Cavalry Arms Raid +150 Days

[dec41971]

Federal gov classifies lower AR reciever as a fire arm... Say no more! I thought only NJ was insane enough to classify an empty magazine as a fire arm. In other words, in NJ if they find an empty magazine, or even a used shell casing in your car for-example without a fire arms license and ID card, you are going to the pookie. What is this world coming to? How about all 2A supporters emigrate from the garbage state immediately?

Forget that retarded omnipressent Mexico trafficing excuse, we got problems right here at home. And who cares about Mexico anyway? What does Mexico ever do about the huge drug trafficking into the US from their country, and why are our politicians so eager to appease Mexico along with all the antis?

 

[Bubba613]

If the serialized lower receiver isn't the firearm, what is? The frame of any gun is the legal firearm.

 

[Roccobro]

The serialized portion of any gun is the legal firearm.

There fixed it for you. (Ex. Ruger's MK series have the barrel as the "firearm", not the frame.)

Federal gov classifies lower AR reciever as a fire arm...

We'll of course they do. What they shouldn't do is think HALF an AR lower is a firearm in ATF's eyes. You can buy 80% lowers without paperwork (not considered a "firearm"). So how could 50% of a lower be a firearm? Pump out two halves, friction weld them together with the serial number plate. Viola! NOW a Serial numbered "firearm".

But I'm not an agent, and logic isn't the norm in BATFE "interpretations." I feel for the unfortunate that get taken to court on these conflicting "emotional like" statements put out by the BATFE. It generally IS easier just to acquiesce and walk away from the fight than to keep at it like a David V. Goliath going ten rounds...

Justin

 

[dogtown tom]

Roccobro:...There fixed it for you. (Ex. Ruger's MK series have the barrel as the "firearm", not the frame.)

Still wrong.

The Ruger receiver is the serialed part, not the barrel. While it is round like the barrel, it is not the barrel.

Many firearms have the serial number in several places. I have a Browning Hi Power with serial numbers on the frame, slide and barrel.

ATF designates which part is considered "the firearm". The manufacturer is free to stamp his serial number on every part if he so wishes.

 

[DMK]

Innocent men don't plead guilty

Unfortunately that is not true these days. Going to court can take years and bankrupt a good man or a small business. Sometimes an innocent man decides that it is time to cut his losses, take a slap on the wrist and go on with his life.

There's a big difference between knowing you are in the right, and proving it in court.

 

[Roccobro]

Dogtown- Original quote said "lower receiver"- fixed to say "serialized portion". Hence the example of the Ruger MK series (which has no removable barrel). The lower portion of a Ruger is DEFINITELY NOT a firearm (according to the atf). Of course having matching serial numbers on any other portion of the gun doesn't make that part a "firearm" either. That would just be silly.

Sorry for the confusion. My example is still correct. However I could add in "The serialized portion deemed by the atf is the legal firearm."

Justin

ETA: Orders being placed for yellow and black lowers! FINALLY!

 

[GigaBuist]

So how could 50% of a lower be a firearm?

If it doesn't take too much work to turn it into a functional firearm they'll declare the receiver to be complete. No time limit or formalized testing standards though, they just make it up as they go.

In this case they duct taped the two halves of a receiver together, threw in the rest of the parts, and got a functional firearm.

 

[Zak Smith]

In this case they duct taped the two halves of a receiver together, threw in the rest of the parts, and got a functional firearm.

Which would take a heck of a lot longer than the 10-15 seconds it takes for injection-molded halves to fall out (separately).

 

[Bubbles]

PACER docs are up in the criminal case:

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6KRQT10vNOzNjUwYzA1MzUtZTAxMy00N2EwLWExZTMtYjc4NzQ1NDNjMzA4&hl=en

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6KRQT10vNOzMDViNWI3YjgtMTJiOS00ZmNiLWE0NDMtZWEyODU5NDI1MDEx&hl=en

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6KRQT10vNOzNGExMTY2OGUtMmVmYi00NjIzLTgzYzgtMWM3MjdjNDZjNzVk&hl=en

Cliff notes by an ARFCOM attorney & staff member 'Aimless':

Looks like Shawn cut a deal to plead to one charge, selling four firearms to Christopher Mathwig knowing that Mathwig did not reside in Arizona. He has to surrender his FFL, not be involved in sales of firearms again or apply for an FFL and has to sell off all the firearms by March 3, 2010 at 4:00 pm when he has to cease doing business. Sentence cannot exceed the low end of that allowed by the sentencing guidelines, waive right to appeal blah blah

Not that it matters, but the four fireams were three Cavarms rifles and an AR-10T

 

[Roccobro]

Reading it over a few comments.

The owner made four bad mistakes (4 private rifle sales). Cav Arms as a business was legal in it's actions. Owner assumes responsibility and liability for his actions. This includes, up to and possibly including prison time, additional civil penalties, and possible prosecution from other branches of the .gov.

However, "This agreement does not resolve the pending civil forfeiture matter in CIV_08_01946_PHX_JMS." I am assuming this is all the illegal asset forfeiture the ATF is doing with personally owned firearms confiscated during the initial raid and listed up on the WSJ a month later? Now THAT is the BATF*** doing people dirty that DON'T deserve it!

Justin

 

[Zak Smith]

I just read the plea agreement. 18 USC 922(b)(3) is sale of firearms to an out of state resident, which is normally OK for long-guns, but not in this case

(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person
is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a
place of business in) the State in which the licensee's place of
business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not
apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a
resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's
place of business is located if the transferee meets in person
with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale,
delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of
sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer
or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual
knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both
States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a
firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting
purposes;

Also remember the guy had a valid AZ driver's license.

 

[Roccobro]

Also remember the guy had a valid AZ driver's license.

[sick to stomach] :jaw drop: Since when does a private seller in AZ have to do more than verify person is a resident? DL does just that. You are allowed to work and live outside of your resident state in the free world. DL are under the regulatory bodies of that state and overseen by .fed [/sick to stomach]

I'll shut up now before the ATF lovers start hitting on me again. Gotta love the ATF's transparency afterall....

Justin

 

[Zak Smith]

Since when does a private seller in AZ

It wasn't for doing it as a private seller-- it was for doing it as a licensee ("FFL").

 

[GigaBuist]

Plus he knew darned good and well that the guy lived in CA it seems.

 

[Roccobro]

It wasn't for doing it as a private seller-- it was for doing it as a licensee ("FFL").

Yes, that was the charges.

Plus he knew darned good and well that the guy lived in CA it seems.

Yes, as he stored some of them in his home for the buyer. But if the buyer had AZ residency as Zak says...

So, did he NOT do an FFL transfer (private party), or was the 4473 wrongfully approved by the .gov? I'm reading as much as I can to answer these questions.

Justin

 

[Zak Smith]

So, did he NOT do an FFL transfer (private party), or was the 4473 wrongfully approved by the .gov? I'm reading as much as I can to answer these questions.

According to what I could gather from the documents, it's not either/or.

18 USC 922(b)(3) applies to the sale by licensees (FFLs). It doesn't say anything about the 4473 being approved either way.

He was supposed to know the buyer was not a resident of AZ and not make the sale.

 

[Zak Smith]

But if the buyer had AZ residency as Zak says...

I didn't say that-- the court documents said the buyer had a valid AZ driver's license.

 

[Bubba613]

The owner made four bad mistakes (4 private rifle sales). Cav Arms as a business was legal in it's actions. Owner assumes responsibility and liability for his actions. This includes, up to and possibly including prison time, additional civil penalties, and possible prosecution from other branches of the .gov.

We must not be reading the same charges.
The company screwed up in numerous ways.
1) They failed to account for their firearms in their A&D books. I cant recall the exact number of guns missing but it was several hundred.
2) They used an unlicensed entity to manufacture their firearms. Now even though you can argue they didnt know, they got notice from ATF they were not in compliance, promised they would change, and then did nothing for 3 years until the next time ATF made an inspection.
3) They violated NFA numerous times with unlicensed Class 3 weapons, including an Uzi with apparently an altered or missing serial number.
4) They had numerous screw ups with their 4473s, probably failing to record DL numbers and expiration dates.
5) They sold to people they knew were prohibited.
6) They exported guns without an export license
7) They declared they had produced 600-odd firearms on their annual tax report when the actual number was over 6000.

But the biggest problem was that they were told by ATF to change what they did and they did nothing about it. I have heard about another manufacturer facing similar problems. No doubt the gun kommandos will scream about the JBTs when they get shut down.

If the owner of Cav gets out of this without time he will be very lucky.

I didn't say that-- the court documents said the buyer had a valid AZ driver's license.

I believe the papers state he had a fraudently obtained AZ driver's license. See P20 Item 145

 

[Maj.Striker]

Unfortunately, it seems all too clear that Cav Arms (specifically Nealon) was acting illegally and in multiple ways. As much as I want to stand up for a manufacturer in the industry I love and cherish, I can't and I won't do it for someone who is shirking the law. It seems quite clear that the ATF gave Cav Arms multiple chances to clean up their books and right the ship. CA stayed sloppy and sloppy in federal regulations is dangerous.

The Arizona/California firearms sale wouldn't have been mentioned had it not been exceedingly clear that Nealon understood the entire situation. I.e. If Mathwig and his friend had conspired to defraud the seller and Nealon could prove he was completely ignorant and duped by them both then he would be innocent of those charges but the ATF knows he was not ignorant of the situation and that's why they are pressing charges.

Several of the charges are pretty airtight (i.e. brief cites documented proof that Nealon was aware of the definition of the molded parts being classified as a firearm yet still continuing to manufacture via the same process using AZP).

It's a shame.

On a side note:

113. All the examiner had to do was duct-tape the two halves together and add a few common gun components (e.g., trigger, hammer) and he was able to test fire the firearm using a commercially available brand of ammunition.

How would you like to be that guy? Duct taping a gun together and firing it? Original Red Green solution...

Note: I think the brief mentioned it was able to be assembled within 30 minutes.

 

[Zak Smith]

Several of the charges are pretty airtight (i.e. brief cites documented proof that Nealon was aware of the definition of the molded parts being classified as a firearm yet still continuing to manufacture via the same process using AZP).

The "same process" was ostensibly permissible per Nealon's FAX to the ATF provided the two mold halves were not present, they were not molded at the same time and were not present at AZP's premises. The 2008 document against the property (ie, not the case against Nealon) does not make it clear whether when they discovered him "continuing the same process", it was with one mold half or both.

-z

 

[Roccobro]

We must not be reading the same charges.

I didn't see any other indictments besides the four charges against Nealon. Maybe I missed those.

Seeing as paraphrasing is making things MUCH more confusing for those reading only this thread I shall now refrain. Without reading all linked cited material you cannot fathom the situation fully.

Personally, reading the "report" I see problems on both sides. Greed and feigned ignorance are two big ones. The only one larger is the ATF themselves and their "rulings" like the one Maj Striker has quoted above where a round can be fired without a barrel.

CA is done and gone. Now if we can only do the same for the ATF and how they operate.

Justin

 

[GigaBuist]

How would you like to be that guy? Duct taping a gun together and firing it? Original Red Green solution...

One would think that they'd put it in a rest and fire it remotely.

Then again, I've seen footage of the FTB testing guns. Never seen 'em take that kind of safety precaution before. I recall an UZI receiver that'd been torch cut reassembled by the ATF with a bar of metal welded on top of the two halves to hold it together. Another agent continuing to fire an FAL even after it was obvious that it was slam firing.

 

[Zane]

The "same process" was ostensibly permissible per Nealon's FAX to the ATF provided the two mold halves were not present, they were not molded at the same time and were not present at AZP's premises. The 2008 document against the property (ie, not the case against Nealon) does not make it clear whether when they discovered him "continuing the same process", it was with one mold half or both.

My "search-fu" is bad, so I am going on recollection and could be entirely wrong. I recall reading something from the original thread, but I can't seem to locate it.

I think there was a first hand account of what they were doing at AZP when the ATF inspector arrived. My recollection is somewhat vague, but if that post could be found, it might answer that. I seem to recall that that a Cav arms employee was bring and taking all molds and molded components from AZP. My recollection is that, post raid, they were going to only bring 1/2 of the mold on any given day. That is pushing fuzzy memories, however.

As a side note, the ATF writes ".9mm" a lot.

 

[DRZinn]

1) They failed to account for their firearms in their A&D books. I cant recall the exact number of guns missing but it was several hundred.
2) They used an unlicensed entity to manufacture their firearms. Now even though you can argue they didnt know, they got notice from ATF they were not in compliance, promised they would change, and then did nothing for 3 years until the next time ATF made an inspection.
3) They violated NFA numerous times with unlicensed Class 3 weapons, including an Uzi with apparently an altered or missing serial number.
4) They had numerous screw ups with their 4473s, probably failing to record DL numbers and expiration dates.
5) They sold to people they knew were prohibited.
6) They exported guns without an export license
7) They declared they had produced 600-odd firearms on their annual tax report when the actual number was over 6000.

Just curious: Can anyone make a convincing case that ANY of that should be illegal?

 

[Bubba613]

Depends on whether you think tax evasion should be illegal or not. Or transferring guns to felons.