ATF Raids Store for Gun Owner Names, Overrides Court Order

[etrigan420]

I will say, knowing a fair bit about federal firearms laws, I was surprised when I learned that ARES had a piece that was supposed to be milled to comply with AR 80% rules as two separate pieces in their polymer frame.

I didn't find their argument particularly compelling, that they were molding the magwell around the plug. The 80% rules intended for that area to be a solid piece.

I think the real takeaway from this is that end users need to be familiar with the ATF's rules about 80% receivers and not rely on the company they are buying from.

Exactly this.

The ATF's claim is that the 80% polymer lowers that Ares was selling were actually 100% lowers with easily removed filler material.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...mor-update-skinny-polymer-80-lower-receivers/

Once a gun, always a gun.

 

[Jimzz]

So you concede selling 80% completed lowers isnt actually illegal like the ATF claims?

Where did they make that claim?

 

[MrPickins]

Exactly this.

The ATF's claim is that the 80% polymer lowers that Ares was selling were actually 100% lowers with easily removed filler material.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...mor-update-skinny-polymer-80-lower-receivers/

Once a gun, always a gun.

But what if it never was a gun?

7. The BATFE has Raided EP Armory based on incorrect information about EP Armory’s manufacturing process. The determination letter written by the BATFE incorrectly classified the EP Armory product as a firearm based on faulty information. The BATFE was under the impression that EP Armory was making a firearm and then reverting back to the 80% stage by filling in the fire-control cavity. At no point during the manufacturing process by EP Armory is a weapon made and then reverted. The solid fire-control cavity is built first and the rest of the 80% casting is made around this “core” specifically so that their product at no time could be considered to be a firearm.

http://aresarmor.com/store/NewsArticle/Temporary_Restraining_Order_Against_BATFE

 

[irishScott]

Watch when the next earthquake, tornado, or hurricane hits and you're the first one in line at FEMA for handouts.



You have no idea how society works if you think the government is an "armed gang".



As far as this raid, nice to see the ATF going after the one letter in that acronym that deserves more scrutiny.

The Japanese Yakuza had rescue helicopters on scene at Fukushima faster than the Japanese government. Hamas, a democratically elected government mind you, has massive social outreach programs in Palestine (hence their getting elected).

Granted the US government is far superior to both, but it's not above using bully tactics to go around laws it doesn't like. If you don't know that, you just aren't a functional adult.

 

[TerryMathews]

But what if it never was a gun?



http://aresarmor.com/store/NewsArticle/Temporary_Restraining_Order_Against_BATFE

Its an interesting way to skirt the rules, but I don't feel it meets the standards imposed by BATFE rules.

By the standard EP is trying to use, you could 80% any lower simply by creating a mandrel the size of the "unmilled" portion then casting around the mandrel. Use a metal with a higher melting point, polish it smooth beforehand and you'll be able to pop it right out.

80% lowers are treated the way they are because they require final machining prior to completion. As near as I can tell, the EP lower did not.

 

[Oldgamer]

I am confused. The judge ruled a stay so that things could be sorted out. Why did the ATF ignore the judges ruling? Doesn't this get them into hot water with the court?

 

[zinfamous]

There seems to be some question on whether the temporary restraining order the owner got was rescinded or not. Putting that aside, why the show of force? Why are agents dressed in military garb storming the store with guns drawn and why are they then taking a sledge hammer to the safe? If they are legally there, and it appears that they more than likely were, why is this store owner, this business and the customers of the business being treated like public enemy number one?

hmm. I don't know....raiding a gun store on warrants of multiple federal violations, from a person/group pretty much understood to be of the "You will take my gun over my dead body" type, seems reasonable enough for military gear, show of force. whathaveyou.

and before the pussbags misread my comment and respond, as they will--I'm commenting on the need for force, not whether this was an acceptable thing.

I'm inclined to think that if there was legitimate cause for multiple federal violations, then it's appropriate--this is one individual/entity. Not an all-out raid on gun sellers. But this certainly maintains my suspicion about the push for universal gun registrations.

 

[irishScott]

hmm. I don't know....raiding a gun store on warrants of multiple federal violations, from a person/group pretty much understood to be of the "You will take my gun over my dead body" type, seems reasonable enough for military gear, show of force. whathaveyou.

and before the pussbags misread my comment and respond, as they will--I'm commenting on the need for force, not whether this was an acceptable thing.

I'm inclined to think that if there was legitimate cause for multiple federal violations, then it's appropriate--this is one individual/entity. Not an all-out raid on gun sellers. But this certainly maintains my suspicion about the push for universal gun registrations.

Understood by whom? Your stereotypes? Check out the people you're describing (note the video is about an unrelated issue):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzBkcUZnm-w&t=4m21s

Suffice it to say the CEO is a marine combat veteran and one of the execs is a lawyer. They're extremely articulate, have never even given a hint of armed resistance that I'm aware of, at most they've indicated non-compliance if things go too far.

 

[TerryMathews]

I am confused. The judge ruled a stay so that things could be sorted out. Why did the ATF ignore the judges ruling? Doesn't this get them into hot water with the court?

No, because the BATFE appealed the ruling and a different judge rescinded it.

Thread title is not accurate.

hmm. I don't know....raiding a gun store on warrants of multiple federal violations, from a person/group pretty much understood to be of the "You will take my gun over my dead body" type, seems reasonable enough for military gear, show of force. whathaveyou.

and before the pussbags misread my comment and respond, as they will--I'm commenting on the need for force, not whether this was an acceptable thing.

I'm inclined to think that if there was legitimate cause for multiple federal violations, then it's appropriate--this is one individual/entity. Not an all-out raid on gun sellers. But this certainly maintains my suspicion about the push for universal gun registrations.

I'm sure the display of force was because Ares had the gall to defend themselves in court. Par for the course for Obama and Holder.

 

[werepossum]

No, because the BATFE appealed the ruling and a different judge rescinded it.

Thread title is not accurate.

I'm sure the display of force was because Ares had the gall to defend themselves in court. Par for the course for Obama and Holder.

Par for the course with BATFE since Carter, and fast becoming par for the course with domestic law enforcement from the federal level down to county. SWAT-style raids are fun, good excuses for why you need new toys, are safer for the cops (albeit much more dangerous for those raided), and probably most importantly give the impression to the public that a very dangerous criminal has been taken down.

 

[zinfamous]

Understood by whom? Your stereotypes? Check out the people you're describing (note the video is about an unrelated issue):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzBkcUZnm-w&t=4m21s

Suffice it to say the CEO is a marine combat veteran and one of the execs is a lawyer. They're extremely articulate, have never even given a hint of armed resistance that I'm aware of, at most they've indicated non-compliance if things go too far.

yeah but that guy with the beard look like a terrist!

 

[CZroe]

Its an interesting way to skirt the rules, but I don't feel it meets the standards imposed by BATFE rules.

By the standard EP is trying to use, you could 80% any lower simply by creating a mandrel the size of the "unmilled" portion then casting around the mandrel. Use a metal with a higher melting point, polish it smooth beforehand and you'll be able to pop it right out.

80% lowers are treated the way they are because they require final machining prior to completion. As near as I can tell, the EP lower did not.

"Skirt the rules?!"
It's perfectly legal for me to make any weapon I want as part of my right to bear. They can only regulate the sale, which is why there's a distinction of when it becomes a completed gun so that they can regulate it. If I'm making it for myself there is no reason to give it a serial number or register it in any database anywhere. All this part does is provide a shortcut, much like the off-the-shelf engines and tires the Orange County Chopper guys use in their custom bikes. It doesn't mean I didn't make it myself, it just means that I didn't make it from scratch. Requiring me to make it from scratch would be impossible. How of the OCC guys ever going to get DOT-rated, safety-tested, expertly a engineered tires if they have to make it themselves? And where does it end? Will they have to mine and refine their own steel/aluminum? Build a CNC machine from scratch? Anything up to just prior to final assembly is a nebulous distinction. If only gun manufacturers were allowed to make guns then our rights are at their mercy.

Disclaimer: I do not nor have I ever owned or made a gun.

 

[TerryMathews]

"Skirt the rules?!"
It's perfectly legal for me to make any weapon I want as part of my right to bear. They can only regulate the sale, which is why there's a distinction of when it becomes a completed gun so that they can regulate it. If I'm making it for myself there is no reason to give it a serial number or register it in any database anywhere. All this part does is provide a shortcut, much like the off-the-shelf engines and tires the Orange County Chopper guys use in their custom bikes. It doesn't mean I didn't make it myself, it just means that I didn't make it from scratch. Requiring me to make it from scratch would be impossible. How of the OCC guys ever going to get DOT-rated, safety-tested, expertly a engineered tires if they have to make it themselves? And where does it end? Will they have to mine and refine their own steel/aluminum? Build a CNC machine from scratch? Anything up to just prior to final assembly is a nebulous distinction. If only gun manufacturers were allowed to make guns then our rights are at their mercy.

Disclaimer: I do not nor have I ever owned or made a gun.

Hypothetically, if you bought that EP you didn't make a thing. You removed the white part from the black part.

You are correct that you are allowed to manufacture any gun you want without any sort of license for your own personal use. No one is disputing that, not even BATFE.

To borrow a food analogy, they're saying that you aren't a butcher just because you pulled the bone out a spare rib you bought at Kroger.

No one is requiring you to make anything from scratch. The BATFE publishes guidelines for what constitutes an 80% receiver for many types of firearms and if you have a specific one you want to inquire about you can always send to the Tech Bureau for a letter.

You need to go back and read my original post on this issue and see what really constitutes an 80% AR receiver. Then you will really understand why the BATFE was right here.

ETA: for clarity's sake I meant you can manufacture any gun that is compliant with NFA1934. You can't manufacture a fully automatic gun, nor a SBR or SBS for personal use without the appropriate stamps. And JSYK BATFE won't issue stamps for fully auto weapons except for ones registered prior to 1986.

 

[CZroe]

Hypothetically, if you bought that EP you didn't make a thing. You removed the white part from the black part.

That's as ridiculous as saying that the OCC guys didn't make the motorcycles they make just because they bought the engine. Though it needs those parts removed to be considered a gun, it still needs a stock, barrel, and many other mechanisms to be complete. If I completed it then, yes, I would consider it to be a "gun" that I made myself every bit as much as if I bought all the components to my PC, assembled it, and setup the software/peripherals.

You are correct that you are allowed to manufacture any gun you want without any sort of license for your own personal use. No one is disputing that, not even BATFE.

To borrow a food analogy, they're saying that you aren't a butcher just because you pulled the bone out a spare rib you bought at Kroger.

Is a chef not a chef because he didn't butcher his own meat? Is a butcher not a butcher because he didn't raise his own cattle? The parts do not equal the whole.

No one is requiring you to make anything from scratch. The BATFE publishes guidelines for what constitutes an 80% receiver for many types of firearms and if you have a specific one you want to inquire about you can always send to the Tech Bureau for a letter.

You need to go back and read my original post on this issue and see what really constitutes an 80% AR receiver. Then you will really understand why the BATFE was right here.

I did and I understand it perfectly: You chose to interpret it as more than 80% complete just because they made finishing it easy. You concluded that BATFE was "right" based on this assumption. Kraft Easy Mac isn't an already cooked meal just because they made it easier than normal Kraft Cheese and Macaroni.

 

[CanOWorms]

The store owner is in America and needs to assimilate and be an American. He needs to stop expecting everyone else to submit to his obscure and barbaric culture.

 

[TerryMathews]

That's as ridiculous as saying that the OCC guys didn't make the motorcycles they make just because they bought the engine. Though it needs those parts removed to be considered a gun, it still needs a stock, barrel, and many other mechanisms to be complete. If I completed it then, yes, I would consider it to be a "gun" that I made myself every bit as much as if I bought all the components to my PC, assembled it, and setup the software/peripherals.


Is a chef not a chef because he didn't butcher his own meat? Is a butcher not a butcher because he didn't raise his own cattle? The parts do not equal the whole.

I did and I understand it perfectly: You chose to interpret it as more than 80% complete just because they made finishing it easy. You concluded that BATFE was "right" based on this assumption. Kraft Easy Mac isn't an already cooked meal just because they made it easier than normal Kraft Cheese and Macaroni.

There's a difference: motorcycles don't require a background check for purchase.

Your analogy falls flat on its face unless you believe that the majority of gun control laws in this country are not valid. Don't get me wrong, I also feel that "shall not be infringed" isn't given the legal deference it deserves however case law is pretty clear: these sorts of regulations are well-founded and legal.

By your own admission, this isn't your area of expertise. As I said before, the requirements are clear: unmilled. The EP product doesn't mean any reasonable form of that definition.

 

[Agent11]

There's a difference: motorcycles don't require a background check for purchase.

Your analogy falls flat on its face unless you believe that the majority of gun control laws in this country are not valid. Don't get me wrong, I also feel that "shall not be infringed" isn't given the legal deference it deserves however case law is pretty clear: these sorts of regulations are well-founded and legal.

By your own admission, this isn't your area of expertise. As I said before, the requirements are clear: unmilled. The EP product doesn't mean any reasonable form of that definition.

You are saying it has to be a lump of plastic or metal? No milling? Or it is a weapon. That makes sense to you?

The ATF is out of control, has been for quite a while now.

 

[HumblePie]

There's a difference: motorcycles don't require a background check for purchase.

Your analogy falls flat on its face unless you believe that the majority of gun control laws in this country are not valid. Don't get me wrong, I also feel that "shall not be infringed" isn't given the legal deference it deserves however case law is pretty clear: these sorts of regulations are well-founded and legal.

By your own admission, this isn't your area of expertise. As I said before, the requirements are clear: unmilled. The EP product doesn't mean any reasonable form of that definition.

TM, from what I understand of the rules and this case is as follows.

1) ATF states you can't make a "gun" that is 100% a gun and fill it back in to make it into something else. Once a gun, always a gun unless destroyed per ATF rules. Filling a gun in with material that can be removed isn't destroying the gun either.

2) EP armory was making their lowers by first making the filled in part first. That was one color plastic. That piece is not a gun. Never was a gun. It's filler material. They then insert that piece into the middle of a mold that they make the rest of the potential lower around. The new polymer sets while melding with the other color polymer. At no point were they making a complete 100% lower.

3) The ATF, and many others, mistakenly believe that EP armors had made the other part of the lower first, which would be a 100% firearm, and then poured plastic inside to "revert" it into an unfinished lower status. EP armory was raided on that assumption and I thought I read that they were cleared of their process. But the ATF still wanted to raid Ares who distributes their product to get their customer list.

 

[irishScott]

The store owner is in America and needs to assimilate and be an American. He needs to stop expecting everyone else to submit to his obscure and barbaric culture.

Yes, that obscure and barbaric culture practiced by tens of millions of law-abiding Americans; but only a real problem in ultra-left inner-cities.

I've got an idea, how about the rest of America assimilate to the Constitution and SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution, and either change the Bill of Rights or shut up. In the meantime it'd be nice if these refined, civilized Americans you mention stopped trying to circumvent the law out of ignorant butthurtness. Even more sad is you don't even realize how obvious it is.

 

[DominionSeraph]

2) EP armory was making their lowers by first making the filled in part first. That was one color plastic. That piece is not a gun. Never was a gun. It's filler material. They then insert that piece into the middle of a mold that they make the rest of the potential lower around. The new polymer sets while melding with the other color polymer. At no point were they making a complete 100% lower.

3) The ATF, and many others, mistakenly believe that EP armors had made the other part of the lower first, which would be a 100% firearm, and then poured plastic inside to "revert" it into an unfinished lower status. EP armory was raided on that assumption and I thought I read that they were cleared of their process. But the ATF still wanted to raid Ares who distributes their product to get their customer list.

It's going to be illegal either way. The distinction is between what would be seen as raw material and a completed unit, and casting a proper lower around a mold and not removing it does not give you an 80% lower. It'd be like saying that if you sand-cast an engine block that the block is only 80% manufactured as long as you don't knock the sand out. Just because the block didn't exist before the sand and it has never existed separate from it doesn't mean you've cast a metal ingot and not an engine block.

According to builders the material is of a different consistency than the frame, so the casting of the frame around it is going to be the manufacture of a firearm. They have the pattern of a >80% lower, they inject it with a proper material to make a lower, that's a firearm.
I mean, really:

 

[TerryMathews]

You are saying it has to be a lump of plastic or metal? No milling? Or it is a weapon. That makes sense to you?

The ATF is out of control, has been for quite a while now.

No, there are specific areas of the frame that have to remain unmilled. And yes, it makes sense to me.

 

[TerryMathews]

EP armory was raided on that assumption and I thought I read that they were cleared of their process. But the ATF still wanted to raid Ares who distributes their product to get their customer list.

They wouldn't have been able to raid Ares if the EPA product was compliant.

 

[boomerang]

They wouldn't have been able to raid Ares if the EPA product was compliant.

What? With the right judge, anything can be raided.

 

[TerryMathews]

What? With the right judge, anything can be raided.

True however 80% receivers have been around for a long time.

Why do you think no one else has tried this? Simple, its not compliant.

 

[Jhhnn]

True however 80% receivers have been around for a long time.

Why do you think no one else has tried this? Simple, its not compliant.

Thank you for all of that.

One of the the sadder comments on American politics is that anything with Issa's name attached must pretty much be categorized as trumped up bullshit. The boy calls wolf all the time, even over a teacup chihuahua.

The chunks of red meat he tosses out to the faithful are obviously laced with hallucinogens.

Paramilitary style raids? Ask the DEA. It's become the standard MO even when dealing with people who don't have guns. It's shock & awe at the level of domestic law enforcement. Officers seem to like it, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that they believe they're safer when dictating the course of events w/ a warrant.