dogtown tom
Member
It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what a jury believes.atomd So believe that a rogue agency has the right to take a vague law and apply it for some and not for others, change what is legal based on interpretations of the word "easily" and then change their mind anytime it wants?
No, they haven't. Typically you only see the letters posted by the manufacturer as proof that their unfinished lower is not considered a firearm by ATF. If you had read those determination letters I linked to you would have seen where one of them WAS deemed a firearm as submitted.Alllllll of these others have been deemed "legal" by the ATF according to the law.
Ok with me? I haven't said anything of the sort. And whether there are "Dozens of approval letters out there" doesn't matter one bit if the unfinished lowers in question don't have one.Dozens of approval letters are out there. Most of the designs don't differ all that much from one to another. All of a sudden one company has a problem with the government, stands up for iself, and theirs is suddenly illegal? That's ok with you?
You said "...The law says an 80% lower is not a firearm....." Doesn't take much "interpretation", if any, to say that's wholly, completely and totally false.You quoted me and then based what you said on your interpretation of what I said and not actually what I said.
If your "interpretation" is different then please explain.
Please provide a citation to this law.I never stated a certain percentage of completion was legal. I used the term 80% because that's what people call them. I said they are legal according to the law and I stand by that.
Again, please provide a citation that says as much.They are legal according to the 1968 GCA. I believe that to be true. I do not consider a "largely unfinished and not easily convertible to a receiver gun part" to be a part easily converter into a receiver. Therefore I am right.
Sorry, but ATF seems to be doing exactly what Federal law authorizes them to do. They do not have to change any current law.If they want to be more specific and use this law to prosecute people, they can go ahead and try to change the law to give them that power. They can (and should) come up with a way to say what is legal and what isn't based upon the % of completion. This gray area nonsense is downright crazy. Until then, they are wrong.