ATF raids polymer 80.

[BehindBlueI's]

Material. We know what a 100% lower looks like.

Then could you not build a complete lower, put a big shark fin on it that was equal in weight to the "real" lower but keeps a slide from going on until it's removed, and then have a 50% lower?

[ccmdfd]

Material. We know what a 100% lower looks like. Only the ATF knows what an 80% lower looks like.

Great!

Just like how only the ATF knows if something is a brace or a stock. Depends on how they feel.

Thanks for the clarification

[BehindBlueI's]

This got my curiosity going, as I really want to know how that 80% is determined because just by amount of material seems absurd, as my shark fin idea would fit that, but also because I don't see how milling out a few holes removes 20% of the material in one of those lowers.

So, I found this:

“80% receiver,” “80% finished,” “80% complete” and “unfinished receiver” are all terms referring to an item that some may believe has not yet reached a stage of manufacture that meets the definition of "firearm frame" or "receiver" according to the Gun Control Act (GCA). These are not statutory terms and ATF does not use or endorse them.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what...ished-receiver

And:

Receiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a "firearm" are not subject to regulation under the Gun Control Act (GCA). ATF has long held that items such as receiver blanks, "castings" or "machined bodies" in which the fire-control cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not reached the "stage of manufacture" which would result in the classification of a firearm according to the GCA.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-...eivers-illegal


So, frankly that's a much more bright line rule. 80% is just a marketing term, not a technical one used by the ATF or any codified language somewhere. Which makes the search warrant for Polymer80 even more interesting, as if the kits are not pre-drilled they would seem to fall under the "not a firearm" definition.

[Casual Friday]

Then could you not build a complete lower, put a big shark fin on it that was equal in weight to the "real" lower but keeps a slide from going on until it's removed, and then have a 50% lower?

You can't go backwards. Once it's a finished lower, you'd have to go through the proper demill process for it not to be a firearm. Besides, finished weight doesn't factor in. It's if all the steps are done for it to be a fully functional firearm.

But you're more than welcome to try that out if you want. Just send your family and your dog outta town for a few weeks.

Great!

Just like how only the ATF knows if something is a brace or a stock. Depends on how they feel.

Thanks for the clarification

You're welcome. I went down the 80% research rabbit hole right after the solvent trap form 1 suppressor research rabbit hole. It would have been easy for the ATF to just say what makes a brace a brace, and exactly what machine operations can and cannot be done on an 80% lower to make life easy, but we'll never get that kind of cooperation from them.

There have been a few 80% lowers that I've seen pictures of that sure look like they're far more advanced than 80%, but who knows.

[Casual Friday]

This got my curiosity going, as I really want to know how that 80% is determined because just by amount of material seems absurd, as my shark fin idea would fit that, but also because I don't see how milling out a few holes removes 20% of the material in one of those lowers.

So, I found this:



https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what...ished-receiver

And:



https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-...eivers-illegal


So, frankly that's a much more bright line rule. 80% is just a marketing term, not a technical one used by the ATF or any codified language somewhere. Which makes the search warrant for Polymer80 even more interesting, as if the kits are not pre-drilled they would seem to fall under the "not a firearm" definition.

Correct, this is another thing where one ATF person may tell you your unfinished or 80% receiver is g2g and another may tell you it's not.

In looking at the specific build kit they offer, I can't see where they're breaking the law unless there's more to the story that we haven't heard yet.

[HCM]

They've been wanting to go after P80 for a LONG time now. And to be fair, the number of 80% lowers that have been turning up at crime scenes, especially in California, has really been on the rise. It wouldn't surprise me to see 80% lowers get reclassified as receivers in 2021.

Not just California. There are individuals building these specifically for unlawful distribution to members of extremist groups on both the right and the left. There are also unscrupulous individuals building 80% guns for resale to prohibited persons and criminal organizations. A PF Member and LEO (not from CA) recently mentioned recovering one of these.

Some notable instances of 80% used in crimes:

The John Brown Gun Club Member who attacked the ICE detention Center in Tacoma WA last year was a prohibited person who used an 80% lower AR he built in a JBGC "build party." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...tifa-manifesto

The recent mass shooter in Midland/Odessa TX was a prohibited person who used an 80% lower AR he purchased from an unlicensed dealer/manufacturer to soot 32 people. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr...lty-unlicensed

The "Boogaloo Boy" who killed a Federal Protective Service Guard and wounded another in Oakland, CA then ambushed Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Deputies, killing a SCSD Sgt and wounding two deputies used an 80% lower 9mm AR with a 80% suppressor. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/wp...-complaint.pdf

[LHS]

Not just California. There are individuals building these specifically for unlawful distribution to members of extremist groups on both the right and the left. There are also unscrupulous individuals building 80% guns for resale to prohibited persons and criminal organizations. A PF Member and LEO (not from CA) recently mentioned recovering one of these.

Some notable instances of 80% used in crimes:

The John Brown Gun Club Member who attacked the ICE detention Center in Tacoma WA last year was a prohibited person who used an 80% lower AR he built in a JBGC "build party." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...tifa-manifesto

The recent mass shooter in Midland/Odessa TX was a prohibited person who used an 80% lower AR he purchased from an unlicensed dealer/manufacturer to soot 32 people. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr...lty-unlicensed

The "Boogaloo Boy" who killed a Federal Protective Service Guard and wounded another in Oakland, CA then ambushed Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Deputies, killing a SCSD Sgt and wounding two deputies used an 80% lower 9mm AR with a 80% suppressor. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/wp...-complaint.pdf

I don't see this as being any different than when these assholes get finished guns and go do bad things with them. It doesn't justify restricting finished guns, and it doesn't justify restricting unfinished blocks of material.

The entire point of this is pushing towards universal registration, to facilitate confiscation a la Australia, NZ, Britain, etc.

[blues]

I guess outlaw m.c. gangs are gonna need a new 80% patch to keep up with the times...

[BehindBlueI's]

After looking into this further, it appears this is probably related to a lawsuit from the attorney general of Washington, DC:

https://carsonnow.org/story/12/11/20...among-other-fe


Press release:

https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine...urer-polymer80

Complaint:

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/fil...-Complaint.pdf

The allegation is a violation of DISTRICT law, not federal law, which is more restrictive and includes "readily converted" language. I would suppose the ATF is involved since the District is federal jurisdiction but will defer to our resident feds on if that interpretation is correct.

According to a local source, "records and other evidence" was seized. https://carsonnow.org/story/12/11/20...among-other-fe It would seem logical the records were to show kits were sent to DC.

If this is the case, nothing has been reinterpreted and there's no reason to run around the table unless you live in DC.

I still don't see the original warrant so this is just my theory based on what's publicly available and the "readily converted" language in the press releases and various media accounts.

[HCM]

I don't see this as being any different than when these assholes get finished guns and go do bad things with them. It doesn't justify restricting finished guns, and it doesn't justify restricting unfinished blocks of material.

The entire point of this is pushing towards universal registration, to facilitate confiscation a la Australia, NZ, Britain, etc.

I’m not arguing the politics of it. I am saying it is not 100% political.

I’m saying 80% guns as an alternative to diversion of regular firearms is a real thing for crooks, nut jobs and violent extremists. In that context, in addition to acquisition issues, 80% guns have sone unique issues (interstate nexus and post seizure tracing) that are not in play with regular firearms.

No different or not we’ve had members here assert bad guys don’t use/know about/build 80% guns and that is not the case. They are a real and increasingly common thing in the criminal world.

That may well be a case of this is why we can’t have nice things, similar to hell as soon as I saw rap videos glorifying Draco pistols I knew that rifle caliber pistol imports would be targeted sooner or later.