ARES raided!!

[wildbilll]

What is going to happen if the BATFE goes forward is they are going to have to explain (to a reasonable person standard) how they make these decisions or they end up with another ruling like the silencer letter I posted the link to.
A judge is going to ask why, if they have a clear set of criteria to decide these things, can't they make it public? What is the harm?

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/feds-going-after-plastic-gun-market/

Good picture of the poly lower getting milled out.

 

[JSH1]

I wish I could see which law that Ares and/or EP was not following.

Here you go: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44

Specifically:
(a) No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. .....

What is a firearm:

(3) The term “firearm” means

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.​

Allegedly manufacturing.
Or maybe they weren't manufacturing anything other than a block of polymer.
Courts decide that though, not guys like us who pontificate on the internet.

No, the ATF decides what is and is not a firearm, or in this case if that block of polymer is readily convertible. The ATF has declared that EP's receiver is in fact a firearm. EP and ARES are free to challenge that in a court of law if they so choose. However, they have much more to lose than the guys on the internet that want them to fight the ATF to the bitter end.

And even if it's hard to set an exact line in the sand for every possible almost firearm that could be produced, there's no reason that a hard determination couldn't be made for the most common handful.
Why not just have hard determinations in place for 80% AR, AK, 1911, Uzi, Sten, and any others that are commonly built from a kit?

If they do it for one they would need to do it for all and for all manufacturing processes. It would be a nightmare to keep up with. Have any of you guys considered the flip side of this desire to lock down what is and is not easily convertible? True the ATF may eventually have to write hard guidelines but the flip side of that is they may just get rid of the option for private citizens to manufacture guns for they personal use without serial numbers. If they do than the market for 80% lowers disappears overnight. Why finish a 80% lower if the final product requires the same paperwork as a finished lower?

 

[wildbilll]

If they were breaking that law, why is it they haven't been charged? Is it because the BATFE are being nice?
Or is it because BATFE knows they cannot sustain a charge of violating that law?
And just because it is too hard to keep up with it doesn't give the government the right to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. If they wrote a law that sucks for them, they need to change the law, and quit making it up as they go along.
Your logic as to it ruining it for private citizens is defective. As it stands right now, they can change their minds for apparently no reason, they can rescind the determinations after the fact, The BATFE can wet their finger each day, see which way the political winds are blowing and ruin someone's livelihood on a whim, so I say lets bring this to a boil and see what happens in the courts.
I believe in making/keeping our government accountable to the people, not the other way around.

 

[JRH6856]

the flip side of that is they may just get rid of the option for private citizens to manufacture guns for they personal use without serial numbers.

Who is this "they"? ATF only has authority over firearms, not the raw materials used to make them. That is why no FFL is needed for less than 80% lowers, and it is why private citizens can manufactur firearms for their own use using such raw materials . While ATF does detrmine whether someitng s "readily convertable" even they know that they can't get away with declaring that any maiterila that micht be used in a firearm is readily convertible to that purpose.

Congress could do it. Unless a home manufacturer mined his own raw materials. Congress could decide that any firearm made by anyone using raw materials that had moved in interstate commerce is subject to ATF regulation and requires a serial number. But this wpuld require new legislation.

 

[barnbwt]

What is a firearm:

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

You know, I can't help but notice there is no "(E) whatever the BATFE says a firearm is" on the list. They certainly have discretion, but there is a limit to it. Obviously they can prosecute anyone for anything, you can drag anyone into court (or even arrest them) if you think you can get away with it. But the courts have turned back these ATF rulings before, so don't pretend their word is gospel. It's very much closer to worthless than we'd care to believe--even if EP had an approval letter (again, as I strongly suspect they do), the ATF can still change its mind, rescind the approval, and take the exact actions they have so far against EP. That means that approval letter is nothing more than a piece of paper in the first place. In fact, it's starting to look like that is exactly what happened (that ATF arbitrarily changed its mind and demanded EP hand over everything and shut down, before pursuing its customers)

Arbitrary, capricious, ex post facto, and I've never understood how they've gotten away with it as long as they have.

"If they wrote a law that sucks for them, they need to change the law, and quit making it up as they go along."
The root of the problem lies in the fact that Congress codified the "making it up as they go along" into the law itself, since they had no idea what they were regulating let alone how to approach that task. An entire regulatory super structure was put together based on "horse sense" by a bunch of ignorant lawyers who'd probably only ever pulled triggers, if that. And that's why they ceded their legislative (and the courts their judicial) authority to an unaccountable agency which would fill in all those pesky blanks.

"No, the ATF decides what is and is not a firearm, or in this case if that block of polymer is readily convertible."
Technically, they are supposed to be determining if an item meets the criteria laid out for them in the law itself (it's vague, but it's still delineated there). Please don't pretend their discretion is boundless. That's been the conventional wisdumb for far too long, but there is nothing in the law saying so; it's just that courts are usually too compliant (or is it complicit?) in accommodating ATF vendettas.

"It would be a nightmare to keep up with"
It already is. It for darn sure already is. Other polymer 80% makers have already started closing up shop, they're so uncertain where the shore ends. It's called a "chilling effect" in which legal behavior becomes taboo out of fear of unjust retribution. The current situation could scarcely be more Byzantine and illogical (well, maybe if a firearm's status was tied to your income taxes, that would be worse). A reproduction Mauser Broomhandle stock has switched from legal to illegal about once a decade for at least the last 30 years; none of those rulings applying to the next guy who asks.

"If they do than the market for 80% lowers disappears overnight."
It's already starting to. These lowers sold for about fifty bucks or under. Where I live, and FFL transfer runs at least 35$. You really think EP is gonna stay in business when their prices go up 70% and they don't see any of it in profit? And who's gonna step up and offer the next polymer lower precursor, these days? You can bet your bippy it won't be worth the trouble unless they're charging a heck of a lot more to keep lawyers on retainer to fend off baseless attacks.

And at the end of the day, that's the entire goal of this operation; freeze down the receiver accessory market, because that's an area of "assault weapon" production they have an opening to clamp down on. Quite valiant, if you accept the notion that all gun builders are shady individuals playing at illegal behavior by taking care not to break the law.

TCB

 

[goon]

Why finish a 80% lower if the final product requires the same paperwork as a finished lower?

Why goof with an 80% lower at all when the ATF can redefine your 80% lower paperweight to be a "firearm" on a whim, confiscate all inventory from the organization you bought it from, drag the manufacturer into court, try to track all the "firearms" sold down, and show up at your door demanding that you surrender the contraband or face legal consequences?

Of course, you won't have to worry about that because you are a law abiding citizen. Until the ATF decides you aren't... then you're a criminal who bought an illegal "firearm" from an unlicensed manufacturer or dealer.

Personally, I'd just as soon blow $59 on a blemished lower from PSA, pick it up at my local gun store for a modest transfer fee, and call it good.

 

[JSH1]

Who is this "they"? ATF only has authority over firearms, not the raw materials used to make them. That is why no FFL is needed for less than 80% lowers, and it is why private citizens can manufactur firearms for their own use using such raw materials . While ATF does detrmine whether someitng s "readily convertable" even they know that they can't get away with declaring that any maiterila that micht be used in a firearm is readily convertible to that purpose.

I was referring to the ATF or more specifically the Justice Department. I was looking at the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44 today. I don't see any specific wording in the law that states individuals can build a firearm for their own use without having a license to manufacture. I do see wording that says "The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter"

So my question is: Does the law specific state that a private individual may build a firearm for their own use without a license to manufacture firearms or is that a rule that the Justice Department has written? If the right to manufacture is in the law then only Congress can take it away. However, if it is just a rule that the Justice Department has written then the Justice Department has the ability take away that right.

 

[JRH6856]

Quite valiant, if you accept the notion that all gun builders are shady individuals playing at illegal behavior by taking care not to break the law.

Unfortunately, to a large part of the general public that has been contiditioned to believe that all guns are built uncer license, registered upon sale, and traceable by LE, that is exactly what they are: Shady characters skirting the law via loophole that should be closed. It's just another version of the "gunshow loophole" and private sale loophole that doesn't exist except in the imagination.

 

[wildbilll]

Who is a "Manufacturer?

(10) The term “manufacturer” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term “licensed manufacturer” means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

Thus, I don't need a license or a letter of determination to make my own firearm.

What is a firearm?

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;

(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or

(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

They are stretching the limits on the term "readily converted" and they know it.

 

[JRH6856]

So my question is: Does the law specific state that a private individual may build a firearm for their own use without a license to manufacture firearms or is that a rule that the Justice Department has written? If the right to manufacture is in the law then only Congress can take it away. However, if it is just a rule that the Justice Department has written then the Justice Department has the ability take away that right.

Technically, it is in the 10th Amendment{

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

No law is required to grant rights to do anything. A law is required to restrict rights or allow their regulation. There is no federal law prohibiting the manufacture of a firearm by an individual for personal use. Such a firearm would not move within interstate commerce and it thus outside of Congress regulatory authority under the Commerce clause. And tehy haven't yet found any other clause to give them the authority.

 

[JSH1]

Thank you Wildbill , I didn't notice that the definition for Manufacturer specifically says for sale or distribution. That seems to be the key phase. So it would take an act of Congress to ban individual from making their own firearms.

There is no federal law prohibiting the manufacture of a firearm by an individual for personal use. Such a firearm would not move within interstate commerce and it thus outside of Congress regulatory authority under the Commerce clause.

An item doesn't have to cross a state border be be regulated under the Commerce Clause. In Wickard v. Filburn the US Supreme Court found that wheat grown on a farm and consumed on the farm could still be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

 

[barnbwt]

Pretty sure the '34 NFA states individuals make manufacture firearms for their own personal use; the extent of the law applying only to the creation of firearms for sale, as well as certain specific* types of firearms. The '68 GCA** deals more with the nitty gritty details of accomplishing the NFA's mission, rather than very basic concepts like personal manufacture (defining interstate transfers as requiring federal licensees, for instance).

If there were no law protecting individual manufacture, it would not be legal (yeah, I know how the 9th/10th are supposed to work, but they really never have). For darn sure you wouldn't be allowed to opt out of putting a serial number on it.

"They are stretching the limits on the term "readily converted" and they know it."
They also seem to rely on it more than any other language. They've also stretched considerably the phrase "to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive" seeing as the BATFE itself does not classify smokeless powder as an explosive (is 'flammable'). I keep waiting for them to claim purview over air-guns, because they rely on 'explosive force' or such nonsense.

Further, by law they are specifically prevented from regulating 'unfixed ammunition' firearms like cap and ball, even though the black powder they use is most certainly a low grade 'explosive' . I really don't understand how the ATF has avoided claiming/demanding dominion over BP guns, since the community that uses them is small (defenseless), even more people don't know they are unregulated than don't know we can't build our own guns, and the category is extremely popular with prohibited persons who wish to continue shooting after being stripped of their 2nd amendment rights.

FINALLY! A good see through picture of "the item in question"

Now, how would you remove the clear portion from a mould with those vertical ribs in the FCG pocket, again..?


Another bone of contention that has been posited as a possible justification for ATF crackdown (lots of people are really twisting their brains to rationalize the behavior of an organization with "a history" for some reason. But then again, lots of people try to justify the Rodney King incident to this day ) is that the EP lowers designated may have 'dimpled or partially drilled' the FCG holes, which the ATF has repeatedly refused approval for. Yup, dimpled chads, again . Clearly the EP lower actually has raised bosses, which indicate, but which do not guide a drill; they are functionally no different from a marker dot in that regard, which is perfectly legal on an 80% lower. I would again love to see how you remove those pin holes from a mould if the exterior is made first as the ATF alleges.

This, however, looks like dimples and I could see the ATF grumbling. Not sure when this was taken, though, nor if it was representative of what they sold (as opposed to a stock photo of a prototype)

TCB

*the restricted NFA categories are only slightly less vague than the remainder
**which was passed to repair the iniquities of the NFA, which is why I deem it plausible that yet another "refresher" or outright replacement of the NFA or GCA is possible, but this time on our terms.

 

[wildbilll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion

Any rapid expansion of a gas created by a chemical or other reaction is going to fit into the definition.

BB gun is just compressed gas. All that is doing at discharge is returning to it's original state. for BATFE to try to regulate that one would be a real big stretch, probably to the breaking point.

Anyway, I love the photos revealing the inner part of the trigger well. It really makes it clear that (regardless of the steps in manufacture) the well isn't ever, at any point, milled out completely. That, along with the fact the other holes are not cast of the filler material means the only gripe the BATFE could have is that it's not metal. That protrusion of the filler plug above the parting line means there is actually more material that needs to be removed that what we see in a metal example.
But since all of the letters they have handed out never listed metal as a criteria (probably because they never really anticipated polymer) means they want to change the rules mid-stream in the game.
The term "may readily be converted" is going to come under intense scrutiny.
No reasonable person is going to look at the EP product and believe that it is that easy to finish one. Especially when a STEN is used as a datum for what "readily" means in another case.

 

[Midwest]

BB gun is just compressed gas. All that is doing at discharge is returning to it's original state. for BATFE to try to regulate that one would be a real big stretch, probably to the breaking point.

Actually the BATF seized 30 BB Guns and claimed that they can be converted to machine guns (I am not joking). Also some states view BB guns as firearms (NJ). But that is for another topic.

.

 

[dogtown tom]

Midwest ......Actually the BATF seized 30 BB Guns and claimed that they can be converted to machine guns (I am not joking).

Why would anyone think you were joking?
The airsoft "BB" guns that ATF seized had lower receivers that allowed full automatic fire..........and they would work on a standard AR upper with little to no alteration.

ATF was following Federal law.

 

[JRH6856]

An item doesn't have to cross a state border be be regulated under the Commerce Clause. In Wickard v. Filburn the US Supreme Court found that wheat grown on a farm and consumed on the farm could still be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

The farmer in this case was selling in interstate commerce. The wheat consumed was otherwise the same wheat as was being sold.

If you make 5 firearms and keep all 5 for your own use you are not engaged in interstate commerce. If you keep 1 and sell 3 to someone in a different state, you are engaged in interstate commerce and the one you keep for yourself is the same as the one you have not yet sold. OTOH, if you are not otherwise engaged in selling the same item in interstate commerce, the Wikard v Filburn does not apply.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If you make 5 firearms and keep all 5 for your own use you are not engaged in interstate commerce...

Not necessarily. See also Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

Among other things, where did you buy the raw materials, the parts and the tools?

At this point in Commerce Clause jurisprudence we'd pretty much need an affirmative Supreme Court ruling.

 

[JRH6856]

At this point in Commerce Clause jurisprudence we'd pretty much need an affirmative Supreme Court ruling.

I think we can agree on that.

 

[wildbilll]

Not necessarily. See also Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

Among other things, where did you buy the raw materials, the parts and the tools?

At this point in Commerce Clause jurisprudence we'd pretty much need an affirmative Supreme Court ruling.

We are getting mixed messages as far as interstate commerce:

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/united-states-lopez.html

The Supreme Court held that the GFSZA exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The section in question is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court’s cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

The statute contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Lopez was a student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.

Neither the Act itself nor its legislative history expresses congressional findings regarding the effects of gun possession in a school zone on interstate commerce. To uphold the Government’s contention that the Act is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

I think the raw materials aspect is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Note that Congress amended the GFSZA following United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995) to address the issues raised by the Supreme Court.

 

[JRH6856]

Note that Congress amended the GFSZA following United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995) to address the issues raised by the Supreme Court.

Well, they changed the law to apply to firearms that had moved in interstate commerce. Whether or not that addresses the issues raised by the Court has yet to be tested.

Which raises the question: If someone makes his own gun, can it be carried within 1000 ft of a school without violating the GFSZA?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Which raises the question: If someone makes his own gun, can it be carried within 1000 ft of a school without violating the GFSZA?

Maybe someone would like to volunteer to be a test case.

 

[JRH6856]

Maybe someone would like to volunteer to be a test case.

It would have to be someone without a CHL. Taking a homemade firearm across state lines to carry in a school zone might be too much to test all at once.

 

[wildbilll]

So far, the post-amended GFSZ act charges appear to be something besides stand-alone. The ones I've read about involve some other crime and the GFSZ charge is just piling on.
It's still a stretch to go beyond the question of if a product has moved in interstate commerce because the raw materials might have.
That fact, even if it were sustainable, would require the government to prove the origin of the raw materials. The burden is still on them to prove the case.
Nobody wants to be a test case.

 

[JSH1]

FINALLY! A good see through picture of "the item in question"

Now, how would you remove the clear portion from a mould with those vertical ribs in the FCG pocket, again..?

You are thinking of a simple single plane die with two halves. This part is not made with a single plane die it has multiple slides that pull back before the main die opens. The fire control cavity could be made without the white core but it would be more expensive to do. (I've worked with injection dies with 5 slides with some slides within another slide.)

the EP lowers designated may have 'dimpled or partially drilled' the FCG holes, which the ATF has repeatedly refused approval for..... Clearly the EP lower actually has raised bosses, which indicate, but which do not guide a drill.

. I read a calguns thread in which a EP rep described how to drill those holes. The raised boss is hollow and is designed to guide a small pilot drill bit. Once the pilot hole is drilled you remove the boss. I also watched a YouTube video the EP rep linked. The guy finished the lower with nothing more than a hand drill, dremel, screwdriver, pliers, and hand file.

*He drilled the holes as described above
*Removed most of the white firing control core with the dremel
*Used the screwdriver to pry the remaining white core away from the receiver body leaving cavity as injected
*Removed the trigger area with the dremel
*Smoothed everything up with the file

I think the key concern is that the white core can be pried away from the receiver body leaving the injected shape.