EP Armory 80% poly lower update

[Ryanxia]

LIGHTINGKAY - Source on this recent development?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

LIGHTINGKAY - Source on this recent development?

This "development" seems to be the ATF summarizing what they have said in other ways, namely that they were wrong about the cavity making it a "firearm" but the raised index marks make it a "firearm" anyway.

It's not entirelly clear what Bart is quoting and what are his own words but the sentance:

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.

Makes me think this was just an ATF letter in response to a redetermination request and not a court ruling of any kind.

Mike

 

[LIGHTINGKAY]

Clarifcation

Among the misinformation on the BATFE, is that there was never a determination made by the BATFE that their determination of this EP80 variant was a "firearm" in that the BATFE did not make it determination based upon the scenario the "Biscuit" was back filled the Fire Control Cavity.

What did occur was the BATFE included in the first response for clarity, that if that where the case the Fire Control Cavity was "backfilled" that would be their position on the matter. It was a firearm with a biscuit meant to destroy the "firearm."

BATFE included this to cover this possible scenario, since the BATFE was not given the manufacturing info in the first request to the BATFE.

BOTTOM LINE

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). ATF disagrees there is not a fire-control cavity created and EP Arms contend at no point is the fire-control cavity created. ATF-FTB states in writing states BATFE-"we disagree."

 

[barnbwt]

they were wrong about the cavity making it a "firearm" but the raised index marks make it a "firearm" anyway.

Herein lies the rub, though, since the ATF has historically played very fast and loose with whether 'marking' locations of the transformational features constitutes their construction in all manner of other firearms, leading to numerous lawsuits, typically finding the ATF at fault. Because the fact is, whatever the ATF wants to argue;
-The actual EP product cannot be argued to be 'practically' a firearm by any rational measure
-The NFA/GCA do not regulate intent, but actual product
-Markings are not holes or FCG pockets

So, EP could theoretically sell these with a disclaimer "only intended for the manufacture of AR15 receivers," but that doesn't mean the items magically become finished receivers. Just as an M16-compatible airsoft receiver "not intended for use in a real firearm" magically isn't a machinegun in the ATF's eyes.* It's just the ATF abusing that little "readily convertible" chestnut our forbears so thoughtfully en-vague-ened the NFA with back in the day. To often our side falls into the trap of letting the ATF dictate (not define, as is their legal prerogative) what constitutes a firearm with impunity, even when it stretches the imagination. They are regulators, not legislators, and we should not tolerate them making up new rules from whole cloth. Straw purchase, constructive intent, and intention to sell without a license are the three means by which ATF have so exceeded their authority. Nowhere in the NFA/GCA or elsewhere do these terms appear, nowhere are there official/binding guidelines delineating them, and yet people are brought up on charges under the auspices of the law through these arguments, every day. I forget if the NFA even explicitly states the receiver is the firearm (and in any case is still so antiquated it cannot logically cope with a modular dual-receiver system like the AR15)

TCB

*I think it could be argued that a bare receiver itself is not a machinegun by the legal definition, but rather just a firearm. In the case of an AR, tools and time are both required to fully assemble it into a firing weapon, and it could easily be assembled as a weapon that does not meet the strict legal definition of firing multiple rounds with a single trigger action. So how can the ATF argue the receiver itself is a machinegun prior to assembly? Because "guns," that's why, and because the law is so badly inadequate at categorizing gun anatomy that the ATF has been given broad authority to illegally expand the original law into something remotely satisfactory, but almost entirely arbitrary at this point

 

[LIGHTINGKAY]

Clarification on post #129

FYI

As it relates to the AR-15 variant blanks, only. BATFE 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 any AR-15 variant blank becomes classified as a firearm.

BATFE 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 to be a "firearm" on the second point of analysis, the "(biscuit)" aspect from the BATFE, in the initial firearm classification determination.

As it is when and at what point(s) and therefore 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 BATFE analysis.

Post#129s quote "they were wrong about the cavity making it a "firearm" but the raised index marks make it a "firearm" anyway" Is not correct could be very misleading.

The indexing using excess material, on the first point of analysis by Technology Branch at the ATF, (excess material) aspect 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. The firearm was not determined to be a firearm based on this BATFE point made to Jason Davis, Representing EP Arms by the BATFE.

RE: "I forget if the NFA even explicitly states the receiver is the firearm (and in any case is still so antiquated it cannot logically cope with a modular dual-receiver system like the AR15)"

Answer
Implementing regulations GCA-FCA, implementing regulation, 27 CFR § 478.11, defining "firearm or receiver."

Paraphrased
Firearm frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.

Very clear and the AR-15 has been in service since 1958, In 1968 the Gun Control Act-Firearms Control Act was implemented as law. How the conclusion the 1968 GCA is antiquated, in relation to a dual receiver system like the AR-15 makes little or no sense to me.

Sincerely Bart

 

[barnbwt]

Maybe "inept" instead of "antiquated?" I used the word because it is clear the marking requirements and many other aspects seem to have been crafted with guns like the single receiver M1 Garand in mind. Just like how 922r was written almost explicitly for the FAL and G3. Because the upper receiver of an FAL, G3, STGW57, and many, many other guns is considered the reciever, that's why I find the marking/designating scheme wanting. I understand the need to make a determination, but that doesn't mean it is not arbitrary.

My previous argument about the 80% determination was to remind people, since many have lost sight due to the ATF's creeping incrementalism, that firearms are the ATF's actual mandate, and this ever expanding field of "precursors" is drifting further and further from that purpose. They may have been 'consistent' with regard to ARs, but they do not generate legal precedent, nor are bound by it. The qualifications they look for in ARS do not match the criteria in other guns, even those with similar layout and function (AR70, for example), strongly indicating the AR15 rules are completely arbitrary. The fact is, being readily convertible is a function of an item's physical state of completion, and not a bureau ruling. I do think it is high time that some of the ATF rulings are argued in open court instead of the Tech Branch, and I am glad EP seems set on pursuing this. A block of plastic requiring hours of finish machining before it requires another hour or so of assembly is neither readily capable of firing fixed ammunition, nor meeting other criteria that make it fall within the actual text of the NFA (the GA is bigger, I'm still reading it ). Let's not forget the ATF tried to get flat sheet metal that was "indexed" classified, and was smacked down by courts. Logically, they could be deemed to be overreaching by courts here, as well.

TCB

 

[coloradokevin]

Ugh. I'm so confused on this subject right now. Reading the last page or two of posts made it even worse.

Obviously this is a very important topic for the BATFE to consider, since we don't want felon gangsters going out and buying these parts, only to mill them into guns on the street corners! If we save only one life it will be worth it! Talk about over regulation of a non-issue in terms of gun control… the people with the time and skills, who are willing to put forth the effort to convert 80% lowers into firearms, are not the people we need to worry about having firearms in the first place (unless we accept the idea that the government just doesn't want us to have guns — hmmm).

 

[LiveLife]

We can speculate all we want but we have been down this road before and when disagreement arise as to what is a firearm or not, it is ultimately up to the courts to determine that.

Just a few years ago, BATFE "viewed" that AK-47 flats with laser perforations and holes were firearms and acted accordingly but the court disagreed and ruled they were not firearms. Now we are disagreeing whether polymer AR 80% blanks are firearms or not. What's next? 1911 blanks to be "viewed" by BATFE technical branch to be firearms? What if 1911/AK-47 blanks are made from polymer with laser perforations and holes and BATFE "views" them to be firearms? I believe it will be up to the courts to determine whether they are firearms or not.

BTW, here's the link to 2010 court ruling - 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.

 

[LIGHTINGKAY]

Comment on Post #132

The fact you seem to accept the idea this is a very important topic for the BATFE to consider since we don't want felon gangsters going out and buying these parts, only to mill them into guns on the street corners! Shows you very much understand the core essence of the matter.

And I agree very skepticaly, your point in which I believe your very skeptical as well that perhaps the government (we the people) just doesn't want us to have guns.

BATFE needs to be scrutinized and understood. I think that is one point many should accept as a concept.

Rest assured, we can be sure, without ATF regulation, it is only "law abiding citizens" who buy the illegal EP-80 AR-15 variant blanks and would be the only responders "law abiding citizens" as advertised using Ares rooftop mounted sign, since it is legal to purchase, according to the sign, buying one or perhaps more than one illegal EP80 AR-15 variant blank legally. No serial number or registration needed!

The anonymity of a 80% percent receiver that is converted with only basic machine work, that is then converted into a firearm thereby allows individuals to obtain, use and sell weapons they would be otherwise be prohibited from possessing.

I do understand your likely confused on the technical aspects we like to
discuss.

Sincerely Bart

 

[LiveLife]

Bart, the premise of this thread was not the illegal manufacture and sale of firearms by criminals, which law enforcement agencies are duty bound to carry out under their jurisdiction to investigate and bring charges against which I wholeheartedly support. If you are part of such agencies, I respect your hard work and diligence in bringing justice to criminals who break federal and state laws.

But that's not the focus of this thread. Our concern is "law abiding citizens" buying what was considered to be not firearms (as "80%" 1911/AR metal blanks existed for decades) but now being told they are firearms. Most of us just want the satisfaction of building firearms with our hands that we can enjoy and be proud of which I think is part of shooting sports that many often do when customizing and accessorizing their favorite firearms.

The way I see it, just because the evolution of firearms progressed from steel to aluminum to polymer, the similar progression of 1911/AR blank material transitioning from metal to polymer should not take away from our desire to pursue the "legal" activity of building firearms for ourselves. I think many feel that the government is trying to limit their desire to pursue their favored hobby activity (can you blame us based on what we have experienced the past several decades, especially in California?) when polymer allows easier option for us to do so.

Many of us cannot afford the expensive CNC machine but can afford to buy drill presses. So is it fair that those with money can enjoy their hobby by working on metal 1911/AR blanks but those without money cannot? Us "law abiding citizens" cannot stop criminals from manufacturing and selling illegal firearms like we cannot stop drunk drivers from endangering motorists on highways but somehow being penalized for wanting to pursue our hobby.

I think on an unofficial level, BATFE has quietly won this battle as various polymer blank manufacturers have decided to modify the designs and submitted to BATFE technical branch for determination letters. So at this point in time, whether EP80 80% AR blanks were "viewed" as firearms by BATFE is moot as EP Armory will likely only be selling the newer version along with other polymer blank manufacturer when and if they receive the determination letter. However, the actions of the manufacturers does not mean the courts will rule the same.

Personally, my life is short and I cannot wait for this issue to be dragging on forever for me to pursue my favored hobby. So I have moved on and assembling my ARs on "legal" serialized metal AR stripped lowers that are comparably priced around $50. I noticed that EP Armory has primarily expanded to selling firearms and other shooting/reloading accessories/components and may not have to rely on the income from selling polymer blanks.

So Bart, looks like BATFE won and you are correct in BATFE holding the upper hand over the polymer blank manufacturers and can dictate to them how the 80% blanks need to be made. No further discussion on this forum will change BATFE's decision unless ruled by a court (if that ever happens). What a great country we live in. I guess at least I can look forward to the next elections and "hope" we can elect lawmakers more supportive of our hobbies.

You have a nice one.

 

[LIGHTINGKAY]

Post 131 and 133

Post 131 and 133.

I believe we should go back to the basics. The reason there is the great debate, is EP Arms, designed a product that clearly, Was at minimum quite close to a “firearm”.

If EP Arms was competent this requires EP Arms to clearly have known this may be, in high likely hood considered a “firearm” by the BATFE and not just another generic legal AR-15 variant blank receiver.

Since, you seemed to concede that with the AR-15 variant blank. The ATF has been consistent and has long maintained, it is at this point in any manufacturing process, where indexing and/or 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.

This EP80 “biscuit” outlines in its entirety, the exact size and 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)

If EP Arms obtained the BATFE determination before manufacturing, distributing for sale to non FFL distributor(s). And EP Arms and their distributor(s), did all of this as well, even after being apprized by the BATFE. The EP Arms EP80 AR-15 variant blank receiver, is defined as a “firearm”.

We would not be “speculating” about the BATFE and all the allegations that have come out of EP Arms and Ares Armory and others, claiming EP Arms and Ares Armory are victims of the BATFE. Nonsense!

The points you make and remade I read and thought about them. I don't address too many, because I am trying to keep the post on the EP80 and developments etc.

As well on the receiver being the firearm question. And this may apply to the other firearms you mentioned as as being problematic in defining them.

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B), a firearm is “any combination of parts either designed or intended” from which a firearm can be “readily assembled”.

18 U.S.C. §921(a)(4)(C) includes a “lower receiver”.


Finally on the PRINCE v. UNITIED STATES, the court ruled the Special Agent in the field made a mistake of law and Prince prevailed ultimately. This situation does not follow the same fact pattern, among an important one is this. The Firearms Technology Branch made the determination twice, the EP80 is a firearm and not a ATF Special Agent(s).

BATFE Fire Arms Technology Branch provides expert technical support to ATF, other Federal agencies, Congress and the general public.

In closing I would agree it would be "speculation" to guess as to whether the Court will find the BATFE made an error in the law on the EP80.

But point is here, build your prototype, submit prototype to the ATF-FTB for a non firearm determination, before manufacturing them for sale.

If you believe the ATF has made a mistake of law, litigate the question, as to avoid litigating them in the context of criminal charges.

You just have to ask yourself, why EP Arms and Ares Armory proceeded to conduct business before a firearm determination was made.

Sincerely Bart

 

[LiveLife]

So, are you saying polymer 80% AR blanks without the index protrusions and flush fire control cavity top such as James Madison Tactical are not firearms as they have the same features as other metal 80% AR blanks that received BATFE determination letters but are just made from polymer?

 

[LIGHTINGKAY]

Post #135

Hi, the premise of the EP80 issue is it is illegal or not. Once more I'm just keeping this to the AR-15 variant blank receiver. BATFE has not made any changes to their policy that any persons that are not covered under the GCA as a manufacturer or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. Is still fully allowed to purchase a legal AR15 variant blank, finish and assemble one AR15 without any serial number or manufacturers mark. Though you should mark your weapon should you lose possession of it. You cannot, sell, give away, transfer, or leave the weapon to others when you die. Considering today’s Gun Laws, I think that's a pretty fair deal.

So while this is a good deal, people are taking advantage of this good deal as a loop hole. That is within the law just outlined, however people and are abusing this aspect using the strategy as a Scam trying to get around the laws. CNC Machine Shops are in on the action as well.

Ares Armory was mentioned in the LUIS CORTEZ, EMILIANO CORTEZ case somewhat recently. Where a known felon, bought from a FFL a firearm, machined from a legal blank, without form 4473.

Affidavit excerpt from the LUIS CORTEZ, EMILIANO CORTEZ affidavit from Special Agent Jerry Donn will give you an idea there is another world out there. Separate from our harmless legal hobby as a law abiding person.


The Affidavit excerpts below of ATF Special Agent Jerry Donn, is describing the details of five suspects among them one actual FFL holder using a "machine" to finish machining the AR-15 variant into a "firearm" with no serial number or manufacture marking as required, nor was the transfer or sale recorded, and the undercover person left with a completed (firearm) as defined under the 1968 Gun Control Act, a illegal AR-15 (firearm) from a AR-15 legal variant, from a FFL. In possession of a convicted felon, a paid ATF informant (UC#4.

72. UC#4 then met with KASPERSON. KASPERSON told UC#4 that he had one (i.e. an AR-15 lower receiver) ready to go (referring to the lower receiver already being milled out), and he could swap UC#4’ s AR-15 blank (just purchased) for a milled out one (i.e. an AR-15 lower receiver). UC#4 asked KASPERSON if he had to actually complete some of the milling and KASPERSON said, “It’s kind of a myth that you have to do it.” KASPERSON told UC#4 that he didn’t use a CNC machine and that he had his own FFL. KASPERSON said his business, GCGW, was a separate business and he just rented a spot from RPA.

73. UC#4 asked KASPERSON if KASPERSON could manufacture a firearm. KASPERSON replied, “Yeah I can manufacture,” but if he did, he would have to serialize the firearm. KASPERSON told UC#4 when ATF was at the business, he showed them his machine, and told ATF what he intended to use the machine for. KASPERSON stated to UC#4 that he had asked ATF if they had a problem with what he was doing. KASPERSON continued to say that ATF said no, since KASPERSON was a separate entity from RPA.






I need you to read more carefully, while the material of the blank needs to be integral to the blank. The issue is really not much if anything to do with using a polymer. The EP80 problem is the two step injection molding process, with plastic being injected at different times therefore it is not integral to the blank, but could be made that way. As a aluminum billet would be.

As I have said, it is the indexing and or machining of the Fire-Control Cavity is wherein the rub lays, as you like to describe it. This apply to all AR-15 variant blanks, and other solid billet blanks have previously been determined by the FTB. To have been indexed in the fire control cavity area. Example: indexing the location(s) for the selector, hammer and trigger pin hole(s) to be drilled out. Where the sample was subsequently classified as a “firearm” this AR-15 solid billet variant receiver blank (sample) as a firearm receiver.

It not a question of money, it is a question of law.

Really, I know you have been feed a lot of misinformation, it is standard for any AR-15 variant blank manufacturer to request a letter of determination, FTB is there to serve. Polymer AR-15 variant blank receivers are legal, it is not the Polymer that is the issue. And we have covered the issue is, indexing and machining of the fire control cavity.

It may be frustrating to you and that's not my intent, but I am doing my best to be objective, your free to build your AR-15. I do not see this affecting you, and my opinion is your far better off than you would be using a EP80, you can squeeze the magazine walls inwards.

BATFE is not against Polymer, okay!

Sincerely Bart

 

[LIGHTINGKAY]

Post #137

James Madision Tactical is awaiting a FTB Letter of Determination. Therefore my advice is to buy it, if you like it, after they give you a copy of the LOD-FTB non firearm determination.

From your picture it appears to be okay. Can not tell if there is writing on the sides, might be an issue. As long as the polymer is integral where the Fire Control Cavity is, it looks good.

MY issue is this:

If you bought an AR-15 variant receiver from Ares Armory and the manufacturer, EP Armory and Ares Armory knew this receiver you bought was formally classified as illegal to manufacture, distribute or posses. AS FORMALLY NOTIFIED BY THE ATF in writing.

And you where irresponsibly ignorant about the legalities. Even if you believe you're not responsible as an individual, to insure what you purchased was indeed legal and not illegal as officaly determined by the ATF.

And along with Ares Armory advertising and any additional statements to you, it is legal for you buy and posses this particular AR-15 variant, that has been officaly classified by the ATF, as illegal to manufacture, distribute, sale, possess this particular, AK-15 variant lower receiver, all of which are considered firearms under the Firearms Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

Which means a a matter of Law, EP Armory and Ares Armory cannot legally engage in the business of dealing in this firearm, this particular (AK-15 variant) without an letter of determination from the ATF, the AK-15 variant in question is not a firearm.

Which would have you possibly unknowingly in possession, illegally of a firearm in violation of the 1968 Gun Control Act, Firearms Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

Would you have an excuse or rational reason, hopefully as a matter of law explanation from you as to why EP Armory, Ares Armory or yourself is not accountable, to insure their is strict compliance with the law.

Given a choice to buy a legal AR-15 variant as declared in writing from the ATF as legal, versus buying AR-15 variant that is illegal, as declared in writing by the ATF.

Which AR-15 variant would you purchase, if you where to purchase an AR-15 variant. A legal AR-15 variant or an illegal AR-15 variant?????????????????

 

[LiveLife]

BATFE is not against Polymer, okay!

You seem to post with a certain level of certainty and authority. Do you work for BATFE to be making such statements?

And when will BATFE issue determination letters to the newest generation of polymer 80% AR blanks? I believe James Madison Tactical, Poly80 and EP Armory all submitted their newest products for determination letters.

 

[LiveLife]

affidavit from Special Agent Jerry Donn will give you an idea there is another world out there. Separate from our harmless legal hobby as a law abiding person.

I have family members in law enforcement (PD/SD) and is painfully aware of the harsh realities of life. Furthermore, living in a metropolitan city where gang related crime is a daily occurrence, pursuing shooting and reloading as a hobby not only provides much needed diversion from realities of life but also greater comfort in knowing my family is prepared when 911 will not help if a home invasion robbery occurs. Sadly, criminals will never stop committing crimes.

But I hope BATFE realizes (at least here on THR) WE ARE NOT CRIMINALS - just a bunch of law abiding citizens who enjoy and pursue the shooting sports as hobbies. I absolutely support BATFE bringing down living hell on those criminals who break the law but feel the collateral burn as an innocent bystander who is just trying to stay on the right side of the law.

So while this is a good deal, people are taking advantage of this good deal as a loop hole. That is within the law just outlined, however people and are abusing this aspect using the strategy as a Scam trying to get around the laws. CNC Machine Shops are in on the action as well.

Well, at least the polymer 80% blanks will remove the CNC machine shops from the picture as we can use our own drill presses to do our own work.

And yes, it is a good deal and one that is within the law as you posted. And some people will always abuse any aspect of laws or regulations that are imposed now and will be imposed in the future. That is simply a fact of life and us law abiding citizens pay taxes so agencies such as BATFE can enforce the law.

Just don't treat us the same as the ones breaking the law.

 

[Willie Sutton]

Is still fully allowed to purchase a legal AR15 variant blank, finish and assemble one AR15 without any serial number or manufacturers mark. Though you should mark your weapon should you lose possession of it. You cannot, sell, give away, transfer, or leave the weapon to others when you die.


Nonsense. These can be sold without restriction after manufacture, as long as the maker isn't engaged in the business of making them. This has been gone over time and time again.

So for all of the spouting of "the facts", you don't understand the basics of the legalities regarding these. You've got a little more reading to do. Just sayin'...



Willie

.

 

[Sam1911]

You've got a little more reading to do. Just sayin'...

Agreed. When speaking authoritatively about what the law IS and what the BATFE's rulings and intents ARE, it is best not to be mistaken about other, closely related, technical legal points like whether you can sell or bequeath an unserialized, home-made firearm.

It sort of ruins the veneer of credibility, you know?

 

[Frosty Dave]

As it relates to the AR-15 variant blanks, only. BATFE 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 any AR-15 variant blank becomes classified as a firearm.

“...has been consistent...” No.
“...and has long maintained...” Depends on your definition of 'long.'

In this photo is an example of an 80% lower from the period of ~2000 and later. The cavity is completely machined, and ready for the home builder to drill the required holes for springs and pins and thread as needed. Every 80% vendor sold unfinished lowers similar to this one and each vendor had its own determination letter posted on its website.

Then in 2008 or 2009, ATF decided to “clarify” its rulings and washed these pieces out of existence, to be replaced by today's “clarified” untouched FC cavity. They never admitted that they changed the rules. They "clarified" one ruling into another.

The fact is, ATF has not been consistent in their interpretation of when a blank becomes an AR-15 firearm. They change when the wind suits them, and they last changed their mind about 6 years ago.

 

[LIGHTINGKAY]

Post #141

Hey,

I'd like the opportunity to write more later, but in short. I am frustrated as you get, because you revert back to Auto Pilot. The misinformation about the BATFE in general. I'd like you to explain what has you perceiving ATF looks at THR as their concern.

So I could see if I can understand your perspective better.
I am not conveying anything, least not meaning to convey, you or anyone here on THR is of concern in the least to the ATF.

My perspective the, ATF cares less about your activities than you might think. Is not a threat to you, or is the ATF after placing hardships upon you.

As you did post, the ATF is in the regulation business, don't make the laws, and what is of great concern to the ATF, is your potential safety being compromised by people who are the ones that would cause you too want to be armed.

Since I like you and I think we both gained in our back and forth discussion, in so far as you can see the ATF did not just wake one morning and decide polymer is illegal. And you really seem to understand the technical points now of the indexing and machining of the fire control cavity. ATF views these aspects as if the AR15 variant blanks where same as fully completed.

So on your post 137, yes what you said is exactly what I am saying being more direct.

We need to realize for popular marketing, James Madison and others play off the we love to hate that pain in the ass ATF, so we are asking now with hardship, asking for determinations letters.

As I said, don't forget it is standard, has been to ask for them. Does every one probably not, those would be the ones that have the basic basic hunk of metal, but when changing designs, you will always ask for a LOD in advance, unless there is something else going on.

Now if you wanted, I could tell you, EP Arms has some points going for them, I do not think this is a slam dunk, per say.

As I pointed out, EP Arms needed only to ask. Litigate their contentions in civil court if denied, before breaking the law, now trying to make their case with criminal charges pending.

But if you reread my post, you should start to see, that EP Arms, Ares Armory where not acting in your best interest or mine. Just theirs as they saw it.

And I may talk about how this fiasco may hurt you in regards to this matter causing laws being taking away on your rights as of now to build your AR-15 sooner than you may think. You should be pissed at EP Arms and Ares Armory more so.

I'm excited for you in building a rocking kick ass AR-15. My approach is to keep it light as possible.

Enjoy, I can see, I have some post challenges online here, more misinformation restated.

I really want to see people not get into trouble with misinformation and that includes me.

As needed, we will both keep learning here on THR, least have some fun talking about this! I do!

I've made an error or two over the last 5 months!

The CNC issue is only about this scope, that many are machining blanks into firearms, for profit to the people such as convicted felons. In a scope, that is far larger than you might realize. Using a CNC is legal if you follow the GCA. Think about that.
Sincerely Bart

 

[barnbwt]

If you bought an AR-15 variant receiver from Ares Armory and the manufacturer, EP Armory and Ares Armory knew this receiver you bought was formally classified as illegal to manufacture, distribute or posses. AS FORMALLY NOTIFIED BY THE ATF in writing.

Here's the funny thing(s) about this whole 'ATF approval' conceit;
-The ATF rulings aren't actually legally binding; they're a gentleman's agreement regarding prosecution targets
-The ATF rulings carry no precedent, and are frequently conflicting
-The ATF has changed and reversed itself countless times
-The ATF has no authority over anything it deems not a 'firearm', which a self-defeating logical differentiation if you think about it
-You are not required to seek an approval letter in the first place, nor is it a good idea to do so 'just to be safe'

By advocating that people who reasonably expect their goods cannot be readily made into working firearms submit their products for regulatory review, you expand the scope of the ATF's authority. Once the scope spreads, items that were once clearly beyond its purview are now closer to the periphery of its domain. Saw cut receivers are insufficiently destroyed, now they must be torch cut with 1/4" missing --no wait, now they must be missing entirely. Welding of select-fire triggers into the semi-position was once sufficient, now open-bolt guns must be painstakingly converted to closed bolt. Pins were once acceptable denial features, but blocker-bars are increasingly becoming the norm, and must be both welded in place and hardened so as to skate a file.

As shown above, the ATF has gradually expanded it's scope regarding AR15 completion; I fully expect them to eventually prohibit magwell completion as they did FCG pocket milling, and for the same incrementalist reasons. 0% forgings will become the new "80%." The ATF routinely changes its mind, and almost unanimously in the direction of greater restriction; they are a ratchet, which is why people who've paid attention to their history greatly resent every new expansion.

We know this is such a technical field, we know that no one with legal authority knows anything of the topic at hand, we know that the ATF will get the benefit of the doubt every time, and that every question asked of them is settled on their terms, with little to no outside accountability (the occasional successful lawsuit and its accompanying short-lived humiliation is pretty much it). Any student of history or civics understands that such a ratcheting authority mechanism as this is deeply flawed and lacking a check or balance.

And you where irresponsibly ignorant about the legalities. Even if you believe you're not responsible as an individual, to insure what you purchased was indeed legal and not illegal as officaly determined by the ATF.

Tell that to the people who bought 'officially' legally demilled PPSH parts kits years back, no wait, make that STEN kits just recently, no wait, make that PM63 kits very recently. All had to suffer a significant loss in value, hassle, and arguably emotional stress (in light of the ATF's notorious heavy hand and draconian penalties associated with gun stuff) when the kits were tracked down one by one, and returned for further demilling without compensation. A kit that could have been painstakingly welded back together with dozens of hours of focused effort, but which retained several features (like markings, etc.) that made total completion slightly more faithful to the original, and required no fabrication from scratch of receiver sections, is now a much more expensive and logistically expensive undertaking.

Rather than precluding 'readily convertible' situations, it is obvious that making things so difficult as to approach impossibility was the goal all along. Again, this goes along with the whole "Always Think Forfeiture" thing... But the fact is, no matter how much the ATF dislikes it, it is perfectly legal for private citizens to build their own firearms, so long as the tools and materials cannot readily be completed into a functional arm at the outset.

Which means a a matter of Law, EP Armory and Ares Armory cannot legally engage in the business of dealing in this firearm, this particular (AK-15 variant) without an letter of determination from the ATF, the AK-15 variant in question is not a firearm.

Aren't you presupposing a bit, here? If EP had good reason to expect their product was not readily convertible to a firearm (and if you put aside knee-jerk agreement with whatever the ATF claims, there are a few points of contention with their argument, here) they were under no obligation to submit a letter requesting determination. They could have as a CYA measure, and did when they went to update their design as I understand, but were not obligated to. I think some folks are seeing EP's refusal to needlessly courtesy the ATF as some sort of shady business practice; I personally don't think they were dancing nearly close enough to the line to warrant such a defensive posture (semi-auto conversions of demilled full-auto parts kits is such a borderland, which is why most commercial products for that hobby are sent in for review; private builds usually are not sent in without very good reason)

Given a choice to buy a legal AR-15 variant as declared in writing from the ATF as legal, versus buying AR-15 variant that is illegal, as declared in writing by the ATF.

Which AR-15 variant would you purchase, if you where to purchase an AR-15 variant. A legal AR-15 variant or an illegal AR-15 variant?????????????????

Again, framing the situation in the ATF's exceedingly sketchy, and historically ever-expanding, terms. Should a shovel manufacturer submit samples to the ATF, just to make sure their spade won't be construed as an illegal AK receiver (today, at least)? What about a company making box tubing of the same dimensions as an AK receiver? What about a company making an blank AK receiver, that does some of the precision/specialty work for the builder, but not the bulk tasks like ejection ports, pivot holes, and the like?

I'd suggest folks interested in these topics hang out on an actual weapons building forum some time, and get the straight dope from people who work around and with ATF regs for a living, and as a hobby. There's a recurring phrase; "Don't poke the bear" that comes up frequently. Because the ATF consistently rules in its own favor (fancy that?), builders with new ideas are actually quite reluctant to ask anything but extremely narrow questions pertaining to their particular issue, so as to limit the impact of an unfavorable ruling. For instance, if you asked submitted a copy of someone's Suomi conversion you did, and the agent on duty that day happened to rule against it (since they may not be aware of the previous approving ruling, and ATF letters carry no precedent), you could very well get the originator in trouble or forced to undertake expensive alterations to their erstwhile legal design.

BATFE has not made any changes to their policy that any persons that are not covered under the GCA as a manufacturer or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Of course not. But the terms "person," "manufacturer," "possession," and "firearm" have changed considerably, are still changing, and will continue to. So it's still 'the same,' but only in the Orwellian sense of the word.

So while this is a good deal, people are taking advantage of this good deal as a loop hole. That is within the law just outlined, however people and are abusing this aspect using the strategy as a Scam trying to get around the laws. CNC Machine Shops are in on the action as well.

The 'loop hole,' is called civilian manufacture for personal use. Get over it, the Feds have no authority there. Is a "0%" forging good enough for you? It still looks like an AR receiver, and has no other legitimate use but for firearms manufacture (note; nowhere is 'legitimate use for anything but firearms' mentioned in any laws). What about billet? What about billet knowingly sold to a felon with intent to manufacture a firearm? The only loop hole is the one we keep letting get draped around our necks by kow-towing to the ATF's amoeba-like jurisdictional expansion.

A non-firing configuration readily convertible to a non-firing configuration that's readily assemble-able into a configuration that actually constitutes a firearm capable of firing fixed ammunition. This train of logic goes all the way back to ore, doesn't it?

Ares Armory was mentioned in the LUIS CORTEZ, EMILIANO CORTEZ case somewhat recently. Where a known felon, bought from a FFL a firearm, machined from a legal blank, without form 4473.

It's been a while since I read through the affidavit, but I recall Ares was only briefly mentioned, as an example, or something, and the investigation actually centered on a flat-out criminal enterprise run out of garage making everything from SBRs to machine guns, with no regard whatsoever to who was running the machines, and it was being run by felons. If nothing else sticks, guilt by association, right? Hey, isn't that how the current 80%'s ended up reclassified? They were too close to being a previously reclassified configuration?

The ATF's beef with Ares was originally stemming from its hosting build parties, on site, using materials sold to paying customers, which involved too much assistance from employees to not be considered manufacture. While largely a circumstantial argument ("the sum of these facts indicates...") an average rational person would agree that having a blank set up for you to push the 'go' button on, probably constitutes manufacture on the part of the premises. Doesn't change one iota about the state of the blank sitting in the CNC, though

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

I'd like the opportunity to write more later, but in short. I am frustrated as you get, because you revert back to Auto Pilot. The misinformation about the BATFE in general. I'd like you to explain what has you perceiving ATF looks at THR as their concern.

I actually do hope you are somehow affiliated with the ATF, since I would actually feel quite a bit better about their enforcement activities if they really were concerned about how their operations were perceived by and placed upon the public.

My perspective the, ATF cares less about your activities than you might think. Is not a threat to you, or is the ATF after placing hardships upon you.

To the contrary; the ATF is THE threat to my building a firearm in my basement. No local PD is gonna know or care that I built my gun unless they are trying to run the blank receiver's serial number (which would imply some other bad stuff has gone down, at which point I'd have adequate legal counsel with me to keep them on the straight and narrow gun-law wise). No local PD even has the authority to bring up on charges for the activities regulated by the ATF; those are a federal matter. Local police are also not determining if the blocking bar setup and fire control group conversion in my Uzi reweld are up to snuff, or to their liking (this week).

I do not fear the ATF's intentions; I'm sure they are benevolent(ish). I fear their authority, and it's continued expansion with neither check nor balance.

As you did post, the ATF is in the regulation business, don't make the laws, and what is of great concern to the ATF, is your potential safety being compromised by people who are the ones that would cause you too want to be armed.

Since when is it the ATF's mandate to keep me safe? Show me where. They are a tax. enforcement. agency. They are not security guards. They are not even peace officers. It also doesn't help that they are closer to gun runners, con-men, and drug dealers by virtue of their sting operations than I'll ever be.

Given some of their rulings, and some of their court losses (Thompson Center, for starters), they most certainly do attempt to make the laws at times.

the ATF did not just wake one morning and decide polymer is illegal.

Of course not. I suspect the ATF was seeking to get out in front of a very shady criminal operation making SBRs and M16s for known felons and gangs, and noticed that their feed stock came from a common company. Since cutting off the roots is easier than lopping a rotten branch, they focused the investigation on shutting down EP's 80% polymer lowers. Thus the determination letter to 'clarify' the ATFs position, once again, in their favor during an ongoing investigation. I would say the insistence upon getting access to EP's and Ares' customer lists, as well as the chain of events in the affadavit is the best evidence of this scenario. Total speculation on my part, though

As I said, don't forget it is standard, has been to ask for them. Does every one probably not, those would be the ones that have the basic basic hunk of metal, but when changing designs, you will always ask for a LOD in advance, unless there is something else going on.

Presupposition of guilt based upon a reluctance to offer information (often proprietary technical data with competition-sensitive details) to Officer Friendly? Business proprietors have 5th amendment rights, too, and if they reasonably believe their product should not be construed as a firearm, that lack of DL itself should not be held against them. It is, after all, not legally binding in the first place.

Litigate their contentions in civil court if denied, before breaking the law, now trying to make their case with criminal charges pending.

This is the problem; were they breaking the law before the ATF clarified themselves and declared they were? A lot of this comes down to prosecutorial discretion, which is why manufactures of firearms or firearm precursors/accessories tend to get nailed; they are the most visible and lucrative targets. It's also slightly harder to pin manufacture charges on someone who only sells one or two guns to friends after making them (for example). In any case, how would the ATF's charges constitute an argument against EP's innocence? They wouldn't be litigating in the first place if the ATF hadn't pressed charges or raided the premises.

But if you reread my post, you should start to see, that EP Arms, Ares Armory where not acting in your best interest or mine. Just theirs as they saw it.

And I may talk about how this fiasco may hurt you in regards to this matter causing laws being taking away on your rights as of now to build your AR-15 sooner than you may think. You should be pissed at EP Arms and Ares Armory more so.

The ATF isn't acting in my best interest, either. They act in their own best interests (which our system of government is supposed to have set up in such a way as to be compatible with I/the public's best interests). Director's declare war on 'ghost guns' to curry favor with funding politicians, politicians decry 'ghost guns' to look like they are doing something for voters, officers carry out their directives diligently as best they are able in order to keep and advance in their careers. The world goes round.

What the ATF or some fool legislator decides to do in opposition to my personal right to construct firearms is their fault alone. EP has hurt neither me nor mine, but if enforcement agencies exploit the misunderstanding (or miscarriage, as may be the case) to sieze more authority and restrict my freedoms, they very well may.

TCB

 

[LiveLife]

I'd like the opportunity to write more later

It's a free public forum. You can post whenever you like.

Perhaps you are new to online forums so let me share something with you. Typically, the original poster (OP) starts a thread with a specific discussion topic and other forum members post replies to discuss the topic but will usually "stay on topic". Posting off-topic and irrelevant issues is consider "thread-jacking" and kinda impolite thing to do. We are all human and guilty of occasional drifting and ranting on threads off topic but will usually catch ourselves and return back to thread discussion or the moderators will kindly remind us or close the thread with a piece of their mind. (Just look at all the closed threads in this category ... I feel for moderators Frank Ettin and Art Eatman).

I tried to read through your post #145 and your previous posts, but those issues are not "on-topic" to this discussion thread. The OP premise of this thread was the legalities of polymer 80% AR blanks. The focus of this thread should be about whether polymer 80% AR blanks are legal or not.

If you want to discuss known felons or criminals breaking the law assembling and selling firearms illegally, then you are free to start a new thread to discuss those issues.

And as others posted, unless you work for BATFE and have authorization to speak on their behalf, I don't think you should be making definitive statements like you have made.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The thread does seem to be wandering, and it's getting a lot hard to figure out the subject. We seem to be going all over the place.

As to EP Amory's and Ares Armor's legal problems, those will take a while; and speculation won't help. We need to wait for those to be resolved to have any meaningful discussion.