The whole thing is here: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/d...20-warrant.pdfOriginally Posted by whomever
The whole thing is here: https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/d...20-warrant.pdf
I looked up the case number on the SW in PACER...it’s listed as a sealed case. I’m sure the judge will appreciate the search warrant getting leaked.
So, as I understand it, their argument is that selling a frame they previously determined to not have been sufficiently complete to be a firearm along with the parts necessary to complete the firearm makes the previously-approved item makes it a firearm... despite the fact that additional machining is required in order to make the item function as a firearm? They further argue that even if the Buy/Build/Shoot kit were not sold, one can still buy each of the included parts in a single transaction, so it's not just the kit that's the problem.
Candidly, this smells like more of the "we changed our minds, so fuck you" we've come to know and love from ATF.
"The whole thing is here: ..."
Thanks. I will be interested to hear the expert opinions. To my IANAL amateur eye, it indeed seems like the argument is indeed that selling the parts separately is OK, selling them as one kit isn't. Which seems odd.
They also mention than they had an ATF agent that took a couple of hours to get his kit to work, and a CI that took twenty odd minutes. I'm sympathetic to the notion that there ought to be some minimum amount of effort/skill/tools required to be not-a-gun, although that does seem hard to define. If it takes me 10 hours on vintage machinery, but only one hour with modern machinery, is it or isn't it a firearm? Heck, there could be a lot of variation even with identical equipment - if you are making a lot of something, you are all about choosing tooling and programming to drop your cycle time.
Even on my vintage machinery, making two of something takes a lot less than twice the time to make one (a non trivial amount of the time is setting up the machine with a vise, the right tooling, picking up locations, and so on ... if, having done operation #27 on item 1, I can just put in item 2 and repeat, that might only take 5% more time than making item #1). So 'it must take NN minutes' seems like a pretty unworkable standard to me.
It's like saying 'if it can fire more than 3 rounds a sec it's full auto' ... hello, Jerry Miculek.
Lastly, if they decided that 80% frame==OK, 80% frame+parts != OK, it seems like a letter saying so would be a nice way to proceed.
Seems to me it’s more like them getting pressure because a bunch of these guns are turning up at crime scenes and in the hands of prohibited persons.
ATF told them to submit a kit for evaluation, and not just a receiver, and they never did.
Yep, now that ATF has the "political capital" in place again this and the pistol brace raids are just the beginning. They will feel empowered to change their minds or make up new rules on a wide range of subjects I am sure. As for imported things, no telling what is about to be deemed as having "no sporting purpose" now.
The reason it took the agent a couple hours was because of a manufacturing defect. Otherwise it would have taken about the same amount of time as the CI.
The reason that’s important is because they’re trying to prove the “readily be converted” part of the definition of a firearm. The US Attorney’s Office uses me as a Interstate Nexus Expert, and as part of that, I sometimes have to testify about the definition of a firearm...it would be hard for me to say one of those kits doesn’t meet the definition. Of course, unless I’m on the stand, my opinion doesn’t matter, and the ATF’s does.
I don't necessarily disagree, but:
-if the kit is a firearm, then it seems to me buying the 80% receiver from VendorA, the slide from VendorB, ... also is a firearm. Or more precisely, either the frame is a firearm, or not ... what other parts are or aren't shipped in the box seems like a silly distinction.
-how many minutes it takes to turn XXX into a functional firearm depends a ***lot*** on how you go about it. For example, here is something I hope everyone agrees is not a firearm:
https://www.80percentarms.com/produc...ower-receiver/
I don't have any state of the art, top end CNC machinery, but I bet that you can set up that kind of machinery to turn that into a finished AR lower in less than the 20 odd minutes the ATF's CI took to finish their plastic Glock. But that can't mean that a rectangle of metal is a legal firearm, or else the plumbing aisle at Home Depot needs to get some 4473's.
I don't want crooks getting guns ... my point is 'this isn't an easy problem'.
I read that portion. I also read the portion where they describe how a purchaser, even without the packaged kit, could buy each individual component necessary to complete an item they previously determined to be a firearm-shaped piece of plastic and used that to bolster their claim that Polymer80 is selling firearms. To me, that absolutely belies their point that these Polymer80 kits are firearms. I also have a difficult time buying the idea that what a non-firearm is packaged with can convert it into a firearm.
It's fairly obvious to me that the relative ease of manufacture is the issue for them (well, that and the idea of home-built firearms to begin with). For better or worse, ATF let that particular genie out of the bottle when they approved the not-a-receivers. Not liking the outcome doesn't outweigh the risk of criminalizing the folks who'd previously relied upon their determinations, certainly not without notice and grandfathering. I understand these things show up at crime scenes. I've seen the body cams. I get the motivation behind their sudden change of heart. I nevertheless have serious issues with what I view as arbitrariness on the part of the ATF, particularly when their changes of hearts can turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons. As it stands, in my opinion, ATF's rulemaking choices over the past decade or so are about as close to ex post facto laws as we've seen in this country in quite some time.
We have legislatures. If folks do not like home built firearms, that is a legislative problem. It's not like there's no precedent for that - look at the meth precursor laws as an example.
ETA: Changed some poor wording.
Last edited by ssb; 12-15-2020 at 10:43 PM.
I would figure "readily convertible" as more inclusive then just time. Ease of acquiring the tools and skills seem relevant. They used an auto mechanic with basic tools to illustrate more of a point then just the time element.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Reply With Quote