EP Armory 80% poly lower update

[JSH1]

I guess I just don't see any guessing games going on by BATF. They seem to be using a consistent criteria, even if it is unpublished.

I don't see anything out of the ordinary either. I seems pretty clear to me: The same rules apply regardless of whether the receiver is forged, cast, machined, or injected plastic. We did learn a couple of new things:

• The fire control cavity cannot be a separate injection regardless of the order of operations.
• The manufacture can't use holes to locate drill locations regardless of whether they are on a raised boss or not.

It is also pretty clear that EP was manufacturing and selling firearms without a license for about 9 months.

 

[barnbwt]

Can't even scribe an outline of the FCG cavity, either; no indexing features. But somehow a jig for holding and positioning forgings isn't considered to use "indexing features" built into the forging itself.

TCB

 

[AlexanderA]

wildbill wrote:

I say that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Let's cut the guessing games. Any other regulatory agency publishes a NPRM and follows the administrative procedures act along with several other regulatory acts; they define specifically what they are trying to regulate; how they are trying to regulate it and finally why they are trying to regulate it.
Then it goes out for a public comment period where people that care can put in their 2 cents. Once that period has passed, they publish a rule, the rule includes all of the discussion which shows the original intent. This is so that later the intent can't change. This is what need to take place in this instance.

This sort of factual situation (in this case, as to what exactly constitutes an AR-15 "receiver") is normally the proper subject for a "ruling," not a "regulation." Unlike "regulations," "rulings" don't come under the Administrative Procedures Act and don't require a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a comment period, etc. And furthermore, "rulings" are of two types -- "private rulings" (which apply only to a particular individual or entity, and have no value as precedent), and "published rulings" (which can be cited). The correspondence between EP and the ATF has the characteristics of a "private ruling." Just because EP made it public doesn't convert it into a "published ruling." Only the ATF can designate it as a "published ruling."

 

[wildbilll]

They obviously have an internal document or documents they are using to make determinations. They are regulating. They should be forced to disclose, that way it's there for all to see. Is there something they are afraid to let us see? Or is it just sloppy, arbitrary and capricious the way they operate?

 

[LiveLife]

10/8/14 update from EP Armory's facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory?ref=stream

Fellow Patriots,

Over the last few weeks we have shared, as well as main stream media, the legal battle E P Armory has in front of us. We have now reached a point where both parties are obviously not willing to turn around and or give up. We are certain what has happened was the direct cause of miscommunication which was led by insinuation. At no time was the manufacturing process completed like the original BATFE determination letter was stated. The FTB rather than opening a line of communication between us and sorting the misunderstanding decided to go full force and jump to a conclusion that has a "no turning back" outcome. To be crystal clear. The core "biscuit" is manufactured first in a small molding process. Next the small biscuit after a cure period is put in a larger mold and the EP80 is manufactured around it therefore never having a void or FCG area. The FTB now knows this.

Since the BATFE has now responded to our most recent reply explaining the process in detail they have decided to make another part of the EP80 illegal since the original determination ruling will not stick. Kind of like a dancing game, but certainly this is no game at all. E P Armory has much to lose, in fact all parties have a lot to lose.

We have had a lot of inquiries into what customers have to lose. At this point in time we have had no communication or demand for purchasers to return or destroy the EP80's at all. Though nothing should be ruled out as an outcome you can be assured that as soon as we get informed we will be forwarding the info to the public. We do ask that you remain patient and wait to return, destroy or complete if not already.

To help us in this battle as some of you have already done we are asking that you help by making a purchase online, in the store or simply make a donation to the E P Amory Legal fund. All donations will have different support items to be shipped out including when the legal battle ends the shipping of the EP80's. http://www.eparmory.com/product-p/legalfund50.htm

I think it's interesting to note that ATF demanded Ares Armor's 5000 customer list (ultimately getting a search warrant to get it) but DID NOT ask for EP Armory's customer list (and they are the manufacturer). Perhaps ATF's concern lies somewhere else than EP Armory's poly EP80 product?

No "customer list" was asked for so no customer list was provided.

 

[JRH6856]

Almost sounds like they are on the trail of someone buying from ARES and building for resale (if not ARES themselves), but the only way they could find to go fishing for ARES customer list was via an adverse determination of the EP lower.

 

[wildbilll]

Ares tries to talk sense to the BATFE:

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Letter-to-Todd-Jones.pdf

 

[barnbwt]

"Almost sounds like they are on the trail of someone buying from ARES and building for resale (if not ARES themselves), but the only way they could find to go fishing for ARES customer list was via an adverse determination of the EP lower."
I'm pretty sure this is exactly it (heck, tons of people talked about buying lowers after Newtown and flipping them for profit; pretty much the same thing as finishing blanks and selling those, as far as the ATF is concerned)

Problem is, the ATF approached the problem wrong, and is attempting to remedy the situation even wronger. Instead of stinging these supposed unlicensed manufacturers selling the finished goods and chilling that activity, they decided instead to 'take down the whole racket' as they saw it and target suppliers on down. Unfortunately, that tactic only works when the suppliers are engaging in unlawful activity, and if the best the ATF can come up with is to ex post facto declare illegality on someone, it opens them up to court challenges to that ruling (you know, since our justice system isn't actually supposed to work that way ), which is why the ATF tries to avoid it most of the time. It's definitely one of their fall backs, though (armed siege appears to be another )

For instance; there have been a lot more people on Gunbroker lately selling PPSH shrouds with complete trunnions in parts kits. Problem is, the ATF ex post facto declared those kits readily convertible years ago. So why are more of them popping up? Because the ATF is not stopping the sales. But I'll bet they'll use the proliferation as an excuse to try and crack down on people making receiver repair sections and reproduction (legal) trunnions, even though they were not the problem in the first place, but instead lax law enforcement.

TCB

 

[Sam1911]

On e more: that's not what ex post facto means.

EPF only applies if someone is being prosecuted for something they did or had sometime in the past, when it was LAWFUL, but now isn't doing (or doesn't have) any more, now that it is unlawful.

If you sold a gun to your friend in another state without a dealer, back in 1965, and the BATFE tried to come after you for that now, because it is against a law written in 1968, that would be ex post facto.

Making something illegal, that once was legal, is unfortunately, perfectly legal.

They can certainly say that this receiver is NOW illegal, even if it WAS legal before.
Or they can say this receiver was NEVER legal, but we didn't notice it until now.

 

[LiveLife]

April 9th article from Bearing Arms - http://bearingarms.com/ep-armory-and-the-atfs-pornography-addiction/

As most Bearing Arms readers are probably aware by now, EP Armory—and later Ares Armor—were both raided on the pretense that an injection-molded plastic part created by EP Armory and sold by both companies constitutes a firearm in the eyes of the ATF that has been illegally sold.

The Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) sent a letter to EP Armory letter (PDF) which argues that the EP Armory part is a firearm receiver, and therefore, their sale by EP Armory and Ares Armor constitutes illegal sales of firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

....

 

[barnbwt]

Good point, Sam, I suppose you are right. But the ability to declare contraband is the ability to mete punishment (confiscation without compensation directed toward an individual sure smacks of punishment) in the present for lawful activity in the past (acquiring/manufacturing said contraband). The consequences part is what I take issue with, but you are right, the actual legality isn't the issue since the person (probably) won't be charged.

Except for the guy who purchased original 'demil' PPSH kits in the 80's, who was never contacted by the ATF when they were trying to recover them, who then goes to sell one now could fall in hot water if the ATF decided to stick it to him. He did a legal act years ago buying the kits, did nothing since (unless you consider illegal possession without illegal acquisition an "active" decision), and is now unknowingly vulnerable to very serious legal liability. It's the same conundrum felt whenever stuff gets banned anywhere, and yes, it's very legal, but it also does not seem in keeping with the basis of our justice system. It ain't right, but it ain't illegal. We should work to rectify the discrepancy of the two when we can.

BTW, it sounds like there was something of a nation-wide crackdown on 80%'ers in March; EP is the 3rd or 4th raid that was conducted on 80% manufacturers that week, it seems. Maybe that's an average week, but I hadn't heard about any of these type of businesses getting raided with regularity prior to now (must by them new marchin' orders from Mr. Jones )

TCB

 

[LiveLife]

4/22/14 Update from EP Armory - http://www.gofundme.com/8jd5k4

Due to recent events E P Armory has been forced back on its heels by the BATFE. We have also been forced into a very expensive legal battle that will determine not only our freedoms but the future freedoms of generations to come. We are at the forefront of a battle for your second amendment rights.

We are asking for assistance in this as certainly the BATFE main goal is to bury us in debt to gain the outcome they want which is to determine the EP80 as a firearm. If we go under then the fight is lost. E P Armory has and will always be the innovator for the 80% world. We had just started R&D for some new styles of builds as well as opening a new storefront to be more personal with our customers. Though it was a good move to step in these directions it was an extremely expensive one. This is why we are asking for assistance.

We hope we have your support in this as we will support your rights now as well as in the future.

 

[JTHunter]

barnbwt said:

But the ability to declare contraband is the ability to mete punishment (confiscation without compensation directed toward an individual sure smacks of punishment) - - -

- - which is exactly what the government did when they declared "private ownership" of gold illegal and forced people to surrender any gold, whether it was coins or bullion, to the government.

 

[Frank Ettin]

barnbwt said:

But the ability to declare contraband is the ability to mete punishment (confiscation without compensation directed toward an individual sure smacks of punishment) - - -

- - which is exactly what the government did when they declared "private ownership" of gold illegal and forced people to surrender any gold, whether it was coins or bullion, to the government.

Please provide documentation to support that claim. Exactly when and how was this done and on what terms?

 

[Analogkid]

I think he is referring to E O 6102...

 

[Frank Ettin]

I think he is referring to E O 6102...

If that is the case, JTHunter is incorrect about the gold being confiscated without compensation. EO6102 specifically provided:

....Section 4. Upon receipt of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates delivered to it in accordance with Sections 2 or 3, the Federal Reserve Bank or member bank will pay therefor an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States....

 

[Frank Ettin]

We're starting to drift off topic. This will not become a discussion of EO 6102.

We're discussing EP Armory's problem with the ATF.

 

[LiveLife]

4/24/14 update from EP Armory facebook page - http://www.gofundme.com/8jd5k4

Thank you all that have donated to the EP Armory Legal Fund. Your help is more than you could understand appreciated. We have a case that is more than capable of being won it is just going to cost a large amount of money to complete. As you all I am sure understand the goal of the opposing side is to crush us financially. With your donations it helps keep us afloat, pay extremely expensive legal defense and continue future products for ensuring we have a second amendment to fight for. If you do not wish to donate please look through our inventory online and make a purchase which will definitely help us gather the needed funds.

Regards

4/25/14 update from EP Armory facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory/p...y_comment_id=624773620939908&total_comments=1

Any updates on court case? Waiting on a date?

There is no court case currently. We currently have received all of our computers and such back which was a couple of weeks back. We have received a forfeiture notice for the EP80's which we are filing an appeal. Next step is to get before a judge and make our case of what is and what is not a firearm. It will all come out we hope in the next few weeks. Thanks

 

[barnbwt]

I'm just an ignorant 'ol country bystander, so excuse my ignorance. What specifically runs up the legal costs so fast in these obnoxious bureaucratic tug-of-war games? Is it just EP keeping a legal team on retainer that's eating them alive, the interruption of the poly-lower business (I assume there is nothing preventing sale of their other products), or are court fees really that ridiculous? Not doubting they're hurting or exaggerating, just curious how the Kafkaesque machine grinds its sausage

Seems like the take-away the ATF is trying to establish is that marking, indicating, starting, or otherwise suggesting the locations of the "no-no" features they won't put down in writing is intent to manufacture. Makes sense from that perspective, except the law doesn't actually prohibit intent to manufacture, nor does it prohibit making a living on gun-paraphernalia. If scribing an outline of the FCG pocket on an aluminum lower is considered a firearm, how can a drill/mill jig+forging possibly not be considered one? It isn't, because intent itself is not what the law regulates, but instead finished articles. The ATF would stretch this logic all the way back to billet and beyond if we let them.

TCB

 

[JTHunter]

Frank & Analogkid - thanks for the clarification. I was going by what my grandfather told me many years ago when his jewelry business was hindered by this E.O.

 

[LiveLife]

4/26/14 update from EP Armory facebook page -

The NRA should bankroll this case

Getting as many calls as possible to the offices of the NRA would make it something they would definitely look into and assist financially for. Please make the call.

National Rifle Association of America - https://contact.nra.org/contact-us.aspx
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
800-672-3888

NRA AREA 37: CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
Paul Rodarmel
[email protected]

NRA AREA 35: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Daniel Wilhelm
Senior Field Representative
[email protected]

NRA AREA 36: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Mike Davis
[email protected]

California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. - http://www.crpa.org/contact-us/
271 Imperial Highway, Suite 620
Fullerton, CA 92835
714-992-CRPA (2772)
Fax: 714-992-2996

 

[LiveLife]

U.S. Attorney may have misled a federal judge regarding EP Armory's 80% AR blanks - http://bearingarms.com/did-u-s-atto...the-ares-armor-raid-on-ak-15-lower-receivers/

Daniel Butcher ... Assistant U.S. Attorney ... filed a response to temporary restraining order (TRO) obtained by Ares Armor against the ATF ... with federal magistrate judge Bernard G. Skomal ...

Butcher conveniently “forgets” that the 80% lower receivers ... are not generally considered firearms, according to the ATF’s own determination letters sent to numerous manufacturers over the years. As 80% receivers are not firearms, they are therefore not subject to the ATF’s jurisdiction ... Nor does he mention that the ATF’s claim that EP Armory’s 80% receivers are manufactured differently hasn’t been proven even once by the agency.

... until the ATF proves that the EP Armory 80% lower receivers are not manufactured as the company claims, then they are not, by the ATF’s long-standing determination, firearms ...

 

[JRH6856]

With your donations it helps keep us afloat, pay extremely expensive legal defense and continue future products for ensuring we have a second amendment to fight for.

Looks to me like they are seeking donated operating capital, not just a legal defense fund. From a business standpoint, They might get a better response if they could offer something substantial in return. They can't offer a tax deduction for donations so perhaps it is time to sell shares in the operation.

 

[LiveLife]

They might get a better response if they could offer something substantial in return.

EP Armory originally started their legal fund drive around a $50 donation (which is still active) where the donor would receive an EP80 only when the ATF deemed the EP80 a non-firearm - http://www.eparmory.com/product-p/legalfund50.htm

$50 donation - 1 EP80 ONLY when the ATF deems it a (non-firearm) and 1 gas man sticker. In the case that the ATF deems this a "firearm" we are not able to ship the EP80's and the donation WILL stay to the E P Armory legal fund to help the fight.

I have a feeling that greater number of customers may have elected to make purchases than donations.

For those who preferred to help by making purchases, EP Armory has been running various sales of their firearms (pistols/rifles), AR uppers, pistol/rifle kits and other shooting/reloading related items (in-store/online) like various AR pistol/rifle kits in .223/5.56-.223 Wylde/7.62x39/.300 BLK starting at $525/$550 including "blem" uppers/rifle kits at lower prices - http://www.eparmory.com/EP-Armory-Online-Store-s/1832.htm

Regardless whether supporters make donations or purchases, they should all help EP Armory pay for their legal team to prepare the court case.

FYI, in addition to EP Armory continuing to sell aluminum 80% AR15 blanks, they have started to sell 80% AR10 blanks - http://www.eparmory.com/SearchResults.asp?Search=AR10&Submit=

 

[RECREM]

legal

We bought twelve (12) E P Armory lower receivers and none of them fit. Yes,none of them fit American made upper receivers. Problem: front pivot holes and rear take down holes do not line up correctly. These are factory (E P Armory)drilled items. Owner,Chris Cook told me via phone call. "Blemished" units includes problem with front pivot holes and rear take down holes. You agreed to this by clicking the button to purchase product. Hearing that was a BIG surprise to me. These guys were kicked off www.calguns.net and received numerous complaints about product quality. Buyer Beware !!! I think Owner,Chris Cook is a Crook. We paid over $660 for their product,that's what I get for supporting a particular American business (Not all American businesses behave this way). Best part,I did not drill any of them yet. Test fit them first and discovered alignment and gap issues. Thanks.