EP Armory 80% poly lower update

[LiveLife]

As to EP Armory, in the case of United States v. Judah Prince, the Tenth Circuit Court ruled AK-47 flat with holes and laser perforations was not a firearm.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-3208.pdf

In January 2008 ... agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were conducting an investigation into the illegal manufacture and sale of firearms ... AK-47 flats i.e., pieces of flat metal containing holes and laser perforations ...

... Adam Galbraith, a firearms enforcement officer employed by the ATF ... noted that federal law defines “[a] firearm ... as a weapon that will expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” and “includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon.” ... “[t]he frame or receiver is, in essence, the heart of the firearm,” and “is most often the component to which all other parts of the firearm are attached,” including “the barrel, the trigger and hammer components, [and] the slide in the case of a pistol.”

... Galbraith conceded that the flats at issue “[c]learly” would not expel a projectile by the action of an explosive ... However ... “two large features” of the flats “enable[d] them to be used as the frame or receiver of a firearm.” ... features included “the presence of holes that allow[ed] the attachment ... of a barrel through the use of a trunnion and the installation of a hammer and trigger,” and “the presence of laser cuts” that “allow[ed] th[e] flat to be folded by hand without the use of special tools.” ... the laser cuts “would allow” the flat “to be placed in to a commonly available bench vice, and then bent, either using, literally, bare hands, or by using common tools such as pliers.” ...


... The court finds that the metal flat shipped to Prince is not a firearm.  

The court carefully considered the expert testimony of Agent Adam Galbraith, and reviewed the material submitted by the government concerning ATF opinions. However, the court simply does not believe that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and holes constitutes a “receiver,” i.e., a “firearm.”   Rather, the flat piece of metal is somewhat akin to a piece of paper with lines drawn on it as a guide to make a paper airplane. Although making the paper airplane might be the intended use, it is not an airplane until it is properly folded.  Until that time, it is a patterned piece of paper.  

Simply put, this court has no evidentiary or legal basis for holding that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and some holes constitutes, ultimately, a “firearm.”   It may become part of a firearm at some point, but not until further work has been accomplished to allow it to secure the stock, chamber, barrel and other parts.   Until that time, it is not even a true component of a firearm, only a potential component of a firearm.  The statute, as written, does not extend that far.   Because this court finds that the flats are not “firearms,” selling flats is not illegal conduct ...  

... ATF’s investigation ... was initially prompted by ... belief that the flats constituted “firearms” under federal law. As noted, the district court ... rejected the ATF’s view and concluded that the flats did not constitute “firearms” for purposes of federal law.

 

[LiveLife]

This 31 page letter from Michel & Associates shows court filing date of 5/15/14 on their link - http://michellawyers.com/2014/lycurgan-inc-v-jones/'


http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/80-Percent-Receiver-Analysis-for-Forfeiture.pdf

This letter addresses ATF’s finding that the “precursor receivers” at issue are “firearms.” That finding is at odds with the plain meaning of the applicable statute, federal case law, and the ATF’s own prior determinations. The precursor receivers, also known as “receiver blanks,” are “only a potential component of a firearm,” a potential receiver. They do not fit the legal definition of “firearm.” ...

... ATF’s own rulings confirm that products that require milling out of the fire-control cavity, drilling of the selector-level hole, cutting of the trigger slot, drilling of the trigger pin hole, and drilling of the hammer pin hole are not “firearms.” The EP precursor receivers require all of these actions and so cannot be considered “firearms” under law ...

... The creation of the EP precursor receiver is a two part process ... the lighter colored portion is formed. This material is identical to the material used to make the full precursor receiver, except its color ... After the core-piece is cured for two days ... the additional darker colored material is then poured into the mold around and through the core-piece ...

... ATF attempted (on more than one occasion) to classify the precursor receivers in question as a “firearm” ... ATF’s multiple classifications are inconsistent with each other, with past ATF opinions, and with federal law ... These ATF opinions appear to be based solely on unknown or non-existent precedent. They are unfounded conclusory, arbitrary, and capricious.

... ATF’s distinctions between the EP precursor and other AR-type precursors are nonsensical. The material within the fire-control cavity is “the same material as the receiver itself.” No different material is used to make the core-piece than is used to make the rest of the precursor. Second, as discussed above, the core-piece is integral to the precursor ... No fire-control cavity is created.

... ATF reiterates its opinion that an “AR-15 receiver blank” is not classified by ATF as a firearm, but attempts to distinguish the receiver blank from EP’s precursor receiver ... ATF’s analysis ends with that conclusion. But ATF doesn’t explain why. It makes no attempt to justify its conclusion with any citation to authority. There is no statute, regulation, or published ruling that supports ATF’s position. Moreover, as outlined below, standard statutory interpretation, ATF’s past letters, case law, and common sense contradict ATF’s finding.

... ATF is bound to the definition of “firearm” provided in the United States Code and the Federal Regulations. ATF’s position ignores standard rules of statutory construction ...

... The Seventh Circuit Court confirms this interpretation of the statute in U.S. v. McMurty ... upheld a jury instruction that read, “[A] firearm means: any weapon which will expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or any weapon which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or any weapon which may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; or the frame or receiver of such weapon.”

... Precursor receivers and jigs have been on the market with ATF’s blessing for years ... Over the years, jigs have evolved and in some cases become integral to the precursor receiver. They attach to the precursor allowing the consumer to complete the receiver more easily.

... Regardless of whether or not a jig is used the process remains the same: the three holes need to be drilled on each side of the precursor receiver, the fire-control cavity must be hollowed out, and the hole for the trigger must be completed. The EP precursor - like all of the other precursor receivers ATF deemed “non-firearms” - still requires this work to be completed. The fact that the EP precursor shows the purchaser where to drill does not create a “firearm.”

... The identical work to the EP precursor must be done to the other precursors. This same type of situation was examined in-depth in U.S. v. Prince ... The Court of Appeals ... repeatedly referred to ATF’s position as a “mistake of law.” Similarly, in this case, the EP precursor receiver is “only a potential component of a firearms,” not a firearm, and selling it is not illegal conduct.

... the precursor receivers ... even after an hour of modification, the product is still not capable of expelling a projectile with the action of an explosive. The product produced after machining is merely a receiver, which is in need of much more work to operate as a fully functioning “firearm.”

 

[LiveLife]

5/19/14 - From EP Armory's Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory

... that's a lot of lawyer speak. What does that mean for us common folk?

In attorney lingo it is stating that in the course of all prior approved BATFE applications this follows the exact standards as all of the others to a tee. The letter explains this in a lingo that an attorney would understand. It also gives the FTB the opportunity to remove the improper determination letters and us the standpoint of we only wish to return to standard operations within our legal rights. Our main goal is to regain our product, put this behind us and hopefully in the future become the next FFL7 manufacturer of quality products in the US.

 

[tyeo098]

Anyone else gonna order like, 10 once they are available from EP?

 

[Analogkid]

It wouldn't matter if they had a Letter or not. They can and do change their mind on something after the fact. Even years down the road.

 

[dogmush]

It wouldn't matter if they had a Letter or not. They can and do change their mind on something after the fact. Even years down the road.

I hear this a lot, and yet I have never managed to find a product that received an approval letter that got it rescinded without a design change in the product.

Akins added a return spring to his product between approval and the sale and subsequent kerfluffle.

Can anyone come up with an example of the ATF deciding years later that a product was illegal without a change in that product? I'd really like to know if this happens, or is it more of a gun board bogeyman.

 

[barnbwt]

"I hear this a lot, and yet I have never managed to find a product that received an approval letter that got it rescinded without a design change in the product."

Read up on the early PPSH41 demills, and how the ATF retroactively decided that PPSH trunnions were illegal machine guns.

Or on their mind-changing regarding open-bolt semi autos.

Or their mind changing about letting certain unfinished STEN tubes and Uzi flats in the registry (or not) when it was about to close

Or their ruling about Mauser C96 stocks being SBRs, then not, then SBRs, then not, then SBRs, then...

Or their ruling that Thompson Contender pistol/carbine kits were SBRs, then when SCOTUS slapped sense into them, that the high court ruling applied only to T/Cs, and not Uzis, then changed their mind on that

Or...

There's a bunch of these examples, just not very well documented since they each are legally anecdotal and often contain sensitive design details of manufacturer's products. That there is no repository of these letters open to the public or consulted by the ATF tech branch agents* is about 90% of the problem, rather than nefarious intent by the agency itself. Talk to a gun building FFL that deals in semi auto conversions; they'll tell you all sorts of things

TCB

*because they aren't legally binding, and therefore carry no precedent

 

[LiveLife]

From EP Armory's Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory

As some of you have seen on the site we have a new edition of the EP80. We have been in talks with the ATF, FTB as well as the US state attorneys office over the legalities, current ownership and the future of the polymer 80% lower home build. We are glad to say we have came up with a new even better idea that will solidify our footing in the 80% market. We will in the next couple of days be issuing a new model with the BATFE for acceptance on the determination of our current model EP80. We feel that making these small changes to the current design are minimal but better serves you patriots. Keep in mind we have not and will not give up on the EP80 original design.

This new design should hit market within the next couple of months if not sooner along with a new AR10. <------YUP

As for current customers in possession of the original model. We have received direct assurance from the ATF that current customers in possession of the original have nothing to fear. They have given our legal team this assurance in the motion that as long as the person or persons in possession of the current model is of legal status of owning or possessing a firearm to the original GCA statement you will not be visited by a group of badges. Our legal team will be making a direct statement concerning the ATF standpoint this next week.

So what's gunna happen with all the original 80% lowers that some off the dealers still have stored up in the closets?

All dealers in good standing can contact the your representative and prepare orders or get RMA's if wanting to return for new product.

New 80% polymer AR lower - http://www.eparmory.com/product-p/ep80-2.htm

- Recessed biscuit core
- Strengthened rear buffer tower
- Unmarked pin guides
- Precision drilled Pivot and take down pins
- FREE jig sticker system
- New colors available

• Extremely durable kevlar reinforced polymer
• Limited lifetime warranty
• Made in the U.S.A.

 

[LiveLife]

I think this is referring to 80% 1911 blank - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory?fref=nf

Any word on the 1911?

We will be releasing it this year as well. We have been still working on all projects. These projects are funded with revenue from purchases though and lately they have been much smaller than normal. Help us fund the release of the 1911 by making a small purchase. Everything helps. Thanks

 

[LiveLife]

From EP Armory's Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory

... if you allow them to make a deal and say "welllll you can make these new ones, but let us get away with calling your old ones firearms."

Who said they are getting away with anything? In no way did any employee of ours state a deal was being made. We are still in meetings with all agencies to free up this wrongful determination of the EP80. Don't just toss your white flag in that easy.

 

[jerkface11]

Can anyone come up with an example of the ATF deciding years later that a product was illegal without a change in that product? I'd really like to know if this happens, or is it more of a gun board bogeyman

They did it to cav arms. Then after they'd bankrupted the company the ATF decided it was legal after all.

 

[MAKster]

The owner of Cavalry Arms was caught illegally selling firearms to an out of state (California) resident and falsifying records to cover it up. The polymer lowers were not his downfall.

 

[barnbwt]

Cursory net search on Cav Arms history...

They had the receiver halves molded off site. Then they friction welded the halves together on-site.

They had a letter from the ATF allowing this, which was rescinded without bothering to inform them, other than raiding their factory.

The lowers were coming in two halves which were then welded at CavArms. Technical Branch changed their mind about their original opinion after securing two halves together with a LRPK inside (reports vary as to whether glue or rubber bands were used) and successfully getting a couple shots off.

Yes, it’s BS, but anybody contemplating getting a Type 07 should realize that this is the type of BS you will have to put up with. If your business model requires an opinion letter from the ATF to stay open, it’s on pretty shaky ground from the jump-off.

Very true, this. It's also why I don't blame any 80% manufacturer for not going out of their way to get 'approval' for a product that isn't even subject to ATF oversight, legally. Doing so only encourages the agency to make it subject to their scrutiny by ruling it a firearm.

From what I can tell, the approval-change initiated the whole investigation, which then revealed Cav Arms to be a very sloppy FFL (not excusable in the least, but if out of state sales were the best they could pin on him and the loss of his FFL was the most important result of the investigation, it seems unlikely he was "running guns" with criminal intent.) As I read it, the 'falsifying records' was simply CA not keeping proper records, which the ATF asserts was to cover up gun running. The types of violations sound more like a sloppy FFL that doesn't keep proper records and lets sales slip through the cracks. The suggestions of gun-running to Mexico (smack in the middle of F&F in 2010, btw ) and conspiracy by the ATF in several of their statements on the matter I found smacked strongly of exaggeration (which don't even matter because that's not what Cav Arms was charged with). In retrospect, they also smack of the ATF protesting too much.

In short, ATF doubled-back on their ruling without cause, and set about finding a way to revoke Cav Arms' license, which turned out to be really easy for them. It's worth noting a large portion of their case was dismissed, including the portion that initiated this whole mess, apparently. To be honest, perhaps the biggest failing in the whole story may have been the ATF who obviously was not auditing their FFLs properly, and for years, allowing the problems to grow (makes me wonder if they were also intentionally giving FFLs lax oversight in addition to funneling guns to Mexico during this time to get more illegal guns at crime scenes. Then using the ensuing mess to push for additional tracking measures and authority as they did)

Following a search of Cavalry's offices and Nealon's Mesa home in 2008, agents said Nealon had illegally sold more than 40 weapons to a California resident who often stored those weapons at Nealon's home.

Doesn't quite sound like gun-running, to me. Sounds more like a guy helping a buddy in an AWB out, and violating federal sales laws in the process.

TCB

 

[LiveLife]

Thanks for all of your comments.

While I sympathize with circumstances surrounding Calvary Arms, they manufactured AR lower receivers classified as "firearms" by ATF. GWACS Armory now sells Calvary Arms polymer lowers as CAV-15 and purchases require going through a FFL - http://www.gwacsarmory.com/faq/'

As I indicated in past posts, the focus of this thread is about the legalities of 80% AR blanks (and other 80% blanks like 1911) that are not classified as "firearms" by the ATF and thus purchases do not require going through a FFL.

I think keeping the discussions focused will help us stay on course in support of 80% blanks.

 

[LiveLife]

6/3/14 From EP Armory's Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory

Will you guys be taking advanced orders?

Yes when we get a 100% release date in place along with the determination.

 

[LiveLife]

From EP Armory's Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory

Final decision!!

We will not be pre-selling the EP80-2. We agree and will not be selling until the product is in stock and the proper paperwork/determination has been received.

E P Armory staff have the upmost respect for all of you in supporting us in this decision. Even though we are 100% in stating our original design was 100% legal in the first place we are going to move forward in the completion stages of the EP80-2. The product should be available within we are speculating 6-8 weeks.

In the mean time your continued support is greatly appreciated and we will continue working on all of our future ideas to ensure their release.

 

[LiveLife]

From EP Armory's website (announcement is pertinent to the "old" EP80 80% poly lower with distinct biscuit above the fire control area/protruding index points and not the "new" EP80-2 80% poly lower with flat fire control area without protruding index points) - http://www.eparmory.com/Current-News-s/1845.htm

6-12-2014

TO PURCHASERS OF EP80 POLYMER PRECURSOR RECEIVERS

After months of effort and bureaucratic shuffling, our attorneys at Michel & Associates were recently able to confirm with ATF attorneys that individual purchasers/owners of EP80 precursor polymer receivers do not need to worry about ATF taking legal action against them for their purchase or completion of EP80 receivers, nor their continued possession of these products.

ATF attorneys have finally confirmed, although not yet in writing, that the ATF’s interest in individual purchasers of EP80 receivers extends only to those individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing any firearms. ATF will be cross-checking the list of purchasers of the EP80 product with the list of prohibited persons, and police will likely visit anyone on both lists. So if you possess an EP80 receiver and are prohibited from possessing firearms, you should consider consulting with an attorney immediately.

Otherwise, according to the ATF attorneys, purchasers of an EP80 who purchased or finished the precursor receiver but who are not prohibited from possessing firearms should have nothing to worry about--so long as they do not use the EP80 to build a type of firearm that would be illegal for them to possess under state or federal law (such as an “assault weapon” or “short barreled” rifle) or use a completed firearm in an illegal way.

The ATF investigation into EP Armory and other sellers of the EP80 product remains open. But EP Armory and other sellers of the EP80 product are vehemently disputing ATF’s position that the unfinished EP80 polymer receivers are “firearms” as that term is defined under federal law.

 

[barnbwt]

So,
-EP broke no law by making the lowers
-Nor by selling them to prohibited persons (since these were not firearms)
-ATF wanted to crack down on prohibited persons making guns
-Limited investigations was too hard for an agency that prefers drag nets
-ATF had no authority over EP's business (non firearm/FFL)
-ATF 'invented' a justification for getting the records they'd wanted all along by the 80% ruling
-ATF uses newfound self-granted jurisdiction to conduct a search/seizure they had no justification for previously
-ATF drops threat of criminal investigations against those whose rights were violated to keep it all out of the courts, even though manufacture w/o license and sales to PP's are serious crimes they are specifically charged with pursuing.

Just so the buyers of these lowers know; your sales records of non-firearm items were seized for examination by an agency restricted to firearms issues (in this case), whether or not you are a 'prohibited person' and will be retained in perpetuity.

TCB

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

barnbwt ... thanks for staying on top of this and for your EXCELLENT recap of BATFE's behavior.

While I doubt anything will come of this, I hold out hope that someone will take BATFE apart and seriously punish all who had anything to do with this travesty (prison, loss of benefits and pensions). Were it up to me ... there wouldn't be too much left of the agency. (This episode being just one of too many violations of trust and outright criminal behavior

 

[LiveLife]

6/18/14 From EP Armory's Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory

Update Patriots

Tomorrow I am meeting in Fresno Ca along with members of our legal staff. We have been invited up north to ATF regional headquarters to go over some of our paperwork that was seized as well as meet with the US State attorney handling this case. We also will be meeting with ATF legal team as to what possible outcome we can expect. I am hoping for this to be a good mediation that can help bring all misunderstandings proper clarification. I am also hoping for this to be beneficial to both parties. The ATF still has the ball in there court and has the ultimate chance to find a proper and fair ruling on what the EP80 is to be determined. We of course feel it is not a firearm as do many others and I feel ATF does not because of the misunderstanding in the beginning. I know that both parties can benefit from a proper clarification.

As for tomorrow, I have met with my staff as well as my loved ones on the possibility that things do not work out in my favor. I ask that all patriots have the outcome in your thoughts and hope for the proper clarification. I also want to thank all of you for the support we have received in these past months whether it be by purchase or by contribution. Without all of your support and good thoughts we would not have been able to stay in business. Our outcome is ultimately up to our consumers. WE THANK YOU!!

Chris Cook

 

[rdhood]

Taking posts #101 and #102 together, it would seem that until you have created something (or created something that is readily convertable to something) that will "expel a projectile by the action of an explosive", then you don't have a receiver.

A flat is not a receiver. A chunk of aluminum in the shape of an ar lower... with holes drilled, but fire control NOT cavity NOT removed (and cannot "readily" be removed), would also fit this description.


If just a few defendants would fight it out as in United States v. Judah Prince, the BATFE would be forced to abandon their arbitrary and capricious rules regarding what is a receiver. You can already see how they are squirming out of this one. They got their customer list. They hurt EP's business. Now they will "settle" so as to never put this in front of a judge or jury. As long as they never go before a judge/jury (who might reign them in, as in the USvJohnaPrince case), they are free to harass and intimidate at will.

 

[LiveLife]

6/19/14 From EP Armory's Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/eparmory

Update

We met at the ATF regional office and had only two agents meet us. No US state attorney or ATF legal to explain the details of what exactly they were informed of as wrongdoing. We were able to reclaim some personal information that had nothing to do with the "case". The complete details of the meeting I think would be best left quiet at the moment but I do believe I see bright lights at the end of this roller coaster tunnel.

Pertaining to the EP80-2. We have almost completed our new tooling and should be ready for the market extremely soon. We will be at the same time releasing a few new and possibly old <-products along with it.
Thank you all for your supportive words in the last message and we look forward to supplying you all with home builds!!!!

Chris Cook

 

[rdhood]

The complete details of the meeting I think would be best left quiet at the moment but I do believe I see bright lights at the end of this roller coaster tunnel.

Of course they do. This is not going to be prosecuted. This was never going to be prosecuted. This is simple/pure extortion by the BATFE: "Give us what we want or we will bankrupt you in court, and we won't even let it get to a decision by judge or jury. We'll just stay in the game until you run out of money".

 

[Xfire68]

Representative Thomas Massie in response to Mr. Jone's argument:

Mr Jones's attempt's at Jedi mind tricks did not work!

 

[LIGHTINGKAY]

What EP Arms Contends vs BATFE-FTB "we disagree"

Upon an EP Arms re-request, for a non firearm classification for their EP80 AR-15 variant blank, as requested, as correction(s) to the original ATF firearm classification, this EP80 AR-15 variant blank is considered a firearm.

That stands!

SEE DETAILS BELOW

EP Arms initial classification request and re-request from the ATF, by Attorney Jason Davis, on behalf of EP Arms and their manufacturing of this prototype, EP80 AR-15 variant blank, was answered in great detail by the ATF on each of the requests and points of contention.

ATF explained on the original first point of analysis, of EP Arms EP80 AR-15 prototype variant blank. Is it is considered a firearm under applicable laws, and could be classified as such, if not only because the excess material indexing the location(s) for the selector, hammer and trigger pin hole(s) to be drilled out, is on its own merit, sufficient to classify EP Arms EP80 AR-15 variant blank (sample) as a firearm receiver.

This excess material which is indexing the location for the holes to be drilled is, by itself, sufficient to classify EP Arms EP80 AR-15 variant blank, as a firearm receiver. Defined by the 1968 Gun Control Act-Firearms Control Act, 18 U.S.C § 921(a)(3). GCA implementing regulation 27 CFR § 478.11, defining "firearm or receiver.....!"

Details not initially provided to the ATF, concerning EP Arms manufacturing process, where additionally provided to the ATF, by Attorney Jason Davis, which where not included originally, in the initial request by EP Arms, for a non firearm classification determination from the ATF for this EP80 AR-15 variant blank.

Where the “biscuit” is not meant to fill in the fire control cavity, thereby destroying the firearm. The ATF conceded this point based on additional manufacturing information provided by Jason Davis on behalf of EP Arms.

Rather the “biscuit” is formed around a nylon core, that is referred to by EP Arms, the “biscuit” in EP Arms re-request for a non firearm classification.

Contending there is no point, in EP Arms manufacturing process, where the EP80 AR-15 variant blanks, fire-control cavity is “back filled” with polymer of a different color than the remaining color of the EP80 AR-15 variant blank.

This “biscuit” outlines in it's entirety, the exact size in three dimensions, the entire fire-control cavity. Accurately differentiating, while allowing the easy and readily identifiable plastic to be removed, creating a functional firearm.

The entire fire-control cavity is created using the “biscuit” and therefore is properly classified as a firearm under the 1968 Gun Control Act-Firearms Control Act, 18 U.S.C § 921(a)(3). BATFE-FTB "we disagree" there is not a fire-control cavity created.

ATF has been consistent and has long maintained, it is at this point in any manufacturing process, where indexing or the machining of the fire-control cavity, such as this EP80 AR-15 variant blank, is indexed, in this case, by the “biscuit." Is where an AR-15 variant blank becomes classified as a firearm.

ATF has upheld the original determination point(s) on the firearm classification, for this EP80 AR-15 variant blank. The EP80 AR-15 Variant blank has been determined as a "firearm" on the second point of analysis from the ATF, with the initial firearm classification determination. As it is when at what point(s) and why EP Arms EP80 AR-15 variant blank or any other AR-15 variant blank that has been indexed or machined for the fire-control cavity recess area, is when it will be classified as a firearm.

EP Arms EP80 AR-15 variant blank is using the “biscuit” to index all of the fire-control cavity. This is where and why and at what point(s) EP Arms EP80 AR-15 variant blank becomes classified as a “firearm” on the second point of the ATF analysis.

The indexing using excess material, on the first point of analysis by Technology Branch at the ATF, was and is sufficient alone to make the classification by the ATF, that EP Arms EP80 AR-15 variant blank, as a firearm a defined by GCA 1968.

Sincerely Bart Kay