Manufacturers must stamp it with a serial number and licensed dealers are required to conduct background checks on prospective buyers. The restrictions are intended, in part, to keep felons and other people prohibited from possessing firearms from acquiring them piece by piece.
AR-15s, however, do not have a single receiver that meets that definition. They have both an upper and lower receiver two parts as opposed to the single part described in the law.
At issue in Roh's case was whether the law could fairly be interpreted to apply to just the lower receiver of the AR-15, as the ATF has been doing for decades.
To rule otherwise "would sweep aside more than 50 years of the ATF's regulation of AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms," prosecutors wrote prior to the judge's order.
Personally, I think the judge's logic was flawed. The legislation says a receiver is "that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."
It doesn't say "must be threaded to receive the barrel," it just says "usually." The AR-15 lower receiver (and the frame of the 1911 for that matter,) does house the hammer and the firing mechanism. They just aren't threaded to receive a barrel.
By this judge's interpretation, just about every semi-automatic handgun ever made also has no receiver, since the vast majority do not even have barrels that thread onto anything. They are captive within the slide by locking surfaces.
He sold 80% lower receivers and let them use the tooling to finish them.
Yeah. And Eric Holder was probably his biggest customer.
Nice summary. Thanks.
A question from the back of the FEMA re-education camp?
Yes, thank you. Uhhhhh, why didn't they just arrest him? I'll take my answer over the loudspeakers as I lead myself to the de-lousing showers.
Personally I think the judges logic is right on the money.
The ATF has been bastardizing the definitions for decades in favor of more control.
I don't think our Founders would agree that the Second Amendment has an exception involving persons that the government has decided do not have a right to keep and bear arms.
The complication becomes even more evident when you consider the limits of the duty. CNN shows the bill of sale for an "80% lower" sold to a person who may later have killed people. The bill of sale basically describes the sale of a piece of metal. The question then becomes, "Does a person have a legal duty not to sell pieces of metal to other persons who are prohibited by federal law from having them?" I don't think our Founders meant for the Second Amendment to allow such interference in the right to keep and bear arms.
The ATF would not have made the deal with the defendant if they were confident that they were in the right. Eventually the Supreme Court will have to eliminate the ATF.
The judge didn't base his decision on the wording, but that the ATF had violated federal law by not providing clear guidelines on what the law prohibits.
The judge's tentative order also found that the ATF's in-house classification process failed to comply with federal rule-making procedures. Changes to substantive federal regulations typically include a notice-and-comment period and eventual publication in the Federal Register.
Here's a link to the full text of the judge's ruling.
See: United States v. Roh, Case No. SACR 14-167 JVS
The real bummer is that the ATF gets to continue using a vague law as it sees fit.
I thought CNN liked sanctuary policies.
The judge's tentative order also found that the ATF's in-house classification process failed to comply with federal rule-making procedures. Changes to substantive federal regulations typically include a notice-and-comment period and eventual publication in the Federal Register.
This conclusion of the judges in this case shows that the IC IG did an in-house modification of a substantive regulation without going through proper process and further violated the law by not having the required notification-and-comment period and never bothered to publish his changes in the Federal Register before uploading the backdated change in a Federal Form to the DNIs website for use of the Intelligence Community AFTER THE FACT, so as to allow the WB to use an entirely new standard for reporting something that would never have been accepted before under the old regulations and form 401. Strange timing, dont you think?
By the way, Yo-Yo, it is not just the usual ability to receive a threaded barrel thats listed for it to be a regulated receiver, but also it lists a bolt and bolt block in that definition of a regulated receiver. The lower receiver portion of an AR-15 has neither of those, either. Nor for that matter do most semiautomatic pistols where those parts are part of the unregulated slides and barrels themselves.
This is the result of laws being passed and regulations being written by people who do not understand how guns operate. If the law were actually followed for AR-15s and other guns of their type, it would be the upper receiver that would be serialized and regulated, not the lower which carries the magazine, bolt spring, and trigger assemblies. The upper has the bolt, bolt block, and (sometimes) threaded barrel receiver. That shows how ignorant the regulators are in the ATF&E are. . . But that is the state of the law and how it has been since the laws and regulation have been in effect.
“the rights of the people to keep and bar arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...”
The Dems want to pass gun control laws but they dont necessarily want to enforce them. They are counting on voluntary compliance which means they are only trying to disarm the law abiding citizens.
LIES.
And the Deep State judge cancelled the case (essentially) because the figured it would go to the Supreme Court and they would STOMP on the Blue State infringements on the right to make, and keep, and bear arms.