Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: California Man Mysteriously Freed After Selling Illegal AR-15s

  1. #11
    Site Supporter TDA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    That’s a funny part, from my perspective. Jiminez was a convicted felon buying a lower off an undercover agent in a parking lot. From the opinion:


    As a last gambit, the Government says that Jimenez simply must have known what he was doing was illegal based on a conversation he had with one of the undercover agents. But that is pure ipse dixit, as the cited transcript shows:

    Defendant: It's legal right now?
    UC: What do you mean `it's legal right now'?
    Defendant: Yeah, like I could do it. Like I could take it to the range right now and test it out.
    UC: That right there's a fucking machinegun. You take that to the range you're gonna draw all kinds of attention.

    Dkt. No. 13 at 3. Nothing here shows that Jimenez knew the lower receiver would be deemed illegal; to the contrary, he appears to think he was buying a legal item, and the undercover agent certainly did not clearly apprise him otherwise.

  2. #12
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    Good luck getting GCA or FOPA amended without significant political fight.
    The definition of "frame or receiver" is a regulation. As long as they follow APA, and the definition is reasonable, they can begin the process of changing the definition tomorrow. That's actually my concern. Many gun owners think that this decision is great (and it is always good to see federal judges who don't just rubber stamp whatever theory the government puts forward), but it could result in the definition being rewritten in a more restrictive way.

  3. #13
    Site Supporter farscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dunedin, FL, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by OlongJohnson View Post
    I think the ATF's interpretation is the logical one:

    (hammer, bolt or breechblock,) and (firing mechanism)

    Any one of the three in the first parentheses plus the one in the second parantheses equals firearm. Just to note, it also makes logical sense to me that "firing mechanism" refers to the trigger, not the firing pin.

    It's a bit of a reach IMO to argue that when that code was written, people would by then have been familiar with the existence of semi-automatic handguns with reciprocating slides, and yet would have drafted a definition of firearm that did not include them. Especially with the understanding that the 1934 NFA was basically an attempt to close potential loopholes in a total handgun ban. It also wouldn't include a bolt-action rifle or any other striker-fired arm, since anything without a hammer can't be a firearm under the three-piece interpretation accepted in Jimenez and Roh.

    IANAL and I haven't read all the legal documents from the case, but I'd be kinda interested to do so. It seems that for a judge to be able to accept the three-piece interpretation would require ATF's lawyer's to drop the ball pretty severely. It seems that a reasonable test of the drafters' intent is to ask whether or not it covered firearms that were at that time well-known and iconic, such as the Mauser and 1911. Seems like you would have to go with the interpretation that did.

    California did try to go after 80 percents in 2016. Passed a law that basically said everything's a gun. Any piece of metal or polymer with dimensions that could be machined into a receiver was to be controlled as a completed firearm. Would have ended manufacturing (all products, not just firearms) as well as transportation of raw materials in the state. Insanity. Brown did not sign it. I haven't kept up with all the latest. I think there's a thread enumerating the most recent pile-ons around here somewhere.
    I am not sure I agree that the ATF's interpretation is logical as it is not consistent with an earlier firearm, the Ruger Standard pistol. On that pistol the barreled upper, which contains the bolt and firing pin but not the firing mechanism, is "the firearm". The hammer, sear, and trigger of the Standard is in the lower just like a 1911 yet the upper is serialized. So there seems to be a disconnect between how the 1911 and AR-15 are classified and how the Ruger Standard pistol is classified. One could also argue that the Ruger Standard is the outlier as the frame of the 1911 or Browning Hi-Power (also predates the Ruger Standard) is the serialized firearm. The whole situation is confusing, especially with the advent of modular pistols like the SIG P250 and P320. The only correct answer appears to be that the item with the serial number is the firearm -- but Glock proves that answer is also not correct with a serialized receiver, barrel, and slide. So the firearm is what BATFE says it is.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by NickA View Post
    Thanks for posting this, I was going to post this CNN article Friday but never got around to it.
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar...nvs/index.html
    That was a shockingly good CNN article.
    #RESIST

  5. #15
    Site Supporter echo5charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Eastern PA
    I totes get reality, but I do offer this as one example (of many) of ATF confusion:

    If an AR15 style lower is the firearm as per the ATF, then the lower of a FAL is a firearm (and NOT the current upper as it is). Pics borrowed from a Google image search.
    Name:  img-Beowulf_lower.jpg
Views: 185
Size:  22.6 KB
    Name:  7398055_01_fal_fixed_stock_complete_lower_640.jpg
Views: 200
Size:  75.6 KB

    Generally speaking, the "firearm" portion of a rifle is where the barrel screws in. Unless it is an AR variant.

    Yeah, the AR has the mag well and the FAL does not. But the FAL has the rear sight - maybe that's what it is?

  6. #16
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by farscott View Post
    -- but Glock proves that answer is also not correct with a serialized receiver, barrel, and slide. So the firearm is what BATFE says it is.
    AFAIK, EC regs require all three (receiver, barrel, and slide) to be serialized. You'll find it on any firearm made there.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •