California: Gun store owner stops ATF Raid

[Midwest]

Oceanside California: Gun store owner stops ATF Raid

The ATF wanted names of 5,000 customers who bought an 80% lower for building an AR-15. The gun owner filed for a restraining order "in anticipation of the raid". The store owner refused to hand over the information. The restraining order is temporary, this could go to court March 20 2014 if an agreement is not reached.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/03/12/gun-store-owner-halts-federal-raid/#axzz2vrYVWzYv



“They were going to search all of our facilities and confiscate our computer and pretty much shut our business down,” said Karras. “The government invades our privacy on a daily basis and everyone thinks its ok. This is one of those situations where hopefully the governmental institutions will come in say this is protected and no you’re not taking it from them.”

The ATF threatened to shut their business down if the LGS did not cooperate with the demands of the ATF.


"Karras said the ATF threatened to shutter their business if they didn’t hand over the names of 5,000 customers who have purchased an 80 percent lower receiver (the base) for building an AR-15."


Can the ATF demand a customer list of an 80% receiver? And what would the ATF do with that list???

.

 

[DT Guy]

Wow. "Comply with us or we'll shut you down" doesn't sound like the rule of law to me....


Larry

 

[dogtown tom]

My question is.........

Why is the gun shop owner collecting names of those who buy something that is not a firearm?

Odd story is odd.

 

[vamo]

How would he even have records of everyone that bought one? An 80% lower is not legally different from a paperweight.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

They want the info so they can explore the idea of confiscating the guns and possibly charge people with all kinds of illegal acts it would take a lawyer and fifteen plus grand to shut down. I doubt the powers that be are happy people are standing up and abiding by the law by doing commerce in 80% lowers that the powers that be aren't suppose to have the power to regulate.

The problem as I have discovered is that these are "jigless" lowers and that might be the problem, meaning you can finish one supposedly with just a dremel if you want to so that may have something to do with "readily convertible" or something like that. If it can be readily converted than the ATF are probably acting like its a firearm that needs to have a serial number and probably ready to accuse buyers of intentionally buying a firearm without a serial number. This is the Obama administration so I think that is a rational conclusion.

This is poor form on the gun shop to be keeping records of buyers who bought these lowers and it should make anyone aware of what happens when you buy a 80% lower thinking no one is going to keep records of your purchase. So stick to gun shows where folks take cash and don't ask for your name or info when buying a paperweight.

 

[Midwest]

Forgot to mention that I found out about this through the (Gun Owners of America) GOA Facebook alerts.

This is poor form on the gun shop to be keeping records of buyers who bought these lowers and it should make anyone aware of what happens when you buy a 80% lower thinking no one is going to keep records of your purchase.

I would imagine anything bought with a credit card could be tracked these days. If it was cash and carry like you said, there would be no paper trace.


There has to be more to the story.....

 

[Strahley]

They've been fighting against local government for a while. The city didn't like their sign and tried to force them to take it down without due process. Ares Armor fought back and the sign remained. I'm guessing the city was mad so they went to the ATF

I remember a quote from one of their letters, somebody in the city said "we don't like guns or you/your sign" or something along those lines. Guess this is what happens when you fight back, but they will still get support from me

 

[Midwest]

Here is more about it, although they (thetruthaboutguns.com) also use the Fox San Diego story as a source of the information. There is more information here...


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/ares-armor-holds-atf-raid-now/

"At no point during the manufacturing process by EP Armory is a weapon made and then reverted. The solid fire-control cavity is built first and the rest of the 80% casting is made around this “core” specifically so that their product at no time could be considered to be a firearm."



And they mentioned the owners affidavit

http://aresarmor.com/store/NewsArti..._campaign=13MAR14-ATFdispute&utm_medium=email

And more here

http://aresarmor.com/store/index.ph...st_BATFE&sid=bhjo04j6254x232066h2a0c83bt9np1e

"Our customer’s privacy is of the utmost importance to us. I cannot in good moral conscience turn over a list of names to the BATFE just because they unduly threaten us with an unjust raid based on information they KNOW TO BE FALSE!"

I think we need to watch this situation closely.

.

 

[Schwing]

Somehow, I am pretty sure that an I.R.S. audit is probably in their immediate future as well.

 

[Bubbles]

Why is the gun shop owner collecting names of those who buy something that is not a firearm?

Retail point-of-sale systems track invoices by customer and will have individual line items listed if the vendor inserts them. Obviously a cash-and-carry buyer wouldn't have an entry but if someone paid with a CC or purchased the 80% receivers online there very likely will be a record of it.

ATF has no business demanding the info though.

And yeah dude better watch his six and make sure his finances are also squeaky clean as well as his A&D books.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

There is nothing unusual or even wrong with keeping sales records.

It sounds like they are molding the polymer lower around a millable trigger control area plug and the ATF is assuming they are inserting the plug after making a polymer "firearm".

Mike

 

[smalls]

Why is the gun shop owner collecting names of those who buy something that is not a firearm?

Probably just order invoices.

The problem as I have discovered is that these are "jigless" lowers and that might be the problem, meaning you can finish one supposedly with just a dremel

There's no law I'm aware of that states what tools are required to finish the lower.

And yeah, it'll probably cost them some money to fight this, but thank god they're putting the money up to do so, instead of just giving in.

Plus they'll probably gain some business from standing up to them.

 

[Ryanxia]

The ATF is focusing on building an illegal registration of firearms, they tried it in Alaska and got their hands spanked. They are doing it to a local gun shop in Maine right now, the details have been discussed on this forum http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=737291

We have to support the companies that stand up for gun owner's privacy. We've got to lend them whatever support we can. I think I'll have to look into placing an order from them

 

[Bubbles]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/212261074/Ares-Armor-Motion-for-TRO

http://www.scribd.com/doc/212260831/Ares-Armor-TRO-Complaint

 

[theshephard]

Inspired by Breaking Bad?

I was just catching up on the last season of Breaking Bad last night, and watched the show where Mike gets a restraining order against the DEA. Apparently that works, and I know the practice wasn't invented by the TV show, but it's a sad day when both life and art are demonstrating restraining orders against law enforcement. Just bizarre that the topic has been in front of me twice in 24 hours.
I wish the owners good luck.

 

[barnbwt]

*sigh*

...


<inhales> Well, at least this wasn't unexpected. There's been quite a pushing of ATF boundaries on all fronts since the AWB expired and people realized how stupid gun-classification laws are; it's only to be expected the regulators would attempt a rebuff at some point.

Let's just pray this doesn't end up with them deeming facilitation of construction as possession. Things are already arbitrary, undefined, and unenforceable with the once-removed "constructive possession" rules we have currently; pushing that out to twice removed is idiotic.

The 80% bird has left the nest, so everyone seems to think the ATF can't go back on its word; but do remember that open-bolt weapons are illegal and have been for decades, despite there being zero statutory authority for it. Merely the ATF's opinion carrying the full force of law. CA's and everyone else, builder or no, needs to be hammering their reps about this flagrant abuse of authority to intimidate and punish legal behavior.

This is akin to threatening a rolling mill for making billet that could be used to make an illegal weapon --under the pretense of tax-evasion!!!. The apotheosis of Kafka-esque*. The same logic means the IRS could shut down Turbo Tax since users could potentially use the software to lie about their dependents

I'm actually a bit disappointed there is not larger response to this than what I've seen. I haven't read one shred of anything suggesting impropriety on the part of anyone so far, just that organized build parties are a long standing thorn in the butt of the ATF who just "knows" that all those builders who go to the trouble of not drilling the third hole or attaching stocks/short barrels must be up to something shady --because it's guns they're building

Fun geometry/spatial reasoning lesson of the day: If a plug is physically keyed into a surrounding body (by the ribs of the over moulded receiver in this case), it cannot be knocked out by a hammer --it has to be cut/ground away. If the overmoulded receiver were built first (illegal without a license for a selling entity), it would therefore be impossible to remove it from the mould without a sacrificing it with each receiver. At the price these 80% poly's sell, I somehow doubt that's their motus operandi. Yet, the ATF insists, without a shred of explanation as to why they believe so, that EP is using such ridiculous procedures to manufacture blocks of plastic, and that these plastic blocks are now contraband in the hands of all customers (despite the fact that, even if these were somehow once "firearms," they are thoroughly deactivated by the time they reach customers)

It's "once a machine-gun, always a machine-gun**" not "once a firearm, always a firearm" no matter how much the ATF wants to rewrite the laws to say otherwise***. I really hope these guys have the resources to drag these G-man flunkies in front of judge/grand jury, present the court with one of the alleged "firearms" and force them to explain how it is a functional weapon, or constitutes intent of the maker to sell it as a functional weapon. I'd love to see the ATF justify pursuing charges of manufacture with intent to sell, but not intent to manufacture a machine gun, seeing how none of the pin holes required for either of those charges to apply are present. Or are we back in the 2000 election where we were pretending dimples were holes?

TCB

*Pardon my verisimilitudinous tableau
**Actually, that rule is totally absent from the law as well, just like the open bolt regs and most other rules the ATF operates under
***They actually make a point of never writing anything when they can help it, and of contradicting themselves constantly, that such vagueness will give them cover to do basically whatever they feel like to anyone they feel deserves it

 

[natman]

but do remember that open-bolt weapons are illegal and have been for decades, despite there being zero statutory authority for it. Merely the ATF's opinion carrying the full force of law.

Do you have a stricter definition of "illegal" with regard to open bolt guns? To make? Import? Possess?

Any published ATF opinions on the matter?

 

[danez71]

Those 80% receivers are whats needed to make "ghost guns".

Google/youtube for a good laugh. CA senator Deleon ghost guns

 

[medalguy]

I guess some folks have no idea of what it takes to run a business. I sold my business ten years ago but I still have backup records showing every customer who ordered from my business for the final ten years of operation, what they ordered, and how much they paid. The IRS requires business records to be retained for a number of years and any good business owner will keep backup records much longer than the IRS requires, "just in case." All it takes is a small stack of DVD discs.

 

[Mouse hunter]

Blurry line

The issue with so-called 80% receivers is that it is very difficult to determine when a receiver goes from 79% to 80%. How much dremel work needs to be done to qualify as "80%"?

Nobody really knows. There is no clear definition. Legally speaking, if its 80%, its just a paperweight, but if its 81% its a daycare-seeking terror device. The line is thin and blurry. For gun enthusiasts it is fun to take something that is partway done and turn it into a functioning firearm. For the BATFE it is an opportunity to lock someone up and take their guns if they can convince a judge that the receiver was 81% complete. With 5000 of these going through a single vendor, they are seeing a big opportunity to lock up a lot of people.

Chances are, out of 5000, there is at least one prohibited person, or one transaction they can win. They are going fishing.

On top of that, they are intimidating everyone. Who wants to buy one now that they fear the BATFE is going to track them down and investigate them? The appeal of these things is that the BATFE doesn't know they exist, but now it appears that they actually draw more attention.

This is intimidation, fishing, and line-blurring. They will keep doing it, regardless of how this particular case goes.

 

[Analogkid]

Dang it... I just bought one of these early today from a online distributor. Didn't even know all this crap was going on..

Should I cancel my order?

 

[USAF_Vet]

"80% receiver" is a misnomer. There is no legal definition for an 80% receiver, its just not 100%, an that's all that matters. It matters not if its 74% or 89% complete. Its sold as a nonfunctional novelty, not a firearm.

AnalogKid, I wouldn't worry about it. I assume you are in CA, which would make your concern relevant, but I don't see any legal ground for the ATF to confiscate those records of sale any more than the records of sale for plastic dog poop. The 80% polymer receivers, and even the aluminum ones, amount to the same thing as plastic turds, legally.

 

[Analogkid]

No not in CA. In the Midwest. The one I bought doesn't have their name attached but it sure looks like one. No money has changed hands yet either. Just a commitment on a gun auction site.

 

[USAF_Vet]

That being the case, don't sweat it. The ATF doesn't have the resources to hunt down every 80% ever sold nation wide.

 

[barnbwt]

Do you have a stricter definition of "illegal" with regard to open bolt guns? To make? Import? Possess?

Any published ATF opinions on the matter?

Tons. There's reason open bolt semi auto conversions of smgs and tec 9's aren't made; they're way too easy to build, and way too easy make full auto. Somehow, the opinion even extends to most single shots

TCB