Page 12 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 228

Thread: ATF raids polymer 80.

  1. #111
    So... Originally polymer 80 sold just the frame with the disposable fixture and drill bits. IIRC, anyway. That's how they got their original "this is not a gun" approval from the ATF?

    Then they started selling parts?

    Then they started including parts?

    Eventually selling a kit that required 20 minutes with a dremel and nothing else.

    Can anyone here comment on the increasing commonality of finding 80% guns at crime scenes with the increasingly turn-key kits? That would seem like an interesting frame of reference.

    It may seem like a small detail but without a complete kit I can easily see a whole bunch of morons trying to buy "glock parts" and ending up with incompatible gen4 or whatever internals that wouldn't result in a working gun. The turn key nature adds a lot to the "readily convertible" angle.

    I wonder if the next step was full color ads in Inmate monthly magazine. Not because they actually want to sell to felons but because some people in this industry have such a hard on for playing fuck fuck games with the ATF they don't know when to quit.

  2. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    I would figure "readily convertible" as more inclusive then just time. Ease of acquiring the tools and skills seem relevant.
    I have no disagreement on the principle.

    Let's talk about skill for a bit. I had Chemistry 101 in college. IIRC I got a mix of A's and B's. It was fun and interesting. But if you locked me in a room and said you would bring me whatever chemicals and equipment I needed, and pay me a billion dollars to make a gram of meth ... your billion dollars would be perfectly safe. So by that metric, making meth takes a lot of skill. OTOH, it seemed like a lot of not-too-bright trailer trash managed to cook up meth (with the occasional FOOM!). I'm guessing that there are recipes floating around.

    So now let's talk about making guns. If you don't have any machining experience, and I walk you into my basement and hand you a raw AR forging, or even a forging plus blueprints and tell you to let me know when you have a working lower, I'm going to guess it will be a while.

    But what if, just as with the meth recipe, you had directions:

    http://arlower.ray-vin.com/ar15/ray%...15%20build.pdf

    When you read that, all of a sudden a lot of problems disappear. One example is that the first thing a machinist usually thinks of is not 'how can I make that cut' but 'how can I hold that to make that cut', and he answers that.

    So, if a raw forging wasn't a gun without that PDF, does it become a gun with that PDF? And note that of the two items, the PDF plus a rectangle of 7075 is IMHO closer to a gun than a raw forging with no PDF, in terms of how likely an unskilled person is to produce a working lower with one set of things or the other. So now you are trying to suppress a PDF, which is likely to be impractical, First Amendment issues aside. That's the issue with the Defense Distributed CNC files. As a practical matter, those are all over the internet, however the case is eventually decided.

    Instead of going after the skill end, you can go after the tools. Putting aside router jigs and milling on drill presses, I'd want a $1500 mill to make AR lowers. Is that enough that you don't have to worry about crooks getting them? I dunno. I frequently drive past a hydroponic garden supply shop that seems to be doing a land office business. I'm not into gardening ... do the lights and whatever to do hydroponic gardening of, er ... tomatoes usually cost a lot less that $1500 (I have no idea, not into gardening)? And decent 3D printers can be had in the $300 range ... banning them seems politically hard.

    So I don't know what the answer is. I was happy when DIY gunmaking was just another of the hobby machining eccentricities, along with steam engines and clock making. But now that the ne'er do wells are interested, I think it may be hard to stop. Enacting a ban is easy enough, and will be 100% effective in shutting down harmless hobbyists, but I fear it will affect what crooks do about as well as the ban on cooking meth did. I'd say that maybe banning polymer 80% blanks would be a start (on the theory that even aluminum is harder to work than plastic), except ... 3D printers.

    And just to be clear ... I personally wouldn't be morally comfortable doing what Defense Distributed or Polymer80 did. But it's not an easy question. What about the 'lockpicking lawyer' youtube channel? The good news is it's interesting to see what the bad designs are ... the bad news is ... there aren't a lot of lock designs that can't be defeated pretty easily. If a crook didn't know that before watching those vids, he will after. Or the penetration test talks at DEFCON ... I wouldn't have thought of the 'canned air/exit motion detector' trick, but if I had a door like that I'd want to know. I know I have e.g. hardened my garage door against the 'push in the top and hook the release cord' attack I learned about from one of those. Or it's nice to know about the 'simplisafe and remote control' trick if you are shopping for alarms.

    Anyway, food for thought!

  3. #113
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    This isn’t going to be a popular opinion, but screw it.

    Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

    Polymer80 decided to get all salty and push boundaries by packaging their approved frame blanks this way, and in doing so they may have taken down a whole subset of the industry.

    Fuck’em.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  4. #114
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by ssb View Post
    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.
    I'm not sure from a legal standpoint. Readily convertible would mean even if you assembled the parts yourself once they were in the same place it'd be the same as if you bought them together but if they aren't in the same place they aren't yet readily convertible. Constructive intent, I believe is the term.

    Parallel: A pistol upper isn't an SBR if it's sitting by itself, it's just an upper. A rifle lower isn't an SBR by itself, although it is a firearm. If they are together in a range bag, even if it's not attached, is it an SBR legally? I believe the answer is yes. So what components something is in the proximity of to determine it's legal status isn't unheard of.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  5. #115
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    This isn’t going to be a popular opinion, but screw it.

    Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

    Polymer80 decided to get all salty and push boundaries by packaging their approved frame blanks this way, and in doing so they may have taken down a whole subset of the industry.

    Fuck’em.
    That's happened before if you remember the Olympic Arms, AR ish pistol, 7.62X39 ammo debacle. This will probably lead to legislation that will require a kit gun to be taken to an FFL and you checked to see if you can own it. If such passes, I don't know.

  6. #116
    Site Supporter ccmdfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southeastern NC
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post

    Parallel: A pistol upper isn't an SBR if it's sitting by itself, it's just an upper. A rifle lower isn't an SBR by itself, although it is a firearm. If they are together in a range bag, even if it's not attached, is it an SBR legally? I believe the answer is yes. So what components something is in the proximity of to determine it's legal status isn't unheard of.

    Didn't we have a case about that not too long ago? I can't remember if it was on this forum another.

    A gentleman had a safe with a pistol upper in it. Several different lowers, all of which were registered as rifles.

    ATF went after him because there was no way he could place that upper on any of his lowers and not make an SBR.

    I also believe it was one of those cases where he was also guilty of multiple other crimes from the ATF stand point, and they were sticking as much on him as they could

  7. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    I'm not sure from a legal standpoint. Readily convertible would mean even if you assembled the parts yourself once they were in the same place it'd be the same as if you bought them together but if they aren't in the same place they aren't yet readily convertible. Constructive intent, I believe is the term.

    Parallel: A pistol upper isn't an SBR if it's sitting by itself, it's just an upper. A rifle lower isn't an SBR by itself, although it is a firearm. If they are together in a range bag, even if it's not attached, is it an SBR legally? I believe the answer is yes. So what components something is in the proximity of to determine it's legal status isn't unheard of.
    If you tried to assemble everything in the Buy/Build/Shoot kit without doing any additional machining, would you have something that could discharge a projectile? I don’t know that pulling two captive pins is analogous here. This isn’t constructive possession, this is a legal determination of whether something is a firearm or readily convertible as such.

    Legally, everything in that kit is gun-shaped plastic or metal, not a firearm. Indeed, ATF’s own letters indicate the receiver/frame is the firearm. Not the springs, not the slide, not the barrel, not the trigger. I don’t know that you get to readily convertible simply due to the presence of the components necessary to manufacture a firearm. This isn’t the felon I’m prosecuting with the flare gun (not a firearm) modified (through rural engineering) to fire shotgun shells (making it a firearm). If we assume for a moment that it was lawful for him to possess ammunition (it’s not), I don’t know that I’d have much of a case if I had him with a nail, flare gun, and a shotgun shell in the same place. But unlike the felon, Polymer80 hasn’t taken any additional steps to make that piece of gun shaped plastic into a gun.

  8. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by ssb View Post
    ... rural engineering
    I am so stealing that.

  9. #119
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    I do think ATF is overstepping their bounds here, but I also think they were taunted into it by a company pushing boundaries.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  10. #120
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Central PA
    Is it pushing boundaries or failing to remain discreet? In my opinion its the latter. And that seems to trigger atf. Stock braces and the origen12 being possibly other examples. But I think we all prefer these companies remained discreet. But criminals gonna criminal. Changing the law will only affect the law abiding so when you squeeze the balloon it just expands elsewhere. I just dont think its that hard to make an ar. Consider the guy that made a functioning ar lower from cutting and stacking a kitchen cutting board. But if the receiver doesnt meet the definition of a firearm, it doesnt matter what else is in the box. If a prohibited person buys the kit, then perhaps you have constructive intent? But that is on the individual where it should be. Whats worse, a kit you still have to do the work or when you buy 80% lowers and the machine that does it all for you with the push of a button, no skill needed? Or should the focus be on the criminal that buys such things?

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
  •