ATF raids polymer 80.

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

I understand the relative ease of two pins vs 21 minutes of work, but that's not the point I was addressing. My point is the legal definition of a given collection of parts can change based on their proximity and using the concept of an NFA firearm as an example. Additionally, the fact if they are purchased together or not isn't relevant, only if they are end up together. The kit, of course, starts off together, but if it were to be ruled a firearm if I bought them on my own and assembled my own kit it would also be a firearm.

However, the Court also explained that an NFA firearm is made if aggregated parts are in
close proximity such that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make an NFA
firearm (e.g., a receiver, an attachable shoulder stock, and a short barrel); or (b) convert a
- 3 -
complete weapon into an NFA firearm (e.g., a pistol and attachable shoulder stock, or a
long-barreled rifle and attachable short barrel). Id. at 511-13

Held, a firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C.
5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way
that they:
(a) Serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of
less than 16 inches in length (e.g., a receiver, an attachable shoulder stock, and
barrel of less than 16 inches in length); or
(b) Convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm, including –
(1) A pistol and attachable shoulder stock; and
- 4 -
(2) A rifle with a barrel of 16 inches or more in length, and an attachable barrel
of less than 16 inches in length.

https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download


I do not own any NFA weapons.
My house does not contain any NFA weapons.

I can buy a pistol upper from PSA and the above are still true.
If I take an existing rifle lower and put it in my range bag with the PSA pistol upper, it's no longer true. It's irrelevant if I bought them at the same time or not, only their proximity.
I'm not sure if it's still true if I store the upper in my garage, all my lowers are in my house, but don't own a pistol lower. The entire concept of NFA vs not NFA seems to get fairly arcane to me so I'm not sure where the blurry lines are.

That's not weighing in on if the validity of deciding the kit is a firearm or not, just pointing out the pre-existing parallels.

[ssb]

I understand the relative ease of two pins vs 21 minutes of work, but that's not the point I was addressing. My point is the legal definition of a given collection of parts can change based on their proximity and using the concept of an NFA firearm as an example. Additionally, the fact if they are purchased together or not isn't relevant, only if they are end up together. The kit, of course, starts off together, but if it were to be ruled a firearm if I bought them on my own and assembled my own kit it would also be a firearm.





https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download

The fact that the 80% frame and parts can be purchased together is apparently quite relevant to ATF. Again, so is the fact that, even if there is not an assembled kit, one transaction can still lead to a result where Polymer80 is shipping you everything needed to complete the firearm you manufacture.

An issue I take with the NFA analogy is that “firearm” and manufacturing/making in that context have very different definitions than they do in common parlance. In NFA land, the statute ATF is providing guidance says that “firearm” means something we commonly think of as a firearm (i.e. explosively-propelled projectile weapon) that falls into the category of SBR, SBS, DD, AOW, or machine gun. Thompson/Center is a constructive possession case, and unlike here, the item involved was undisputedly a firearm in its common usage. “Making” is also defined in the NFA statute, and its definition includes mere assembly (“The term ‘make,’ and the various derivatives of such word, shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.). So yes, because the NFA defines making to include merely “putting together,” guidance about how to store your Thompson Center barrels and PSA pistol uppers can work there. Strike that language, however, and I don’t know that any plain meaning of “manufacturing... altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing...” gets you to “10.5 upper in the same bag as rifle lower equals manufacturing an SBR or altering a rifle to be an SBR or otherwise producing an SBR.” Think “made in the USA” vs. “assembled in the USA” for the difference I’m getting at. Absent the assembly language, having the items in the same place doesn’t do any of the things in the statute.

But yes, merely having parts together has been held to change the legal status of an item. But there are statutory guideposts that created that result and because of those I still don’t think the concept really works here.

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3) defines “firearm” as well, and that statute more closely mirrors what we think of as a firearm (The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.). Making is not defined in 921’s definition section, so the question for a reviewing court would be whether having all the pieces together makes an item previously determined not to be readily convertible become readily convertible within the meaning of the statute. Given ATF’s previous focus on machining steps necessary, I think the answer to that is still “no.”

[CleverNickname]

I do think ATF is overstepping their bounds here, but I also think they were taunted into it by a company pushing boundaries.

That ho made the pimp slap her. It's not his fault.

[BehindBlueI's]

The fact that the 80% frame and parts can be purchased together is apparently quite relevant to ATF. Again, so is the fact that, even if there is not an assembled kit, one transaction can still lead to a result where Polymer80 is shipping you everything needed to complete the firearm you manufacture.

I may be misunderstanding, but here's what I think the "parts together" issue is.

The allegation is the kit is a firearm as it contains all the parts. The kit then gets transferred across state lines and with none of the requirements for an interstate transfer. Polymer80 is in trouble because all the parts are in one kit.

You could buy all the parts separately but that's a "you" problem, not a Polymer80 problem. If I ordered the frame alone, they didn't transfer a firearm. If I then order everything else and build it, they still didn't send me a firearm across state lines.

So when the parts come together seems relevant. If I'm a prohibited person, and this kit is a firearm, I would suppose I can't have it regardless of how I assembled it but that's back to a "me" problem and not a Polymer80 problem. If I'm not a prohibited person and the parts alone are not a firearm, and I order them separately, at no time did a firearm get transferred across state lines and it's a nobody problem.

To be completely clear, I'm not saying the ATF is right. I'm just saying I think that's what they are saying the issue is and there would appear to be at least some related precedent, even if no direct precedent. I would not bet on a court outcome in either way, but I am certainly curious to see how it goes.

[CCT125US]

..... something is in the proximity of to determine it's legal status isn't unheard of.

This may be a question for another thread....

The proximity question has always been in the back of my mind regarding use of NFA items. For instance, I can allow a friend to use a suppressor at the range. While the item is being used, in my opinion (I realize this doesn't count...), it is not under my control. However, this is perfectly legal, but at what point is the item (that is not in my hands) become no longer under my "control"? If not physical, a certain distance? Not trying to open a can of worms, just always been curious about this aspect.

Any cases involving this?

[ssb]

I may be misunderstanding, but here's what I think the "parts together" issue is.

The allegation is the kit is a firearm as it contains all the parts. The kit then gets transferred across state lines and with none of the requirements for an interstate transfer. Polymer80 is in trouble because all the parts are in one kit.

You could buy all the parts separately but that's a "you" problem, not a Polymer80 problem. If I ordered the frame alone, they didn't transfer a firearm. If I then order everything else and build it, they still didn't send me a firearm across state lines.

So when the parts come together seems relevant. If I'm a prohibited person, and this kit is a firearm, I would suppose I can't have it regardless of how I assembled it but that's back to a "me" problem and not a Polymer80 problem. If I'm not a prohibited person and the parts alone are not a firearm, and I order them separately, at no time did a firearm get transferred across state lines and it's a nobody problem.

To be completely clear, I'm not saying the ATF is right. I'm just saying I think that's what they are saying the issue is and there would appear to be at least some related precedent, even if no direct precedent. I would not bet on a court outcome in either way, but I am certainly curious to see how it goes.

That's basically how I understand their allegation of criminal conduct. One of the allegations as I understand it is 1) Polymer80 is an FFL, and 2) Polymer80 is selling handguns while failing to do what FFLs are supposed to do (4473, background check, etc.). Of course, the handguns are apparently (at minimum) the disputed kits. I read the warrant as stating ATF's position is that since all the completion items are sold by Polymer80, even the kit-less frames are firearms.

I think you may be able to show constructive intent/possession when a felon/etc. enters the picture. I think possession of the kit would likely be an attempt or facilitation to possess under my state's laws.

Once again, I really think this is a legislative problem. At a minimum, if it's to be an agency problem, it needs to be a broadly published announcement of the proposed rule change.

[BehindBlueI's]

This may be a question for another thread....

The proximity question has always been in the back of my mind regarding use of NFA items. For instance, I can allow a friend to use a suppressor at the range. While the item is being used, in my opinion (I realize this doesn't count...), it is not under my control. However, this is perfectly legal, but at what point is the item (that is not in my hands) become no longer under my "control"? If not physical, a certain distance? Not trying to open a can of worms, just always been curious about this aspect.

Any cases involving this?

I have no idea, but maybe ask in the NFA sub-forum.

[CleverNickname]

This may be a question for another thread....

The proximity question has always been in the back of my mind regarding use of NFA items. For instance, I can allow a friend to use a suppressor at the range. While the item is being used, in my opinion (I realize this doesn't count...), it is not under my control. However, this is perfectly legal, but at what point is the item (that is not in my hands) become no longer under my "control"? If not physical, a certain distance? Not trying to open a can of worms, just always been curious about this aspect.

Any cases involving this?

I have not heard of a bright-line test that would define "control." If I had to guess, the ATF probably likes the flexibility of not having a test like that, and AFAIK use something similar to the Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" obscenity test.

[Coyotesfan97]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...olymer80-kits/

End users may be getting a visit from their friendly local ATF agent in the near future according to this latest news release.....

I used to do a lot of knock and talks looking for permission to search for drugs. When you dropped the warrant bomb you stepped from voluntary to coercion. They could let you into search and if you stumbled onto the mother lode it didn’t matter. Nothing like a little coercion to get your case dropped.

If you’ve got PC write the warrant. Don’t go somewhere looking for compliance and then threatening after not getting it.

[Lester Polfus]

So am I only one that looked down the road and saw trouble on the horizon for people who bought stuff to build an "untraceable" firearm via the internet using a credit or debit card?

You're either on the grid or off.

I've never jumped on the 80% wagon, but if I did, I'd buy all that shit at a gunshow with cash...

Unlike the vast majority of the internet, we have some actual informed opinions on the legality of 80% lowers and pistol braces, however when I read them, I don't form an opinion on whether the ATF is "right" or not. The only opinion I form is "I don't want to stick my dick in that particular meat grinder."

I really want a Contender, but I can't figure out if I really need separate frames for carbines and pistols, or pistol that can turn into a carbine, or if it's ok to turn a carbine into a pistol, and I think that's way lower on the ATFs priority list than all this.