Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Not Really Firearms Under Current Law??

  1. #1
    Buckshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest corner, Arkansas
    Posts
    11,997
    Rep Power
    741

    Not Really Firearms Under Current Law??

    This retired BATF Agent has successfully argued in court AR lower receivers do not meet the definition of a firearm under current law. He states that approx 60% of
    existing firearms have no parts in them that meet the definition of a firearm.

    Interesting read--

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/us/ex...-15/index.html
    Occam's razor, the simplest explanation will be the most plausible

  2. #2
    holescreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Centerville, OH
    Posts
    4,643
    Rep Power
    446
    What it really points out is the BATFE's willingness to manipulate the definitions on a daily basis for their own gain. The other thread about pistol braces is a prime example. I don't even want to get started talking about the "ghost guns" defined in the article.

    I wonder if they have the same issues with their other duties ie. Alcohol, Tobacco and Explosives?

  3. #3
    Senior Veteran nonleathal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    ct
    Posts
    1,710
    Rep Power
    233
    not sure i followed that article correctly. were we talking a bout finished lowers with serial numbers, or 80%'s?

  4. #4
    Senior Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,631
    Rep Power
    235
    It is about finished parts, though it would equally apply in concept to 80%items. The issue is that by the strict reading of what constitutes a “receiver” even as finished completely the AR platform and others do not have in their design a singular part that fits the definition. Or at least that is the argument. Instead the ATF has selected a part as the “good enough fit” and essentially picked a part on each design (such as an AR lower) to be the serialized part, even if there is not an exact fit to the statutory language. This gets even more interesting if we were to discuss the legality of interpretation on what constitutes a machine gun. Things could go either way if lawmakers actually pay attention here, depending on the personal politics of those who are voting.
    PLEASE NOTE!
    No post or message by this user shall be considered legal advice or a legal opinion, and shall not constitute the formation of a client/lawyer relationship. Do not rely on this information in making legal decisions. If you have a legal questions, please seek legal council qualified to practice law in the appropriate jurisdiction.

  5. #5
    Buckshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest corner, Arkansas
    Posts
    11,997
    Rep Power
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by nonleathal View Post
    not sure i followed that article correctly. were we talking a bout finished lowers with serial numbers, or 80%'s?
    My understanding is that the serial number lowers (considered a firearm with background check to buy) under his argument do not meet the definition of a firearm under the current law.
    In fact nothing in the AR15 does. BATF is just winging it on what part they want controlled.

    Like I said just a interesting read, as it supports/shows why there is not only confusion by the public, but also in BATF itself, on what is what. The brace and bump stock issues (reversals)
    come to mind.

    Just saw above post, explains it better than me ---
    Occam's razor, the simplest explanation will be the most plausible

  6. #6
    Senior Veteran The War Wagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    sw PA
    Posts
    434
    Rep Power
    170

    Thumbs up

    The dingus A-G of PA issued just such an arbitrary ruling recently - mainly because he works for an idiot (Gov. Wolf-in-sheeple's-clothing), instead of the citizens.

    THANKFULLY, an injunction was granted last week, and as the A-G does NOT make law, and the state constitution's RKBA clause is worded more STRONGLY than the 2nd Amendment , this idiocy will die a quick death, as do MOST libtard politicians hare-brained ideas.


    Injunction GRANTED against Pennsylvania State Police’s Policy relating to “Partially-Manufactured Frames and Receivers”

    Posted on January 31, 2020 by Joshua Prince, Esq.
    Today, Chief Counsel Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Attorney Adam Kraut, Director of Legal Strategy at Firearms Policy Coalition, were successful in the case of Landmark Firearms, LLC, et al. v. Evanchick, 694 M.D. 2019, in obtaining an injunction against the Pennsylvania State Police’s implementation and enforcement of its “policy” regarding what it refers to both as “partially-manufactured frames and receivers” and “80% receivers.”

    In a 17 page decision, Commonwealth Court Judge Kevin Brobson found that the Pennsylvania State Police, in implementing and enforcing its policy, violated the due process rights of Pennsylvania residents and businesses, as well as, businesses from other states. Specifically, the Court declared
    With respect to Petitioners’ due process claim in Count III and their claim in Count IV that the PSP Letter is void on the ground of vagueness, however, the Court concludes Petitioners have demonstrated a substantial legal question.
    The Court continued on to specifically declare
    The Court agrees with Petitioners that there is a substantial legal question as to whether PSP’s new policy regarding partially manufactured receivers is impermissibly vague.
    As the Court explained
    The term frame or receiver is not defined in the UFA, PSP has not promulgated any regulations to define what constitutes a frame or receiver, and PSP is no longer following the ATF’s lead regarding what constitutes the frame or receiver of a weapon. Rather than clarify, the new PSP policy adds confusion by introducing a new term” partially manufactured receiver”-and a new form-Form SP 4-121-into the mix of gun regulations without an explanatory bridge tying them back to the UFA.
    Guidance to the firearms industry and the public on this change in policy is critical. The only document that currently sets forth PSP’s change in interpretation is the PSP Letter. That letter merely sets forth the blanket statement that partially manufactured receivers are considered firearms with respect to certain sections of the UFA, without providing a definition of the term partially manufactured receiver; a description or examples of the products that PSP believes, under its new interpretation, fall within the sweep of the statutory definition of firearm; or any guidance as to how this new term will be interpreted and applied by PSP going forward. The mere mention of the AG Opinion is not enough to provide fair notice or warning to the public as to how sellers or purchasers of this undefined class of unfinished receivers may comply with the UFA and avoid criminal prosecution. Due process demands more.

    All of this-(1) PSP’s failure to explain how its new policy on partially manufactured frames or receivers differs from its prior policy and that of the ATF, such that those subject to the UFA have fair notice of PSP’s change in policy; (2) PSP’s failure to tether its new policy to the text of the UFA, particularly the term “frame or receiver” in the relevant definition of firearm; (3) the introduction of a new term, partially manufactured receiver, as opposed to simply defining what a “frame or receiver” is under the UFA as including what PSP now seeks to capture; and ( 4) the deployment of a new form to be used with respect only to sales/transfers of a subclass of firearms, which lacks any level of specificity, where PSP regulations provide for a specific form to be used in all firearms transactions under the UFA sows confusion within the industry and the public.
    Thereafter, the Court acknowledged that the PSP’s “Policy” constitutes per se irreparable harm, that an injunction returns the parties to the status quo, and that the “public policy of this Commonwealth does not favor such vague laws.”

    As such, the Court issued the following Order:
    AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2020, Petitioners’ Application for Relief in the Nature of a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Colonel Robert Evanchick, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), and his agents, servants and officers, are enjoined from implementing or enforcing PSP’s new policy addressed to partially manufactured receivers, as currently set forth in PSP’s Letter of January 9, 2020, until final disposition of the Petition for Review, including appeals.
    As specified in the Order, the preliminary injunction will not issue until we pay a $100.00 cost bond, which will be paid on Monday.
    It must be noted that none of this would have been possible without the support of Firearms Policy Coalition. If you’re in a position to donate, please do so here.
    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. - John Adams, 2nd U.S. President -

  7. #7
    Senior Veteran nonleathal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    ct
    Posts
    1,710
    Rep Power
    233
    going over it again, and seeing letters cnn. the first thing that comes to mind, is their deliberately trying to confuse the situation, to promote more regulation.
    assuming i'm just paranoid, i really don't see an issue. its a controlled part. i can't order one online and have it shipped to my door. i'd have to go to an ffl, and have a borescope shoved in every orifice of my life so i can stay legal.
    if your a felon, and caught with one in your possession, you have some explaining to do.

    when i was considering doing and sbr, my ffl advised me not to get any parts for it until i obtained the tax stamp. why? because their is the issue of intent.

    so if a ms13 member is standing before a judge because he obtained a stripped lower, doesn't matter if its complete or not. the intent is there.
    so i guess the main point is, what good is this current regulation if its not enforceable.

  8. #8
    Senior Veteran sdk1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,163
    Rep Power
    369
    its no different for an AK receiver.... on its own a 100%/FFL receiver... before you do any work to it or ad parts...... doesnt meet the criteria either....

    neither of them do or ever have. it was just a blanket they thru over these early on in the hobby to try & head it off & have some control over it all.
    say what you mean & mean what you say!
    TEC Tactical=SOT/07 i work there.

Similar Threads

  1. K98 Current Value????
    By Buckshot in forum Bolt Action Rifles
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-11-2016, 09:58 AM
  2. Current SKS value?
    By The Great 308 in forum AK-47/74
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-27-2016, 08:59 PM
  3. What is the current kit value for an HK91
    By 3333fps in forum Cetme/HK
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-09-2014, 05:48 AM
  4. Current SKS prices??
    By Buckshot in forum AK-47/74
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-17-2013, 07:07 PM
  5. WTK: Current value of Norinco SKS
    By pidaster in forum AK-47/74
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-03-2008, 10:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •