Interesting video. Thoughts.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/ via @GoogleNews
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/ via @GoogleNews
922(r) is directed against assembly, and not against possession. The government would have to prove that the end user assembled the gun with foreign parts without the requisite number of U.S. parts. That's an impossible burden. AFAIK, no end user has ever been prosecuted for a 922(r) violation. This is something that is relevant at the manufacturer/importer level.What's more amazing is that end-user AK owners are afraid that the US govt. will magically discover that one or two "possibly" US-made parts in their AKs (the words "US-made" are Not required) were swapped for foreign parts, which are not required to have any markings of origin: 922r regulations.
This just goes to show that American gun owners are scrupulously law-abiding. They fall all over themselves trying to obey even obviously unenforceable or ridiculous laws.The fact that the ATF has never even attempted to prosecute for this -- unless you are a bank robber, drug dealer etc -- hasn't stopped law-abiding people from worrying about their "parts count", and some of the anxiety supports a huge aftermarket parts industry.
How does this square with all the crowing about "will not comply!" when it comes to further infringements? Methinks those are just empty words. The people who really don't comply with gun restrictions (southern and eastern Europeans, for example) are very quiet about it.
Bingo!
However I think you underestimate how many of those folks are out there.
And the word that should be used to describe those folks is patriot, nothing less.
We all try to be overly law abiding, until that law doesn't meet the criteria of the constitution, at which point it's not credible law. Some go along, others are patriots. Theres certainly a lot of the former but the latter is widely underestimated I think.
I found the article interesting. Didn't live up to the headline. It could have just as easily read "Man Plays Stupid Game With ATF, Wins Stupid Prize".
in the end I think this will lead to one more infringement though.
Is there a bump stock case before a court anywhere?This is proof that the BATF remains a rogue government agency. It will be interesting to see if the Courts uphold the bump-fire stock ban.
There are several - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock#Federal_lawsuitsIs there a bump stock case before a court anywhere?
This proves that the courts will not hold up ATF "rules" with the force of law.The defendant manufactured 80% lowers. Then they got into the business of CNC build parties where customers could push a button to complete the lower. ATF prosecuted for manufacturing unserialized receivers and selling firearms without a license. A judge tentatively ruled that a AR-15 lower receiver did not meet the definition of a receiver (because it does not contain the breech block or accept the barrel per the legal definition) and therefore the ATF's practice of regulating it as such was disconnected from federal law. The ATF recognized that if this ruling became permanent, it would jeopardize the way they regulate most (they estimated 90%) of firearms in the US. Because the judge was also going to find the defendant guilty of selling completed firearms without a license, the ATF was able to cut a deal to defer prosecution for a year and then dismiss the case in exchange for the defendant exiting the firearms business. The defendant did not have to go to prison for the dealing without a license charge that was deferred/dismissed. The judge's ruling that the lower receiver does not meet the definition of a receiver under federal law was not made permanent and is therefore not case law nor can it be used as a precedent. The reasoning behind the judge's tentative ruling remains sound. The defense's argument that the ATF is regulating based on internal policies rather than federal law is certainly true.
I agree that the definition of a receiver will have to be clarified.The definition of a "receiver or frame" will have to be defined more rigorously in the lawbooks, and I am afraid that this new definition will expand the "receiver or frame" to any part of a firearm that is unique to said firearm.
Yes, it work out to just "maintain the status quo"... But, given the current state of Congress, what do you thing the current House will push for?I agree that the definition of a receiver will have to be clarified.
The new definition can be "subtractive" instead of "additive," as compared to the current definition. An "additive" definition would be based on all the current components that are to be housed in the receiver -- in the case of the AR-15, that would be the bolt carrier and firing mechanism. Following that line of thinking, both the upper and lower would be part of the "receiver" and would have to be controlled and serialized. That's clearly unworkable.
A "subtractive" approach would take away some of the elements of the current definition. The "receiver" could then be the part that houses either the firing mechanism or the bolt, depending on a case-by-case determination (of each design) by the ATF. That would comport with current real-world practice, and cause the least disruption.
The definition of a receiver is a technical issue. I don't think that members of Congress are able or willing to get into the technical weeds.(Their profound ignorance of guns is proof of that.) They're after bigger fish, such as wholesale gun bans. These people are generalists, not technicians.But, given the current state of Congress, what do you thing the current House will push for?
The defendant manufactured 80% lowers. Then they got into the business of CNC build parties where customers could push a button to complete the lower. ATF prosecuted for manufacturing unserialized receivers and selling firearms without a license. A judge tentatively ruled that a AR-15 lower receiver did not meet the definition of a receiver (because it does not contain the breech block or accept the barrel per the legal definition) and therefore the ATF's practice of regulating it as such was disconnected from federal law. The ATF recognized that if this ruling became permanent, it would jeopardize the way they regulate most (they estimated 90%) of firearms in the US. Because the judge was also going to find the defendant guilty of selling completed firearms without a license, the ATF was able to cut a deal to defer prosecution for a year and then dismiss the case in exchange for the defendant exiting the firearms business. The defendant did not have to go to prison for the dealing without a license charge that was deferred/dismissed. The judge's ruling that the lower receiver does not meet the definition of a receiver under federal law was not made permanent and is therefore not case law nor can it be used as a precedent. The reasoning behind the judge's tentative ruling remains sound. The defense's argument that the ATF is regulating based on internal policies rather than federal law is certainly true.