ARES raided!!

"How is a build party for an AR lower any different then a home brewers, distillers party gold panning demonstrations or biodiesel and solar energy build parties."

Anyone know if the ATF treats distilling parties similarly (i.e. charging people to use your still to make their own hooch being treated as distribution of untaxed liquor)? I'm not sure the ATF regulates those other areas, but they would have standing on the booze stuff

"Pine cones goes in he'ah; party likker comes out'n he'ah."
"Shovel goes here. Once you brake, ees AK."

TCB

barnbwt said:

"How is a build party for an AR lower any different then a home brewers, distillers party gold panning demonstrations or biodiesel and solar energy build parties."

Anyone know if the ATF treats distilling parties similarly (i.e. charging people to use your still to make their own hooch being treated as distribution of untaxed liquor)? I'm not sure the ATF regulates those other areas, but they would have standing on the booze stuff

"Pine cones goes in he'ah; party likker comes out'n he'ah."
"Shovel goes here. Once you brake, ees AK."

TCB

Click to expand...

Might depend on whether or not you were selling your friends the ingredients (like maybe an uncooked mash) along with providing step by step instructions.

Anyone know if the ATF treats distilling parties similarly (i.e. charging people to use your still to make their own hooch being treated as distribution of untaxed liquor)? I'm not sure the ATF regulates those other areas, but they would have standing on the booze stuff

Click to expand...

Distilling alcohol (for consumption or fuel) without a license is illegal under federal law and illegal in all 50 states. The only legal distilling parties take place at licensed distilleries and all appropriate taxes are paid. People caught selling alcohol without the proper license and without paying the required taxes will be arrested by the ATF.

So they were helping customers build guns in the back of the shop?

The ATF sent them a nice letter saying "STOP THIS, get an FFL, and do it right..."

Which they ignored, FLAUNTED even ...

Well, that kind of clarifies why the ATF raided them.

Sorry guys... I think this one became pretty clear cut, and dry...

Trent said:

So they were helping customers build guns in the back of the shop?

The ATF sent them a nice letter saying "STOP THIS, get an FFL, and do it right..."

Which they ignored, FLAUNTED even ...

Well, that kind of clarifies why the ATF raided them.

Sorry guys... I think this one became pretty clear cut, and dry...

Click to expand...

No, a different company was doing that. Ares Armor sent a letter to the ATF asking if it were legal for them to do it or not. ATF said no, and there has been no evidence showing that Ares Armor was doing it as well

OK, let's go back to the sign theory. They have a sign with a big, scary gun on it. Maybe soemone was afraid a kid would see it while eating a Pop-Tart.

I've been reading these last couple of pages. Ares was not the subject of the search warrant that included the illegal Mexican felon assisting in the finish of the AR lower. Ares was only mentioned in that warrant affidavit because the criminals had stopped the illegal practice due to a "DOJ" letter that turned out to be Ares's attorney seeking clarification of the practice. In that document, Ares was not being accused of anything.

What got the BATFE's panties in a bunch was when Ares used a delay tactic to obtain a TRO to make the BATFE go away. that was when they got the judge to modify the TRO to allow them to confiscate the records, having elevated the matter to a criminal investigation.
The affidavit for the modified TRO accuses Ares of manufacture of the receivers, even though a few days earlier when they were asking for the inventory and the customer records they were not yet sure of the order in which the lowers were made.

wildbilll said:

The affidavit for the modified TRO accuses Ares of manufacture of the receivers, even though a few days earlier when they were asking for the inventory and the customer records they were not yet sure of the order in which the lowers were made.

Click to expand...

It's my understanding that ARES is a retailer, not a manufacturer. Yes? No?

If they though Ares was assisting in on site build parties and actually aiding in the final machining of the lowers, then they might consider Ares to be manufacturing w/o an FFL.

Was Ares hosting build parties?

ATF seems to think so; hence the C&D letter. It sounds like they initially were more interested in locking down the lowers for review/confiscation, but ARES didn't play nice so now they've found another way to lock 'em down and then some. ARES probably now has to turn over the lowers as part of this manufacturing investigation thing as evidence, or to preclude their ability to violate the C&D. Somehow they are still allowed to sell aluminum 80%'s despite being under suspicion of illegal manufacture; must not be that serious a suspicion

I am very curious about the alleged on site build parties, seeing as there are no machines visible in the storefront (who knows, might be a shop in the back, or they were conducted off site). I sure hope the ATF isn't thinking about trying to go after people organizing build parties, since that is very very nearly the same thing as hosting them for free. Is inviting buds over to borrow your machine tools so they can complete their lower or AK shell really going to be a prosecutable charge that holds up in court? Probably in California, sad to say.

This series of rulings is basically making it illegal to teach people how to manufacture firearms. Can't assist, can't provide materials, can't profit, can't provide tools. Can you provide the information, or is that now subject to ATF oversight, too? What about websites showing you step by step with printable templates how to make firearms? Does that count as "excessive assistance"? What if you use someone else's tools, are they liable for your actions since the tools are "under their control" even though they are in your hands?

If ya'll wanna laugh your asses off, check this out;
Rifle Dynamics AK Builder Class
Learn to press a barrel and 4 rivets to build an AK from a Nodak receiver (it's a 100% is why these classes are legal and prolific) for the low, low price of 1900$ : All the way to the bank!!!

I mean, I should be happy people are interested, and I'm supportive of any honest way to make a buck in this nation, but that's an astronomical sum (admittedly, it's a 3 day class at a facility with staff, machines, and overhead, but still...)

TCB

They have been trying to get his customer list since 2012. The Ep 80% poly lower wasn't even made then.

Seems like they have been after that list for a long time and this was a excuse to finally do it *lawfully*

barnbwt .....This series of rulings is basically making it illegal to teach people how to manufacture firearms. Can't assist, can't provide materials, can't profit, can't provide tools.

Click to expand...

Unless the "teacher" has an 07FFL, then actually making a firearm to teach someone else quite possibly is illegal......if you are engaging in doing so as a business.

Can you provide the information, or is that now subject to ATF oversight, too? What about websites showing you step by step with printable templates how to make firearms? Does that count as "excessive assistance"?

Click to expand...

There's a difference in providing information vs handholding someone and step by step manufacturing of a firearm on your own equipment.

According to some recently deleted post's on Cal guns...
The ATF has already started contacting people that have had Lowers (maybe ep's maybe not) machined on CNC equipment..

If they were first-hand experiences, why were they deleted?

Who knows. Probably to protect their rear.

Cal Guns is probably scrubbing their boards of people who have been found to be crooks, possibly promulgating illegal information. The ATF investigation document mentions scumbags on Cal Guns by their handles at least once that I remember. I've seen sketchy stuff there myself on occasion. Hopefully they are not being pressured to self-censor, but that is possible.

"Unless the "teacher" has an 07FFL, then actually making a firearm to teach someone else quite possibly is illegal......if you are engaging in doing so as a business."
And apparently assisting people for free is business... Like I said before, this is one of those "it sounds like it'd be a good idea to stop this behavior until you look at the specifics of actually drawing lines to do so" things.

Is it really so different for other people to use your machines vs theirs or a 3rd party?
I know we're talking CNCs for the most part, but what if ARES had Dremels plugged in at workstations in their store and employees giving pointers?
What constitutes "hand holding?"
Were this a garage some like-minded friends decided to hang out and build some guns in one weekend, would the owner be considered to be building his buddies guns for them?
What if he had also sold his friends some blanks he'd bought at some point?
What if he's also giving advice and demonstration (making his own lower while others make theirs)?

All I'm saying is that the ATF is conflating 'being principally involved in the business of firearms precursors/paraphenalia' with 'being principally involved in the business of firearms' and that such logic must end somewhere. Otherwise, Grizzly's Gunsmith Lathes and Mills can be considered precursors or facilitators to all sorts of things, to say nothing of metals suppliers. An ammo store could find itself under scrutiny as would parts kits makers. We're watching the slippery slope in real time with these types of actions by federal bureaus.

Like I said earlier, even the hint of a gun registry spooks all sorts of folks. This opens a lot more doors, and to me is a lot more worrisome.

TCB

And apparently assisting people for free is business... Like I said before, this is one of those "it sounds like it'd be a good idea to stop this behavior until you look at the specifics of actually drawing lines to do so" things.

Click to expand...

If you are assisting them with something you sold them, it could easily be seen as customer service. Anf that is a part of doing business. And even if they aren't customers, it can be called goodwill which is also a part of business. It is very difficult to do anything at your place of business and claim it is not business related.

barnbwt said:

I am very curious about the alleged on site build parties, seeing as there are no machines visible in the storefront (who knows, might be a shop in the back, or they were conducted off site). I sure hope the ATF isn't thinking about trying to go after people organizing build parties, since that is very very nearly the same thing as hosting them for free. Is inviting buds over to borrow your machine tools so they can complete their lower or AK shell really going to be a prosecutable charge that holds up in court? Probably in California, sad to say.

Click to expand...

No idea what was actually happening, but i am guessing the ATF would see a difference in..

Scene #1:

Some friends all buy 80% lowers and one of them has milling equipment in their garage. Friends all get together and mill out their receivers together.

Scene #2:

Business sells an 80% lower. After purchase, one oft he employees says "come back tuesday after hours and we will have a "build party." Buyer shows up on Tuesday and all the store employees are helping the customers who bought lowers from them mill out receivers on the shop equipment.

Scene 1 is probably "ok" with the ATF. It is all private citizens not connected to a business. Scene 2 will probably get the business in trouble.

Speculation on my part, but makes sense.

It's my understanding that ARES is a retailer, not a manufacturer. Yes? No?

Click to expand...

EPS Arms is the manufacturer, Ares Armor is a retailer.

The ATF's story:

• The EPS Arms plastic lower is a firearm.
• EPS Arms was manufacturing and selling these lowers without the required paperwork and is not a licensed firearm manufacturer.
• The ATF raids EPS and seizes their inventory and records
• Those records show that Ares purchased more than 6000 of the illegal lowers
• The ATF contacts Ares and requests that Ares voluntarily turn over the lowers and records of all sales of these lowers instead of the ATF getting a search warrant.
• Ares agrees and sets a time for the ATF to pick up the lowers / records
• The ATF arrives at the appointed time only to find that Ares has gotten a restraining order to prevent the seizure of the lowers and records.
• The ATF gets a search warrant to raid Ares
• The ATF exercises the search warrant and seizes the lowers and records.

All of that can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/212886452/DOJ-Response-to-TRO-3-17-2014

And if the friends get together for a group buy of blanks at a discount in the first situation? Bear in mind those are usually done by one guy collecting money and buying all the goods himself then distributing them. Does it matter if it's the shop owner doing the pooling vs. some other friend who doesn't the equipment? Does it really matter that they are friends, siblings, acquaintances, or strangers? Does it matter if the entity organizing the build party makes money on sodas, or loses money by giving away lowers for free? Is it okay if the shop owner doesn't sell the lower blanks but makes a killing on the uppers? Handguards? Flash hiders? Is it the fact an incorporated entity of any sort is a party to the even the problem? If so, what if one of the guys has a trust for his NFA items --that's an incorporated entity in many cases.

"Scene 1 is probably "ok" with the ATF. It is all private citizens not connected to a business. Scene 2 will probably get the business in trouble.

Speculation on my part, but makes sense."

This is what I'm talking about; it's hard to draw the line if you submit to the logic that items don't have to be "firearms" to be regulated like "firearms," which are themselves defined by their being regulated by the ATF. It's a line of thinking which insists on itself and gives the ATF unlimited authority, and that's why I'm of the opinion the ATF is making a mistake by treading here; it can only end badly (massive abuse of power being declared 'acceptable,' or their being rebuffed in an ugly judicial battle). There is no indication the ATF's line of thinking would prevent them from attempting regulation of "scene 1" and "scene 2."

A big part of the problem is the ATF's refusal/inability to clearly define "firearms," and the other is their refusal/inability to clearly define "being engaged in business." There's no set limit on how many guns you can make (without intent to sell) and sell in a year, yet the ATF can theoretically bust you for even one gun sale if they can convince a court you made it with an expectation of profit. Sell a masterpiece/heirloom grade gun you built as a hobby for a tremendous profit, and you may well be in the clear (IRS is more likely to come knocking for income tax, though). You give away guns for free as charity or sell them below cost with no expectation of profit, and it will be considered business.

That's a good summary, JSH1, that's what I understand so far as well. And the main takeaway is that the point of contention is the very first bullet point; EP disputes the ATF's assertion (and its consequences) but doesn't have a very clear or rapid way to resolve the dispute. It may come after a lengthy investigation, length pre-trial rangling, lawsuits and counter-lawsuits, criminal trials, conviction and appeals, out of court settlements, etc. By that time, the EP-specific cease-and-desist has applied to everyone for months/years, the market has moved on, outrage has abated, EP has gone broke and given up. Best case scenario, EP wins and never takes this kind of business risk again. It's a guaranteed chill on the industry no matter what.

It may have also been EP, but there was another plastic-lower design submitted a while back in which the initially-formed plastic core was soluble in Acetone or alcohol, where the lower could be dipped to finish it; this was, unsurprisingly, deemed to be readily convertible to a functional firearm. But is that really so much more complicated than using a jig and CNC program to finish the item? The ATF has made it plain selling a billet and CNC-time is unacceptable, but the billet/lower alone is fine. Similarly, shouldn't the soluble lower be legal to sell alone, so long as it is not accompanied by solvent? CNC is more common than ever after all (I'd wager every neighborhood has at least a couple hobby-scale CNC's capable of making/finishing AR lowers at this point) and shows no signs of declining.

Will selling aluminum blocks or 0% forgings at a gun store constitute gun sales when a 200$ CNC minimill becomes possible? Will a coil of plastic be once 3D printers halve in cost once more?

TCB

The ATF has made it plain selling a billet and CNC-time is unacceptable, but the billet/lower alone is fine.

Click to expand...

I don't thing the ATF has declared selling time on a CNC unacceptable. It is doing all of the work involved that is illegal. The business plans submitted to the ATF involve the business doing all of the prep work. They own the CNC, they have built specific holding fixtures, and done all of the programming. That is the bulk of the work when it comes to CNC machining. The beauty of CNC machining is that you can take someone off the street with no machining experience and have them turn out parts all day.

I doubt the ATF would have a problem with someone renting time on their CNC as long as they don't do any of the work involved in setting up the machine and writing the program. In that case the CNC is no different than a standard mill.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rview-ares-armors-dimitri-karras/#more-305207

This clears up some of the speculation. I recommend this be read by all.

Poymer80 has stopped operations.... Guess the ATF is getting on them as well? If not...I bet its related.
http://polymer80.com/

Wildbill, that's an interesting article, but it has some flaws...

A firearm only becomes a firearm when it becomes fully functional.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone in the gun building world has believed that for quite a few years now. Doubly so after the events of the last month.

,,, they can purchase nearly-completed lower receivers for their AR-15 firearms and manufacture the rest of the firearm themselves.... it also keeps them from having a paper trail of any kind that the ATF can come snooping down should they want to confiscate the guns. In theory, anyway.

Click to expand...

Now who thought that theory held any water at all?

... Since the ATF believes that once something is a firearm it is always a firearm, ...

Click to expand...

What? No they don't. That doesn't even make sense. You can demill or "DEWAT" a gun and it isn't uncommon to construct a new gun using the portions of the old receiver. The ATF doesn't consider that the same gun.

That way, at no point is a complete firearm manufactured and the 80% status is preserved.

Click to expand...

One more time: There is no such thing as "80% status." An item is a firearm or it isn't -- entirely based on what the ATF says it is.

Path #1 is that the ATF re-defines the point at which a firearm becomes a firearm,.... If this happens it will kick off a rather massive <deleted> as this would mean the ATF has moved the goalposts and re-defined what makes a firearm “complete.”

Click to expand...

First, since the ATF has never DEFINED what makes a firearm "complete" this statement isn't true. Second, "a rather massive <deleted>?" Maybe a tempest in a teacup. We might get all riled up here, but there isn't likely to be any real political or legal fallout from the ATF declaring that this specific style of polymer lower is a firearm. He's trying to say that it would automatically make illegal thousands of forged aluminum lowers built from blanks, but there's no reason to believe that would be likely to be the case.

This is especially concerning for traditional manufacturers, who buy forged lower receivers (technically also 80% lowers)

Click to expand...

NO. Not "technically also 80% lowers" because, again, such a thing doesn't really exist. And there's no reason to believe that a minor change in policy would be applied broadly. That would cause more bother than they want and they can tailor their finding as narrowly as they wish.

If the companies doing the forging now need an FFL and a serial number on each forging, that will make things massively complex and make firearms manufacturing much harder to accomplish. So, expect a massive backlash in this case from both the industry and the gun owning public

Click to expand...

This is looking at an inch and claiming it's a mile. The ATF is saying that THIS kind of polymer lower is a firearm. There is no compelling reason to say that this will be applied so broadly as to include companies making raw aluminum forgings to send to FFL 007 manufacturers to turn into AR-15s. The author, here, is just trying to get folks emotionally invested in what is actually a very limited issue. It may certainly be important, and there may be broader implications we need to fight, but he's going all "Chicken Little" in a direction that isn't very valid.