BATFAE Going after Richard Celata Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Federal law always trumps state law like it or not that is just the way it is.
 
Federal law always trumps state law like it or not that is just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Way to miss the point entirely.

What Mr. Celata is doing isn't illegal, on a state or Federal level. If it was, he'd be in prison.

What's happening, is that the ATF is trying to bend the truth, and get him to admit that he's actually manufacturing firearms, which he isn't. It's harassment, and an attempt at entrapment that's been going on for years.
 
I'm missing the point too. What is it that Mr. Caleta manufactures, exactly?
 
it will ultimately be decided by FEDERAL courts. He doesn't stand a chance. I am not saying it is right or that I like it but the BATFE will probably win.
 
I'm missing the point too. What is it that Mr. Caleta manufactures, exactly?
Click to expand...

Machined pieces of metal that other people use as a base for making their own firearm receivers. Kind of like saying that wheel weight manufacturers are making ammunition because they are manufacturing pieces that people use to cast bullets to make ammo from.
 
topcat said:
Federal law always trumps state law like it or not that is just the way it is.
Click to expand...
No, actually, it does not. US government law only trumps state law when it is under the enumerated powers. All other areas of the law are reserved to the states, see Amendment Ten.

Further, what Mr. Celata is doing does not come under US government authority at all, even if US government gun confiscation laws were Constitutional, which they are not.

I'd suggest everyone read David Codrea's article, including going to the links within it to see what is happening.
 
If he is making frames or recievers those will be considered firearms. Even if he doesn't sell them out of state no doubt the BATFE can say he is violating interstate transport (which would give the BATFE jurisdiction.) If the metal for the frames was mined out of state or even the tools he uses were made out of state they can make a case against him.
Again I am not saying that it is "right" but the BATFE makes the laws and so can interpret them how they wish.
 
If he is making frames or recievers those will be considered firearms.
Click to expand...

Please take a second to read the facts of the situation before commenting. Mr. Celata isn't making frames or receivers - he's making hunks of metal with the basic beginnings of a finished receiver. These are then sold to consumers who finish the machining themselves, thus turning them into receivers. He is selling chunks of metal that are in no way, shape, or form able to be used as a firearm component without the end user completing the machining process.

To repeat: What Mr. Celata is doing is 100% legal under Federal & state law. If it wasn't, he would be in prison now, and this would be a non-issue.

Think about it - Mr. Celata had been in business for years before this issue came up - and he's been fighting it for years. If he was really in violation of the law, it'd be pretty evident at this point, no? So why isn't he in jail?

Oh right - because he's not breaking any laws.
 
Last edited:
kingpin008 said:
Please take a second to read the facts of the situation before commenting. Mr. Celata isn't making frames or receivers - he's making hunks of metal with the basic beginnings of a finished receiver. These are then sold to consumers who finish the machining themselves, thus turning them into receivers. He is selling chunks of metal that are in no way, shape, or form able to be used as a firearm component without the end user completing the machining process.

To repeat: What Mr. Celata is doing is 100% legal under Federal & state law. If it wasn't, he would be in prison now, and this would be a non-issue.

Think about it - Mr. Celata had been in business for years before this issue came up - and he's been fighting it for years. If he was really in violation of the law, it'd be pretty evident at this point, no? So why isn't he in jail?

Oh right - because he's not breaking any laws.
Click to expand...
That's all correct. This time it appears that the Batt Feys are after Mr. Celata because he was one of the prime movers behind the Montana Firearms Freedom Act; which removes Batt Fey authority.
 
Montana cannot secede from the Union, that has been tried before and didn't work out to well for the states that tried it.
 
topcat said:
Montana cannot secede from the Union, that has been tried before and didn't work out to well for the states that tried it.
Click to expand...
While secession is, in fact, entirely lawful, that's not within the purview of this forum nor this thread.

The Tenth Amendment is the governing Amendment with regard to US government authorized powers, the Supremacy Clause does NOT trump the Tenth Amendment, it is controlled by it.

That said, what Mr. Celata is manufacturing isn't firearms, has never been firearms, and according to Mr. Celata, won't be firearms in the future.

The subject of this thread is the unlawful harassment of Mr. Celata by the Batt Feys.
 
80% frames have been sold for decades as non-guns. If the JBTs are interested in anything other than retribution, they will clarify what regs are being violated.

mbogo
 
Again even though it is said that what Mr. Celata is making are not firearms the BATFE says they are. This will probably be decided in federal court. If Mr. Celata has the money he may be able to take it all the way to the Supreme Court where the case will be heard by leftest judges appointed by Clinton and Obama. Good luck to Mr. Celata because he will need it.
 
It doesn't matter what the ATF says, it's what the law says.
Click to expand...
What the law says, what that actually means, and how it applies to specific cases, is often decided through the courts. If anyone finds that confusing I suggest they read Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
 
:scrutiny:

As a manufacturer I find several items of note about the ATF's letter:

- it doesn't specify which KT Ordinance products are firearms,
- it doesn't say who sent it other than the Denver Field Office SAC (who didn't sign it) and
- it contains no date or document control number.
 
Think about this- all those pieces of tubing in my junk box- leftovers from exhaust system repairs- could I suppose be considered SMG receivers if they happen to be close to the same diameter as say, a PPsH or Suomi or Sten or Sterling or....?

80% is the law. Less than 80% isn't a receiver under any law.

Didn't help CavArms though.
 
Something to keep an eye on for sure but we're just doing the guessing game thing for now, and that's not productive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
AG Wag The Dog?
Replies
2
Views
378
george29
george29
A
  • Locked
what's going on here seems a reasonable question.
Replies
2
Views
358
FeebMaster
F
D
  • Locked
INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD LUCIBELLA, PUBLISHER OF SWAT MAGAZINE
Replies
2
Views
1K
warriorsociologist
W
feedthehogs
  • Locked
Coming after Florida
Replies
5
Views
946
another okie
A
G
  • Locked
update,Gun shop lost license, but can sell inventory
Replies
23
Views
2K
gunsmith
G
Back
Top