Judge rules AR15 lower does not meet definition of firearm - ATF freaks out

Samuel_Hoggson

Well-known member
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
671
Location
Dover-Foxcroft, ME
Murky definitions are not necessarily good. Depends on who is allowed to make determinations of fact. We know who that is. Consider how the definition of "machinegun" has been abused over the bumpstock debacle.
 

slimshady

Well-known member
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
983
ATF has known for a long time an AR15 doesn't legally have a "receiver" but continues the fiction that the lower is one. Saw a Youtube vid a while back, former ATF agent has a consultancy business for helping manufacturers and others when it comes to ATF regs and prosecutions. Remember the Area Armor raid where ATF seized all the polymer "80%" lowers because they said the FCG pocket was present because ARES used a different color plastic in that area? Apparently their defense team hired this guy and his advice was to not even try to defend the manufacturing process as not creating a pocket but to simply argue that even a 100% completed AR lower didn't meet the legal definition of a receiver. From what I understand if a defense brings this up and the Judge agrees ATF has no choice but to drop the matter lest a precedent be set. Usually by offering a sweetheart plea deal.

A large number of firearms would no longer have a receiver under a strict reading of the definition. The main issue is it must have the fire control and bbl mount on the receiver, which several rifles and almost all semi auto handguns would fail to have.
 

root

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 55 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Messages
3,665
Once read the only reason the ar has the info on the lower insteas of the upper is due to colts 1st mil contract.

They are a handgun company and just naturally put the info on the "frame" lower instead of the barreled upper like somany other Mfg do.

By the time anyone of status said anything there were litterly thousands made and was to late to change the entire setup due to cost.

It was finally accepted on the guns and has been that way with the ar ever since.

When you look at it Colt really didn't know any better. They have had a contract with winchester since the 1800's not to make,rifles for public consumpfion and Winchester was not to make handguns for public comsumption.

This contract is still in place last i new.

It's one reason i think its funny when everone gets in a tizzy that Colt is not making ar's ( again) for the piblic.

By contract with Winchester they were never supposed to to start.

Rich
 

Villafuego

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 19 / 0 / 0
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
787
Location
Tampa, FL
Might want to step back for a sec and ask yourself "why would a United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California make such a ruling" ?????

Because if the lower isn't the "firearm", something previously unrestricted, and unserialized is...…

This is how you end up having to fill out a 4473 to buy a barrel, bolt, or AR upper...…..as well as lowers (as they are now restricted by CA law....even unfinished)

It could/would affect most handguns as well.
 

nklf

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 22 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
1,106
Location
DFW
If they decide the upper is the firearm then we all suddenly have unregistered SHR uppers. Rather than a registered lower and 5 uppers you’ll need 5 registered uppers.
 

slimshady

Well-known member
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
983
An upper isn't a receiver either, it doesn't house the fire control parts. The issue they are trying to avoid is a great number of guns out there don't have ANY single part that meets the legal definition of "receiver". When the law was written the guy writing it was most likely thinking of "traditional" bolt and lever rifles and revolvers.
 

Vegas SMG

UZI Talk Life Member,
Feedback: 132 / 0 / 0
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
14,509
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
It hasn’t been that long ago that BATF changed their ruling that the FNC upper rather than the previously determined lower was the firearm. It’s not that much different from the AR system other then the DI operation over the FNC’s piston. BOHICA
 

DistalRadius

Well-known member
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
1,311
Location
Tennessee
It seems pretty obvious to me by ATFs own definition, that in actuality a receiver for an AR15 is not created until the upper is assembled to the lower.

Before that its just two non-functional receiver halves.

provemewrongbro.wav
 

ole442

Banned
Feedback: 49 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
3,796
Location
Way freakin' too close to the city....especially n
Might want to step back for a sec and ask yourself "why would a United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California make such a ruling" ?????

Because if the lower isn't the "firearm", something previously unrestricted, and unserialized is...…

This is how you end up having to fill out a 4473 to buy a barrel, bolt, or AR upper...…..as well as lowers (as they are now restricted by CA law....even unfinished)

It could/would affect most handguns as well.

This is a very good observation. Thinks like this could have a reason or "possibilities" for certain future political restrictive reasons......
 

boomer535

Well-known member
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
804
Location
Spring Hill Florida
There is a Guy here in Safety Harbor Florida who makes 50 BMG uppers that fit AR15 lower receivers. He had been making these uppers for years when ATF decides the uppers are now considered Guns and had to be serialized and sold as guns. YES, it is confusing. It appears that ATF can make up any regulation they want now. Since ATF now considers bump fire to be full auto fire, I wonder how long it will be till they decide that all semi auto guns are Machine Guns since they can be easily bump fired.
 

MPA guy

Well-known member
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
2,554
And to further that:

Some big news this morning that may not seem that big to a lot of people. Everything from the IRS randomly changing rules on people to the ATF issuing “guidance” out of their ass could be effected by this. Only time will tell to what extent the swamp will be able to “interpret”/nullify it, of course, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.


“The order instructs federal agencies to “treat guidance documents as non-binding both in law and in practice,” include public input in formulating guidance, and make the documents “readily available to the public”:

Agencies may impose legally binding requirements on the public only through regulations and on parties on a case-by-case basis through adjudications, and only after appropriate process, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.
They have 120 days following the “implementing memorandum” from the Office of Management and Budget to review their own guidance documents and rescind those that they determine “should no longer be in effect.” If it wants guidance to remain in effect, an agency must publish the document in a “single, searchable, indexed database” on its website.
The second order bars federal agencies from pursuing “a civil administrative enforcement action or adjudication absent prior public notice of both the enforcing agency’s jurisdiction over particular conduct and the legal standards applicable to that conduct.”
It notes that the Freedom of Information Act amended the Administrative Procedure Act to better protect Americans from “the inherently arbitrary nature of unpublished ad hoc determinations”:
The Freedom of Information Act also generally prohibits an agency from adversely affecting a person with a rule or policy that is not so published, except to the extent that the person has actual and timely notice of the terms of the rule or policy.
Unfortunately, departments and agencies (agencies) in the executive branch have not always complied with these requirements. In addition, some agency practices with respect to enforcement actions and adjudications undermine the APA’s goals of promoting accountability and ensuring fairness.
The order binds agencies to “apply only standards of conduct that have been publicly stated in a manner that would not cause unfair surprise” to a target of enforcement, adjudication or other forms of “determination” that have “legal consequence.”
It even requires them to publish any document that they intend to enforce “arising out of litigation (other than a published opinion of an adjudicator), such as a brief, a consent decree, or a settlement agreement.” This means agencies can’t spring new rules out of thin air on parties that weren’t subject to the litigation.”
One wonders if this means trump just made his own bumpstock ban illegal..
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.

Please Visit our Sister Sites Below

Sister Board - Sturmgewehr Sister Board - MachinegunBoards


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter
Top