't even active yet) to argue that their 80%'s ARE firearms and in violation of federal laws.... now!

I kind of agree as posted earlier that they probably don't care about the legality (or lack of it), or the outcome so much as they are just trying to bury polymer80 in legal fees to put them out of business.
Michigans SBR "term" doesnt mean that the ATF is going to prsecute you for owning an illegal SBR but Michigan sure can under Michigan state law ( Its 26" ) in state courts and jail you in state jails.

Texas's argument is novel I suppose but theres no way in hell its going to hold up in federal court and quite frankly it doesnt matter. Same with whatever other state that tries the same thing. Sure, Texas isnt going to prosecute you. That doesnt save you from club fed. The ATF can still prosecute you no matter what your state says and your state law will not mean a thing in federal district court.

In any case if DC gets hauled into appellate court and ply 80 didnt ship stuff into the district then its just going to be vacated.

This is no different than if a magazine seller sends "normal capacity " magazines or "machine gun parts" into Washington . If the states atty general @sswipe gets a hair up there he can file suit against the seller..
 
Last Edited:
Messages
1,962
Reactions
3,991
Texas makes me giggle though. My personal impression with their silencer law is more about.... "if you woke-tards are going to play around with dumba** laws to circumvent the 2A... here's your sign!!"... and their way of giving the fed government the middle finger. :s0155: :s0155:
 
Messages
1,962
Reactions
3,991
.....an out of distrct company sends them into the city then the cities counsel can sue.
There is no claim that polymer80 is shipping legally produced products into areas where it is illegal for them to ship to.

The suit is that polymer80 lowers are "firearms" and are illegal to sell... anywhere... without an FFL. In addition to that, they are suing because polymer80 is advertising that their lowers are NOT firearms and are legal to purchase without an FFL. The AG is claiming that to be false! ;)
 
Messages
7,664
Reactions
12,702
Texas makes me giggle though. My personal impression with their silencer law is more about.... "if you woke-tards are going to play around with dumba** laws to circumvent the 2A... here's your sign!!"... and their way of giving the fed government the middle finger. :s0155: :s0155:
It's not really an empty gesture . Before , say you get pulled overfor driving like me and the State Trooper does a probable cause search and finds an unmarked silencer in your vehicle. They wouldn't prosecute you in state court. They'd hand it over to the feds who would do it in federal court. Now they just don't hand it over to the feds. That is a huge difference.
 
Messages
7,664
Reactions
12,702
Texas makes me giggle though. My personal impression with their silencer law is more about.... "if you woke-tards are going to play around with dumba** laws to circumvent the 2A... here's your sign!!"... and their way of giving the fed government the middle finger. :s0155: :s0155:
In that case it's just a stunt and it won't stand in court. Nothing to see here.
 
Messages
1,962
Reactions
3,991
It's not really an empty gesture . Before , say you get pulled overfor driving like me and the State Trooper does a probable cause search and finds an unmarked silencer in your vehicle. They wouldn't prosecute you in state court. They'd hand it over to the feds who would do it in federal court. Now they just don't hand it over to the feds. That is a huge difference.
I didn't say it's an empty gesture. I meant Texas was giving the feds the middle finger by telling them to go pump fudge with their "jurisdiction" over home grown and operated hearin protection devices.

I also don't know if it's really a forgone conclusion that it won't stand in court. I mean... the feds are using interstate commerce protection laws to require and impose the tax. It may be an uphill battle for them to overturn the law since no interstate commerce or transport is taking place. That's the whole premise of the law. Probably won't, but TX has sure put up a strong arguement against it and other states might take note and start reexamining their state vs fed law jurisdiction lines.

No matter how it turns out... I still think TX is friggin awesome for doing it. It's about time someone knocked them down a peg and put up a challenge to their "authority".😜


Getting back to the polymer80 suit and fine though.... if we can. ;)
 

Upcoming Events

2A Rally at the Capitol
Salem, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Redmond, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top