Defination of AR-15 in trouble.

[338lapua]

Haven't seen this here so here it is. The AR-15 lower does not qualify as a firearm. Very interesting read. I would buy a few extra uppers as they may someday be married to a lower meaning you have to buy a lower to get a upper. Also would mean you might not be able to have 10 different uppers for one lower.


https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-a ... s-trouble/

[Crippledtrigger]

That's regarding the case out of California where the atf pushed some kind of deferred prosecution agreement on the guy who did 80% lower build partys. They did it so they wouldnt take the chance on the whole house of cards falling regarding their opinions and definations of receiver if it went to court and the appeals process. I think the GCA and their writing regulations is what was in danger.

[nvgdude]

The law says that a firearm has a receiver, and then defines receiver.

That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism...

Three items:
1 – the hammer,
2 – bolt or breechblock,
3 – firing mechanism,

On an AR-15 type rifle, the lower contains the hammer. The upper contains the bolt. It’s unclear what is meant by “firing mechanism”. Trigger? Sear? Firing pin?

Congressional intent is clear, a gun has a receiver. So ATF gets to flip a coin and decide which half of the receiver is the controlled item.

[knockonit]

https://www.gunnewsusa.com/2019/10/12/t ... s-trouble/

[Crippledtrigger]

This is similar to the bump stock case in that the ATF may have exceeded its regulatory authority by attempting to change the defination written into law.

The ATF knows this and the DOJ knows this. Infact iirc the DOJ has sent letters to Congress multiple times informing them of this issue and that it needs to be fixed thru legislation.

I also remember a couple cases in non free states where the states also backed out of prosecuting and informed the legislature this issue can only be fixed thru rewriting part of the law.

The ATF like all federal agencies are given wide latitude to write rules and regulations to enforce federal law. The problem here and in the bump stock case is they cant change definitions written into law. That's where these cases are being won. Allowing them to change things on a whim is at least unfair, changing or reinterpreting black and white Congressionally written definitions may very well be illegal or a step too far.

This isnt over.

[storage_man]

The law says that a firearm has a receiver, and then defines receiver.

That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism...

Three items:
1 – the hammer,
2 – bolt or breechblock,
3 – firing mechanism,

On an AR-15 type rifle, the lower contains the hammer. The upper contains the bolt. It’s unclear what is meant by “firing mechanism”. Trigger? Sear? Firing pin?

Congressional intent is clear, a gun has a receiver. So ATF gets to flip a coin and decide which half of the receiver is the controlled item.

And there in lies the problem (coin flips are not the law !). An AR-15 lower only has (in reality) 1 of your three item list. The bolt is someplace else along with the firing pin (Which defines a real weapon ?). The guy in California was able to expose the ATF's Interpretation of the existing law, but its not a law (No other than the Bump Stocks ban !).

I also love that statement "Deferred Prosecution". What the HELL does that mean ??????

[nvgdude]

I also love that statement "Deferred Prosecution". What the HELL does that mean ??????

It means, "we are not going to charge you now, but will hang it over your head to charge you later"

[YNOTAZ]

It means, "we are not going to charge you now, but will hang it over your head to charge you later"

looser definition is: shut your trap or we will prosecute you into oblivion.