ATF raids polymer 80.

[TC215]

BBI - TC125: I get what you are saying, just don't think it is the way to conduct business, because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it is morally correct.

My concern is the officer on a vehicle stop who doesn't have PC to search using the tactic, as in: 'What happens if I don't consent?' 'Then I'll apply for a warrant' when in fact the officer is on a fishing expedition, lacks PC, and has no intention of getting a warrant. I'm somewhat okay with using trickery and deceit in interrogation, I'm really not okay with it's application in consensual searches.

No one is talking about that.

Yeah, it’s been over 10 years since I was doing DUI stops, but I remember when the implied consent changes came around.

Again, the only times I’ve ever “threatened” a warrant has been when someone has asked what would happen if they refused consent. If I had PC, I’d tell them I would apply for a warrant, which a judge may or may not grant. Sometimes I’d have to go get a warrant, sometimes I’d get consent. It’s never been an issue either way.

There's nothing morally incorrect about making a factual statement of law.

Deceit can be lawful or unlawful:

https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/...yDeception.pdf

Telling someone that you'd get a search warrant when you know PC doesn't exist would be coercion. No one here has advocated for that.

[DDTSGM]

At this point I think we are talking around each other.

Thanks.

[DMF13]

You got me . . .
I guess I'm just not as much of a stickler for 100% accurate language at all times, including Internet forums, as you are.

Please don't pretend this is about me merely being a "stickler" for accurate language, as if you didn't repeatedly insist the use of "constructive possession" to mean the ability to construct an item was correct, to include you falsely claiming there was caselaw that backup up your claim. You, and ssb, might wish to paint me as "pendantic," but the reality is in that other thread I made a joke about people misusing the term "constructive possession," and you jumped in with both feet to repeatedly claim the incorrect usage was somehow correct, again including a false claim there was caselaw to backup your position. Now, when "constructive possession," and "constructive intent," are again being incorrectly used, you again are trying to justify the incorrect usage of the term "constructive possession."

Here's why it matters: It leads to people to repeatedly making BS claims, and truly believe them, that merely being able to build an item will somehow bring down the wrath of the "feds." It's where you get people saying nonsense like, "if I have a shotgun and a hacksaw the 'feds' can prosecute me for 'constructive possession' of a sawed off shotgun," or things like "I have a bag of fertilizer and some heating oil, the 'feds' can prosecute me for 'constructive possession' of explosives."

Words matter, and if you want to perpetuate the myth that people are correct in using "constructive possession" to mean the ability to 'construct' an object, rather than it's correct meaning, then you aren't helping people understand how the legal system really works, and fueling the paranoia that merely having an a "rifle and an angle grinder," means they might be in "constructive possession" of an NFA firearm. Remember the person who said that admitted they were only "I’m only partially being facetious." People like that are truly concerned they might somehow run afoul of the law, because people have been misusing "constructive possession" in the manner you continue to defend.

Further, your continued defense that it's acceptable to incorrectly use the term "constructive possession," to mean the ability to construct an object, directly contradicts this statement from you:

I think there should be evidence that it was actually assembled into the configuration in the definition unless the specific definition includes language similar to the above "collection of parts" examples.

If we accept (which I clearly don't) your repeated claims that you are somehow correct in saying it's legitimate to use "constructive possession" to mean the the ability to "construct" an item, then you are saying it's not necessary to prove,"it was actually assembled into the configuration in the definition," to prove possession.

So let's get back to this:

Do you mean a "a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length" as included in the definition of "firearm?" 26 U.S.C.A. § 5845(a)(3). A "rifle," 26 U.S.C.A. § 5845(C), is not subject to the taxation or registration requirements of the NFA (although I guess if you consider the dealer record-keeping requirement "registration" and FAET, then it still could be considered to be "registered and taxed.")

I mean both, 5845(a)(3) and (c), as in a weapon intended to be fired from the shoulder (5845(c), with a barrel less than 16 inches (5845(a)(3)).

So again, I'll ask, is it your contention that if someone has an AR-15 "rifle," as defined in 26USC5845(a)(3) and (C), that every time the person merely removes the upper from the lower, they no longer possess a firearm that must be registered and taxed?

[DMF13]

What percentage of folks have refused your request for consent only to have you search based on PC? How many of those have gone to court.

I don't have a count, but there have been a few who have refused, and then we searched based on PC anyway. None of my PC searches have ever been suppressed at motions, including the ones where I asked for consent, and the suspect denied consent.

First, that concept, while true in theory, is kind of negated by the patrol car videos we have of officers getting beat down, shoot, etc. by folks who have consented to a search.

Calm suspects are good, what's even better is a back up officer doing nothing but watching the suspect(s).

Ever ask yourself why a guy with a trunk full of dope consented to your search? Common sense would tell us that if a person knew they could refuse consent, they would. Often it's because they are panic stricken, too stressed out to think of another alternative. Sometimes they are going with the flow, waiting for an opportunity to pounce. Either way, these folks are dangerous if you let your guard down for a moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FraE77l4fI

Neat little straw man you've constructed there, but I never said I was careless, let my guard down, and/or didn't keep close watch of suspects, and I never said it guaranteed we would all be safe. What I said was, keeping people calm is GENERALLY safer for everyone.

However, nice try at implying that somehow I'm a careless idiot, that doesn't know how to do my job.

[joshs]

Please don't pretend this is about me merely being a "stickler" for accurate language, as if you didn't repeatedly insist the use of "constructive possession" to mean the ability to construct an item was correct, to include you falsely claiming there was caselaw that backup up your claim. You, and ssb, might wish to paint me as "pendantic," but the reality is in that other thread I made a joke about people misusing the term "constructive possession," and you jumped in with both feet to repeatedly claim the incorrect usage was somehow correct, again including a false claim there was caselaw to backup your position. Now, when "constructive possession," and "constructive intent," are again being incorrectly used, you again are trying to justify the incorrect usage of the term "constructive possession."

I've never defended the "to construct" meaning being applied by a court. I understand what legal constructive possession is, and I did at the time of the other thread. I've attached a SCOTUS amicus brief I worked on two years before the other thread that involved a QP on constructive possession. I really do understand what it means.

When you first posted in the other thread, I thought you were claiming that the doctrine of constructive possession couldn't be applied to possessing separate parts of a firearm, so that a person could be convicted for possessing a firearm. That is absolutely not true, and I deal with questions regularly from people who are interested in knowing if they can possess a separate short-barrel upper with a completed rifle lower as long as the keep them separated (with greatly varying explanations of how separated they will be). I then have to explain how constructive (vs. actual) possession works, and that there is some language regarding "proximity" in the case law for "collections of parts" (or knockdown kits, or whatever you want to call them). However, as long as you have dominion and control over the parts, there is some possibility of legal jeopardy no matter their proximity because you do still possess them, it just depends on whether or not the possession of the parts = the firearm.

Here's why it matters: It leads to people repeatedly making BS claims that merely being able to build an item will somehow bring down the wrath of the "feds." It's where you get people saying nonsense like, "if I have a shotgun and a hacksaw the 'feds' can prosecute me for 'constructive possession' of a sawed off shotgun," or things like "I have a bag of fertilizer and some heating oil, the 'feds' can prosecute me for 'constructive possession' of explosives."

Words matter, and if you want to perpetuate the myth that people are correct in using "constructive possession" to mean the ability to 'construct' an object, rather than it's correct meaning, then you aren't helping people understand how the legal system really works, and fueling the paranoia that merely having an a "rifle and an angle grinder," means they might be in "constructive possession" of an NFA firearm.

This "paranoia" probably stems more from determinations that possession of an M1A and a shoestring is a machinegun than it does from the use of an incorrect term on the Internet. Or, since this a thread about the P80 raid, how about a determination that possessing something that "the feds" have already determined is not a "frame or receiver" (and therefore not a "firearm") with sufficient other parts somehow makes that non-frame or receiver into a "firearm." Or, perhaps if "the feds" simply picked up the phone to call an otherwise law-abiding manufacturer to inform them that they are (in "the feds" determination) in violation of federal law rather than waiting a few years for the product to be sold on the market and then commencing an enforcement action.

Further, your continued defense that it's acceptable to incorrectly use the term "constructive possession," to mean the ability to construct an object, directly contradicts this statement from you:If we accept (which I clearly don't) your repeated claims that you are somehow correct in saying it's legitimate to use "constructive possession" to mean the the ability to "construct" an item, then you are saying it's not necessary to prove," it was actually assembled into the configuration in the definition," to prove possession.

I really don't understand what you are asking here, but, as I've said, I'm not defending the "to construct" usage as a legal term of art.

So let's get back to this:
I mean both, 5845(a)(3) and (c), as in a weapon intended to be fired from the shoulder (5845(c), with a barrel less than 16 inches (5845(a)(3)).

So again, I'll ask, is it your contention that if someone has an AR-15 "rifle," as defined in 26USC5845(a)(3) and (C), that every time the person merely removes the upper from the lower, they no longer possess a firearm that must be registered and taxed?

I'm not sure if you're asking me for my opinion on how the statute has been applied or how I think it should be applied. This is my opinion on how the statute should be applied if the rules of statutory construction and rule of lenity were correctly applied to definitions in the GCA and NFA.

It's possible that the "readily restored" language of 5845(c) was meant to apply to such a situation, since the AR-15 in your example would have at one point met the definitions in 5845(a)(3) and (c), it could then be "readily restored" to be a "rifle" and it would have a barrel of less than 16 inches. But, I don't think the government should be able to read "collection of parts" into definitions that they were specifically excluded from when other definitions in the same Act have that language. It makes the "collections of parts" language in other definitions surplusage. And, ambiguities in definitions that apply to criminal statutes should be decided in the defendant's favor.

[DDTSGM]

What I said was, keeping people calm is GENERALLY safer for everyone.

However, nice try at implying that somehow I'm a careless idiot, that doesn't know how to do my job.

It's the internet, I don't know you, you don't know me, that certainly wasn't my intent, just pointing out that calmness is not necessarily indicative of compliance or safety and that doing solo searches is a dangerous proposition.

If you are doing vehicle searches by yourself on interdiction stops, then yeah, I'm thinking you are being unsafe, but I certainly have no knowledge of your work habits. I noted in your response you used the phrase 'then we searched' so at this point, I'd assume you normally have back up (or are backing up officers) on searches.

My hope was that maybe someone would watch that link who hadn't ever seen it and reflect on how quickly a seemingly calm, compliant person turned deadly.

We're a long way from the raid on polymer 80, aren't we? I contributed quite a bit to that, and I apologize for the drift. I'd be glad to answer any PM's.

[willie]

I never paid any attention to 80% lowers. Can anyone explain why we had them to start with? What niche did they serve or satisfy?

[fatdog]

Rampant internet chatter says ATF raided Diversified Machine yesterday, one of the biggest suppliers to the Form 1 suppressor community. It is alleged by the rumor spreaders they took the computers and records, so perhaps the people planning a Form 1 can who bought the parts should expect a visit soon. Constructive intent and all that.

[BehindBlueI's]

I never paid any attention to 80% lowers. Can anyone explain why we had them to start with? What niche did they serve or satisfy?

It's a way to build your own firearm fairly easily without dealing with transfers. Some percentage of customers are hobbyists who just want to build something, think they can build a better mousetrap then factory options, or who think they may save a nickel. Probably much like those who build their own ARs. Some percentage is people who buy them to build a firearm because they are prohibited from buying a firearm legally. Some percentage are buying them to build commercially to fill a market that can't be serviced by legal means. What those percentages are I have no idea, but that's they various niches as far as I can tell.

[Lester Polfus]

I never paid any attention to 80% lowers. Can anyone explain why we had them to start with? What niche did they serve or satisfy?

It's a way to build your own firearm fairly easily without dealing with transfers. Some percentage of customers are hobbyists who just want to build something, think they can build a better mousetrap then factory options, or who think they may save a nickel. Probably much like those who build their own ARs. Some percentage is people who buy them to build a firearm because they are prohibited from buying a firearm legally. Some percentage are buying them to build commercially to fill a market that can't be serviced by legal means. What those percentages are I have no idea, but that's they various niches as far as I can tell.

We had them to start with essentially because they weren't illegal. I remember through the 1980s guys who built their own bench rest rifle receivers from chunks of metal. I have vague memory of Shotgun News articles of somebody that was selling what we would now call an 80% receiver for a single shot competition rifle. The gross machining was done, and you sent your check or money order, waited six to eight weeks for delivery and it came in the mail.

ATF was fine with it apparently. There's an interesting sort of Zeno's Paradox question of "at what point does a hunk of metal (or in this case polymer) go from being a chunk of unfinished material to a firearm receiver." ATF decided, somewhat arbitrarily, that X amount of machine work was fine. Since you could get all the guys together that were doing that in a Denny's and still have seating left over, and they weren't out committing crimes, nobody really cared because it wasn't a problem.

So that kind of percolated along in the background until the last few years, when the internet fueled the hobby of people being clever and trying to see how far they could push things with bump stocks, 80% lowers, pistol "braces", and form 1 suppressors. The ATF really didn't help with some of their administrative rulings.

To the folks involved who were living in their self-reinforcing gun enthusiast internet bubble, it seemed fine because "everybody is doing it and we get to thumb our noses at the NFA and GCA 68, etc." For those of us with a more balanced view, it seemed like just a matter of time before this blew up in everyone's face.

The tipping point for bump stocks was the Las Vegas Massacre. I don't think we've had a single tipping point on 80% lowers, but rather a substantial increase in the number of 80% guns being involved in crimes. I think ATF wants to get ahead of the brace and suppressor thing before there's a mass shooting with a "sawed off machine gun and ghost silencer" and they have to explain why they gave people letters that said all that shit was legal.

My state doesn't allow short barreled shotguns, period. I love 14" pump guns, and I've been tempted to assemble one of the "firearms" with a "brace" but rational me has been saying it would be just a matter of time before the shit hammer fell.

I've thought long and hard about all this, and I've decided I don't want to own anything that can fall on either side of the law based on an ATF administrative finding. My shotgun with a 18.5" barrel that is over 26" OAL is covered under black letter law, as is everything else I own. I ultimately want to invest in the Contender platform, and I'm just going to buy two receivers, one that has been transferred to me as a rifle, and one that has been transferred as a pistol. In the grand scheme of the Contender rabbit hole, one more receiver is a drop in the bucket, and then I don't have to argue fine legal points about the configuration.

I personally think that if you're concerned about the course the country is on, becoming civilly engaged and attempted to change the course through reasoned debate, and being a rational human being is a much better first step than pretending to be some kind of guerrilla commando and stockpiling 80% lowers, "solvent traps" and funky drop in auto sears disguised as wall hangers, then posting on Instagram and YouTube about it. All that stuff is essentially a form of LARRPING that gets people social currency among their particular tribe, but it's directly counter to the actions someone would take who was serious about some kind of insurgency.

I still shake my head at the sheer idiocy of buying a 80% lower, "solvent trap" or whatever online, with a credit card and having it shipped to your house.