Good article: atf/ar/lowers/80percent

Thread starter #1
Copying this post I saw on another site with regard to ar’s and issues related to their design and 80% builds.
pretty interesting. Ignore cnn spin, the details of the case are interesting as to what constitutes a firearm, especially as pertains to ar’s. The ruling says that currently, a lower isn’t the gun because it doesn’t contain a bolt or mount to the barrel.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html

Sounds like atf May also be able to use a bump stock like rule making procedure to “fix” this vagueness. We’ll see.
 
That article is complete bovine fecies.

And AR15 stripped lower receiver is, by law, a firearm. It is the serialized part of an AR.

An 80% lower, as sold, is not a firearm because it does not have the fire control group milled out. So it is, by law, essentially a paperweight.

Once it is milled out, it is 100% a legally defined firearm.

Roh isn't in trouble because he didn't sell anyone guns. He rented access to a machine that allowed people to turn paperweights into guns, which is a legal activity that requires no ATF background check. He had no legal responsibility to screen customers who rented access to the machine.
 
Sounds to me the feds realize they have no case. The guy rented time on a CNC machine. Not illegal, unless he pushed the button for them.
 
While I'm a staunch supporter of our second amendment,nobody should be able to allow convicted felons to "manufacture" guns in their shop. It sounds like a great business model to build legal firearms. Why not get a lisence and do this for folks that are legally able to? It looks like he was intentionally putting guns in the hands of felons
 
While I'm a staunch supporter of our second amendment,nobody should be able to allow convicted felons to "manufacture" guns in their shop. It sounds like a great business model to build legal firearms. Why not get a lisence and do this for folks that are legally able to? It looks like he was intentionally putting guns in the hands of felons
Not remotely. There is no background check required to buy an 80% lower, and no check required to rent a machine for use. The only people breaking the law were the felons, and they should be charged accordingly.
 
Not remotely. There is no background check required to buy an 80% lower, and no check required to rent a machine for use. The only people breaking the law were the felons, and they should be charged accordingly.
I understand the felons are breaking the law but this guy was giving them a path to do so. If he was lisenced and required to do back ground checks I'd bet his business would have flourished. Criminals are going to be criminals. There's no reason to assist them
 
I understand the felons are breaking the law but this guy was giving them a path to do so. If he was lisenced and required to do back ground checks I'd bet his business would have flourished. Criminals are going to be criminals. There's no reason to assist them
We have the right to build weapons without a background check. Felons just don't have the right to possess weapons. He has no reason to violate the rights of everyone "just in case" a felon, who he was clear to state is not allowed to own a gun, shows up anyway.

I for one dont think felons should be prohibited. Either you served your time, are fully rehabilitated, and are welcome in society with all rights restored, or if we can't trust you, you shouldn't be free. There is no exception clause in the 2nd amendment.
 
While I'm a staunch supporter of our second amendment,nobody should be able to allow convicted felons to "manufacture" guns in their shop. It sounds like a great business model to build legal firearms. Why not get a lisence and do this for folks that are legally able to? It looks like he was intentionally putting guns in the hands of felons
You're contradicting yourself
 
Thread starter #10
Actually if you read what the judge wrote in the response it says the rules the atf is using are sufficiently vague as the lower doesn’t contain the bolt or mount to the barrel.

Also that the rules regarding the lower weren’t properly setup, if I understand the ruling properly.

https://www.scribd.com/document/429889179/Roh-Ruling-on-R-29-Motio

That article is complete bovine fecies.

And AR15 stripped lower receiver is, by law, a firearm. It is the serialized part of an AR.

An 80% lower, as sold, is not a firearm because it does not have the fire control group milled out. So it is, by law, essentially a paperweight.

Once it is milled out, it is 100% a legally defined firearm.

Roh isn't in trouble because he didn't sell anyone guns. He rented access to a machine that allowed people to turn paperweights into guns, which is a legal activity that requires no ATF background check. He had no legal responsibility to screen customers who rented access to the machine.
 
Actually if you read what the judge wrote in the response it says the rules the atf is using are sufficiently vague as the lower doesn’t contain the bolt or mount to the barrel.

Also that the rules regarding the lower weren’t properly setup, if I understand the ruling properly.

https://www.scribd.com/document/429889179/Roh-Ruling-on-R-29-Motio
Well then the judge believes that the millions of stripped AR15 lowers sold have all been misclassified as firearms. No wonder the feds let the guys walk, if the court had determined that they would be in a deep fried pile of doodoo. Even the NFA recognizes a stripped receiver as the firearm itself, especially in the realm of machineguns. Federally overturning that in court would be disastrous for the ATF, but would also open a can of worms on new legislation defining a firearm.
 
Thread starter #12
Bingo. Cnn hate aside, that is what they were getting at in the article.

The same way they are afraid of the nyc vs nyc gun club case, going to hearing on dec 2, they’re afraid it will set back anti gun efforts and such.

The case notes basically seem to allude to the fact that if they go through a formal rule making process, it can be “fixed” but it still worries the crazy anti gun crowd.

If the ruling in this case went official, they fear the setback that folks could churn out lowers and spread them like candy and buy everything else online.

Let’s see how this goes. But recall that with bump stocks, feedback on the rule change was AGAINST criminalizing them, two or three times. It that didn’t stop the rule from going in.

When .gov makes up its mind, it’s a done deal, and feedback don’t mean squat.


Well then the judge believes that the millions of stripped AR15 lowers sold have all been misclassified as firearms. No wonder the feds let the guys walk, if the court had determined that they would be in a deep fried pile of doodoo. Even the NFA recognizes a stripped receiver as the firearm itself, especially in the realm of machineguns. Federally overturning that in court would be disastrous for the ATF, but would also open a can of worms on new legislation defining a firearm.
 
We have the right to build weapons without a background check. Felons just don't have the right to possess weapons. He has no reason to violate the rights of everyone "just in case" a felon, who he was clear to state is not allowed to own a gun, shows up anyway.

I for one dont think felons should be prohibited. Either you served your time, are fully rehabilitated, and are welcome in society with all rights restored, or if we can't trust you, you shouldn't be free. There is no exception clause in the 2nd amendment.
Best thing you ever said!!!
https://giphy.com/gifs/mic-drop-Rcn8udnXVhQdy
 
Last edited:
Well then the judge believes that the millions of stripped AR15 lowers sold have all been misclassified as firearms. No wonder the feds let the guys walk, if the court had determined that they would be in a deep fried pile of doodoo. Even the NFA recognizes a stripped receiver as the firearm itself, especially in the realm of machineguns. Federally overturning that in court would be disastrous for the ATF, but would also open a can of worms on new legislation defining a firearm.
Exactly. And this guy used this loophole to sell guns to criminals
 
AR-15 upper and lower receivers have been around since the early 1960s

If the ATFE wrote a poor definition of receiver years ago, it’s their fault

Then again they have been getting away with it since the GCA of 1968


The Dims in Congress will fix this by banning guns and parts and everything
 

NOYDB

Mr. Know It All
Years back cars had antennas that were hollow. A the point where they were attached to the fender was the widest. Could fit in a .22 cartridge. Add a rubber band and it could be made to strike the cartridge an it would go off.

So was Ford an enabler by providing antennas to make zip guns to the thugs of the day. Was the local Ford car dealer an enabler? Should a Ford purchaser pass a background check?
 
Thread starter #20
Several states are trying to start that now. Talking or doing. Ca nj ny are trying to have BGCs for parts like barrels, forearms and such.

AR-15 upper and lower receivers have been around since the early 1960s

If the ATFE wrote a poor definition of receiver years ago, it’s their fault

Then again they have been getting away with it since the GCA of 1968


The Dims in Congress will fix this by banning guns and parts and everything
 
Top