The ATF’s Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a ‘Firearm’ Is In Serious Trouble

Joseph Roh ATF AR-15 rifle

Courtesy ATF and CNN

First, credit where it’s due. CNN’s Scott Glover has managed to turn out an excellent article about a fairly arcane aspect of guns and firearms law while getting the details right. That’s a notable feat for legacy media these days. Read the whole thing here.

With that out of the way, the criminal prosecution — aborted though it was — that Glover has written about is worthy of note and could make the ATF’s job of regulating AR-15 sales going forward extremely difficult. CNN’s article is titled, He sold illegal AR-15s. Feds agreed to let him go free to avoid hurting gun control efforts.

Here are the particulars. A Southern California man named Joseph Roh produced 80% AR-15 lowers and complete rifles, some of which he allegedly sold without a manufacturer’s license, and some allegedly to prohibited persons. At least a few of the guns he sold were used in crimes including an 80% lower that was used as the basis for a rifle build used in a 2013 spree shooting in Santa Monica.

The ATF had been watching Roh for years and mounted a sting operation against him in 2014. They sent undercover agents into his south LA machine shop where he was holding what were basically “build parties” where customers finished lowers and assembled completed rifles.

Roh was eventually arrested and charged with running an unlicensed firearms manufacturing operation. But none of that is the interesting part of the story.

The aspect that’s worthy of your attention — and is no doubt giving the ATF nightmares — is the argument that Roh’s attorney made in successfully defending his client.

As you probably know, the only part of an AR-15 that’s legally considered a firearm is the lower receiver. That’s the part that’s serialized and requires a background check to purchase (unless you buy an 80% lower and finish it yourself, but that’s another story).

Joseph Roh ATF AR-15 rifle

AR-15 stripped lower receiver (courtesy Palmetto State Armory)

Joseph Roh was smart enough to hire a good attorney, Gregory Nicolaysen. Nicolaysen did his homework and actually read the federal statute that lays out what constitutes — legally speaking — a firearm. As CNN reports, when Roh’s case came to trial in 2018 . . .

Nicolaysen argued that the definition of a receiver under the relevant federal code differed in various ways from the AR-15 component Roh was accused of manufacturing.

Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “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.” (emphasis added)

The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

And neither does any other AR-15 lower receiver. Where most firearms have a monolithic receiver that meets the definition under federal law, an AR has a split receiver, an upper and a lower. Neither component, strictly speaking, meets the definition of a frame or receiver that is explicitly laid out in the law.

In effect, Nicolaysen argued that the ATF’s interpretation of federal law that they’ve been using to deem AR-15 lowers as legal firearms is wrong…and has been since, well, forever.

(Nicolaysen) called the decision to classify it as a firearm nonetheless, the result of “secret, in-house decision-making.”

Nicolaysen accused the ATF of abusing its authority by pursuing Roh based on his alleged violation of a policy “that masquerades as law.”

Roh’s case was heard in a bench trial (at his option) in which only the judge hears the evidence and renders a verdict. US District Court Judge James V. Selna deliberated for a year and then wrote a tentative order in April.

In his order, Selna agreed with Roh’s argument that the ATF’s definition of an AR-15 lower as a firearm is faulty.

That, no doubt, set off alarm bells from LA to DC. If the ruling were allowed to stand, that would set a very inconvenient precedent, one that would make AR-15 lowers like any other part of an AR platform rifle…just another gun part that could be made and sold through the mail to just about anyone. No serial number or background check needed.

The ATF couldn’t let that stand, so prosecutors reached a plea deal with Roh.

Selna did find that Roh was guilty of selling completed firearms without a license, subjecting him to a possible prison sentence.

Following Selna’s tentative order, the prosecution and defense agreed to a deal in which Roh would plead guilty to the charge against him, but would be allowed to withdraw that plea if he stayed out of trouble for a year. Prosecutors would then dismiss the case. If Roh abides by the deal, he will have no criminal conviction and serve no time behind bars.

And there would be no legal precedent.

Sources familiar with the agreement said prosecutors wanted to strike a deal in order to prevent Selna’s order from becoming permanent, drawing publicity, and creating case law that could hamper ATF enforcement efforts.

They basically let Roh walk in order to preserve the current fiction under which the ATF regulates AR-15 sales.

As for “drawing publicity,” CNN has done a good job of that with their story. And, as Glover points out, Roh’s case wasn’t the first time a similar argument had been successfully used.

Federal law enforcement officials — and members of Congress — have been on notice about a potential problem with the language in federal gun law as applied to AR-15s since at least 2016.

In July of that year, prosecutors in Northern California abandoned a case against a convicted felon named Alejandro Jimenez after a judge found that the AR-15 lower receiver he was accused of purchasing in an ATF undercover sting did not meet the definition of a receiver under the law.

The ruling and subsequent dismissal drew little notice but prompted a letter to Congress from then-US Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She advised lawmakers that the judge’s decision was not suitable for appeal and that if ATF officials believed the definition should be changed, they should pursue regulatory or administrative action.

You can read the court’s findings in the Jimenez case here. That case was dropped, too.

So the government has known that the ATF is using a faulty interpretation of federal law to regulate the sale of AR-15 lowers for decades now. And the deal they cut in the Roh prosecution doesn’t change that in the slightest.

“AR-15s, as we speak today, do not have a receiver by the definition of the existing law and that’s a huge issue,” (Nicolaysen) said. “It shows that the laws are obsolete and they’re out of sync with the realities of today’s firearms market.”

(Adam) Winkler, the UCLA law professor, offered a similar assessment.

When he was first informed of the judge’s tentative order by a CNN reporter, Winkler said, “I thought the logic was crazy.”

But after reviewing the order and several filings in the case at the request of CNN, he said Selna’s rationale appeared legally sound.

“It does seem like there is problem,” Winkler said.

It certainly does.

The only way to fix this is through new legislation. Congress alone can change federal law to define a frame or receiver in such a way that AR-15 rifles are covered. That’s why Attorney General Lynch wrote the letter she did back in 2016, suggesting a legislative fix. But Congress apparently shrugged that off.

TTAG has reached out to Gregory Nicolaysen for comment on the case, but a call and a text haven’t been returned yet.

Under a legal principle called Chevron deference, federal courts give regulatory agencies like the ATF wide latitude in interpreting and enforcing Congress’s often poorly-written laws. However, when the agency’s interpretation is so clearly at odds with the underlying language of the law, even Ninth Circuit judges can’t overlook the problem.

(Nicolaysen) asked the judge to consider recommending that then-US Attorney General Jeff Sessions conduct a review to determine whether there were any similar cases pending around the country or past convictions “sustained on the basis of ATF policy, rather than law.”

The argument that Roh’s attorney employed to get his client a very good deal will no doubt be used by defendants in future prosecutions of the same kind. It could also be used by other attorneys to try to reverse previous convictions of those found guilty on similar charges.

 

comments

  1. avatar LFODma says:

    Does this have any impact on the MA ban on ar15s?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      This is a question of federal, not state law. State law has its own definitions.

      1. avatar SteveO says:

        Now AR pistols can add a whole lot of fun in the discussion.

        1. avatar Bruce says:

          Definitely. Bought some 100% complete AR-15 lower receivers this year, and they were treated like handguns, and not rifles, apparently at the insistence of the ATF. This is significant, because you cannot buy handguns out of state, but you can usually buy rifles, etc, in another state. So you cannot any more buy AR-15 lower receivers outside the state you reside in. Moreover, they now require you to be 21, instead of the previous 18.

        2. avatar R. Griffin says:

          If an AR lower is sold as a pistol, Then you can not put a regular rifle stock on that AR lower. IF that is done, you have broken the law. IF classed as a pistol you would only be able to use a brace on said lower…So now you can’t build a rifle out of a pistol lower if sold that way….Isn’t that the way it is?

        3. avatar Richard says:

          @ R. Griffin You have that a little bit backwards.
          You can convert a AR15 pistol into a rifle. You cannot convert a AR15 rifle to a pistol

        4. avatar Tim says:

          @Bruce a lower receiver should have been treated as “other” and marked as such on the 4473. It’s not a handgun or a rifle, similar to a pistol grip only (no shoulder stock) “shotgun” or a few others. But since it’s not a long gun to purchase/transfer through a FFL the purchaser/transferee would have to be 21.

          See pg5, section B, question 16.
          https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

        5. avatar Geoff says:

          @ TIM has it. Sorry if the formatting goes awry.

          Question 16. Type of Firearm(s):
          “Other” refers to frames, receivers and other firearms that are neither
          handguns nor long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having
          a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms,
          including silencers. If a frame or receiver can only be made
          into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a
          handgun or long gun. However, frames and receivers are still “firearms”
          by definition, and subject to the same GCA limitations as any other firearms.
          See Section 921(a)(3)(B).
          Section 922(b)(1) makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell any firearm
          other than a shotgun or rifle to any person under the age of 21.
          Since a frame or receiver for a firearm, to include one that can only
          be made into a long gun, is a “firearm other than a shotgun or rifle,”
          it cannot be transferred to anyone under the age of 21, nor can
          these firearms be transferred to anyone who is not a resident ofthe State
          where the transfer is to take place. Also, note that multiple sales forms
          are not required for frames or receivers of any firearms,or pistol grip shotguns,
          since they are not “pistols or revolvers” under Section 923(g)(3)(A).

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Possibly. The Massachusetts law references the Federal law for a definition of an assault weapon. The AR-15 is directly named. Some careful study by the legal beagles would be needed to say how much of an impact the reference to Federal statute has on the legitimacy of the state law.

      On the other hand if any problem arose it would be quick and easy for Massachusetts politicians to revise their law. Far faster than the US Congress.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        You’re referring to the complete firearm. This article pertains to JUST the lower receiver. Same thing in California; you can buy a lower and all the parts and you can even build the rifle. However, if its missing parts necessary for semi auto fire, or if you keep the complete lower and complete upper separate, then (according to the DOJ regulations) it isn’t an “assault weapon”. California classifies it as a “firearm of undetermined status”.

        1. avatar Rusty - Die Ruthie Die - Chains says:

          Yeah but if the victim, oops, defendant had the presence of mind to pull both pins and separate the upper and lower and put them in separate boxes (and maybe put the BCG in another box) there is a possibility that even crap prosecutions in the various states could be in trouble if they use the federal definitions of what constitutes a firearm.

        2. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          @Rusty
          That still does not get you past “constructive” possession. The parts need not be assembled.

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          As I recall, that was a limited time exception applicable during the period for registration of “assault weapons” as defined under California, law, but applies no longer. since the registration period has closed.

        4. avatar California Richard says:

          “Constructive intent” doesn’t exist in California law. From the DOJ regulations (page 6 sections hh (3) & (4)):

          (3) With regards to an AR-15 style firearm if a complete upper receiver and a complete
          lower receiver are completely detached from one another, but still in the possession or
          under the custody or control of the same person the firearm is not a semiautomatic
          firearm.
          (4) A stripped AR-15 lower receiver when sold at a California gun store is not a semiautomatic firearm. The action type among other think is undetermined.

          In regards to California law: the legislature gave the CA DOJ a “blank check” to give the regulations the weight of law.

    3. avatar Rad Man says:

      Massachusetts also has a two-tiered sort of restriction. The original AWB with the evil feature considerations, and the new FFL restrictions on black rifle sales. Folks were building legal, compliant, evil feature-free rifles til Maura Healey unilaterally put a stop to that under the guise of consumer safety.

      Now we can’t sell anything cool.

    4. avatar David Welsh says:

      All these regs/laws are unconstitutional. The 2e is there to protect from a potentially tyrranous government. It is insanity that that same government can place limits on that right. That’s why it says “… shall not be infringed.”

    5. avatar Mic Mada says:

      CNN mislead you all. CNn is trying to avoid the issue that this case proves that gun free zones are criminality enabling. Instead of saying that they go about some mumbo jumbo to bait fudds into legitimizing an “ATF that makes sense”

      1. avatar Frank R Garcia says:

        Huh? Who said what now about gun-free zones? Are you looking at the same article I am?

  2. avatar Steven Lynch says:

    Somebody told me Deathwish coffee it’s now sold at Walmart, can anybody confirm that guys?

    1. avatar MouseGun says:

      Why are you drinking fast-food quality meme coffee to begin with?

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      WGAFF what Wally World sells or not as they do not support Americans natural/civil rights.

    3. avatar Ton E says:

      Can confirm I’ve seen the K-Cups at Walmart. I’ve seen the Ground Coffee at Kroger.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Can confirm I’ve seen the K-Cups at Walmart. I’ve seen the Ground Coffee at Kroger.”

        We buy Counterstrike and Black Rifle coffee. Both companies veteran-owned.

        1. avatar Ton E says:

          Cant speak for counterstrike but Black Rifle Coffee is overrated IMHO I’d wager if they invested more in their coffee and less in funny videos and sketches their coffee would be worth the money a bag of their coffee costs. I’m a veteran myself and I couldn’t care less if the people who run the business are vets themselves if they make a good product or not is where my money goes.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Cant speak for counterstrike but Black Rifle Coffee is overrated IMHO”

          BRC sells “Silencer Smooth”, a “light blend”. Tried some of the other blends, but SS is the one I buy consistently. Counterstrike sells “Smooth Operator” (light blend), and that one is nice also. Counterstrike also sells “Nalpalm”, and “Fire Watch”, which are “medium” and enjoyable. Have added their “Bombshell Brandy” to other coffees, with happy results.

          I will give veteran-owned business a chance because, well, veteran-owned. If the business doesn’t measure up, will go to other sources.

        3. avatar Ton E says:

          I like darker blends and none of BRCs measures up to the point id buy it consistently I may try Counterstrike.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I may try Counterstrike.

          Hope that turns out better.

      2. avatar Eddy says:

        I got k cups from my local Kroger.

    4. avatar Frank R Garcia says:

      Am I mentally retarded or something? I don’t understand what coffee has to do with ATF regulations.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        You must not be “WOKE” enuff… But yeah didn’t get the connection either…

  3. avatar Red in CO says:

    Huh… so if the receiver is legally the firearm, and the AR-15 doesn’t have a receiver that is legally a firearm… with this precedent and definitions could it be argued that a complete AR-15 rifle doesn’t meet the explicit definition and thus isn’t a firearm? And is therefore not subject to firearm restrictions by virtue of not being one?

    I’m sure that wouldn’t hold up in court for political reasons but the logic seems to pan out

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      My guess is that once a lower receiver is mated with an upper receiver it would then constitute a ‘firearm’ under federal law. I didn’t read anything about the ‘firearm’ being separable negating it’s classification as a firearm. A prohibited person would therefore be able to legally purchase both but if he put them together (even without any other parts) he would be a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.

      If congress did correct the language it would probably result in both the upper and lower receivers being classified as firearms.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        That’s the way it is here in CA. The well-known way to keep out of trouble with your non-CA compliant ARs that have all the goodies is to simply store them with the upper/lower separated. Then there’s no legal “firearm” and therefore no cause for LE to press charges.

        That’s what I do. The ARs I don’t use within CA are stored separated in my safe. I simply assemble them for use once I cross over into NV or AZ, and disassemble before re-entry into the Badlands.

        The one AR I keep assembled is converted to bolt action via a Kali Key BCG set. That, too, can be quickly converted back to a “real” AR within two minutes after leaving the state.

        1. avatar Micah says:

          You need to convert them to bolt action in Cali now? When I lived there (2012 -2015) you just needed a bullet button to keep from releasing magazines by hand and you were limited to 10 round magazines, but you could at least keep them semi-automatic.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          The bullet button option is gone now. The three criteria for a potential Assault Weapon classification in CA are (1) semi-auto, (2) centerfire, and (3) detachable magazine. If a gun meets all three, then you can’t have things like a flash hider, pistol grip, barrel shroud, etc. or it’s an AW. This is why we’ve had absurd work-arounds like the Fin Grip, the DFM (drop-in fixed mag), and such.

          But by putting in a temporary Kali Key BCG to convert to bolt action, you can have all the scary goodies you want, and the gun will never meet the three criteria as an AW.

          Yeah, it sux, but at least it’s one of the easiest options for compliance.

        3. avatar Micah says:

          Well “common sense” tells us the mass murderers would probably be unwilling to violate their arbitrary gun rules so… there’s that.
          https://babylonbee.com/news/murderous-psychopaths-undecided-on-whether-theyll-follow-new-gun-laws

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Well I sincerely hope you get to spend a lot of time in NV and AZ (or AR and AK for that matter).

    2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Yeah, I’m in agreement here.
      I wouldn’t violate any part of that, but I find it very interesting.

    3. avatar Raz-0 says:

      The most interesting part of this concept is that pistol receivers are more or less the same in component and layout as AR receivers.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        This is exactly what I was thinking.

    4. avatar thomas says:

      If it fires a projectile,contained in a cartridge ..then it’s a firearm ( completed rifle that is )
      that’s why black powder guns are exempt, no bullets…ball and cap and or black powder do not meet the definition.

  4. avatar Harm Uden says:

    Fascinating story.

  5. avatar Biatec says:

    I really hope they don’t make uppers part of the firearm. That would be really really awful.

    1. avatar Fred Lead says:

      They would have to track matched pairs of upper and lower receivers, amend legal manufacturing of AR-15s to build upper and lower as one part, or track unmatched upper and lower receivers separately to do it in any way that makes sense. The ATF doesn’t want to put any more of a burden on itself, which is why we have this arbitrary “lower is the firearm” in the first place. They basically picked a single integral part of the firearm and made it the legal definition of the firearm simply to track and control it. It is the Arbitrary Task Force after all.

      In a perfect world for the ATF every firearm would have an enclosed and serialized fire control unit (or wouldn’t exist in the first place, depending on who you ask). The AR-15 is simply too much space gun design for simplistic government types.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        First as far as I’m aware of no upper is serial numbered,second all arms control laws are un Constitutional to begin with.

        1. avatar Zzzxx says:

          Green Mtn. Boy-

          The upper receiver on an FN FAL is the serialized part. I’m sure there’s more out there but that’s the only firearm I know where the upper is the regulated part.

          (Kind of a bummer really. Was hoping to swap uppers on my FAL but it’s pricey and inconvenient to buy, plus not much of a market as a result. But hey…I guess the anti-gun folks would rather prefer we buy more complete firearms instead of owning just one.)

        2. avatar Mark H says:

          Ruger Mk II is another example where the upper is the serialized “receiver”

        3. avatar sonofafemaledog says:

          Grand Power Stribog 9mm (pistol, thanks atf imports)

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        No need. As discussed above, if you have both the upper and lower, even if not coupled, you are in constructive possession of a firearm. On the other hand, it would be very difficult to argue that with just those two pieces that you could be charged under state law for unlawful possession of an unregistered “assault weapon,” since every definition includes one or more “evil features” such as flash hiders, collapsing stocks, pistol grips, and in some states detachable mags.

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “I really hope they don’t make uppers part of the firearm.”

      A European commented here in TTAG a while back that the European definition of the regulated parts of firearms were the pressure-bearing components. To me, that sounds like bolts and barrels…

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        That’s understandable, considering their proof laws.

        In the EU/UK, any time a gunsmith makes changes to the “pressure bearing components” of a firearm beyond a certain cosmetic limit, the components or the assembled firearm need to go back to a proof house for re-proofing.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      Unfortunately they could and do so fairly easily.

      Some old Euro pistols have matching SN#’s on the slide and frame. Old Euro rifles too, matched between the bolt/receiver and sometimes a mag floor plate/cover as well.

      The ATF seems to deal with those just fine.

    4. avatar Brasstard says:

      That was my first thought, they have done it with 50bmg uppers so they can do it with all of them.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        The BMG uppers are serialized because they determined to be complete firearms in and of themselves. You could fire a round without attaching to an AR-15 lower. There are similar .223 uppers for MAC-type guns that were ruled as firearms for the same reason.

  6. avatar strych9 says:

    I read this yesterday and my first thought was “Wow, CNN hired someone remotely competent to write a FIREARM story!?”.

    In all seriousness though, there’s no way the ATF hasn’t known the issue here since well before 2014, which I believe is when the ATF/DOJ were “first notified” of the issue by an outside party, though perhaps 2016 reflects the time frame better. Either way the ATF has a fair number of intelligent lawyers and gun folks working for it. They’ve known about this problem for a LONG time and just haven’t said anything because it requires a Congressional fix and they would probably have trouble with prosecutions going back to the advent of the rule when defense discovery finds internal documents proving that they knew of this issue for years if not decades and simply declined to bring it up to Congress for fear of hindering what they knew to be unwarranted/illegal prosecutions.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Wouldn’t that be concealing exculpatory evidence?

      1. avatar Tim says:

        Only if caught…

      2. avatar Alpheus says:

        First of all, it’s a sad truth that prosecutors and police officers alike have a common belief that providing exculpatory evidence is more of a guideline than an ethical requirement.

        Second, though, it’s not that difficult to imagine the ATF having two sets of lawyers: those who write the legislation, and those who enforce it. The ones who write the legislation may be aware of the problem, and those who enforce it might have no clue — plausible deniability, in other words.

        I would propose that even in the second scenario, the ATF has been acting unethically, particularly if they’ve known about the problem for decades.

        Then again, they might not have been aware of the problem: sure, they were familiar with the wording of the law, but the actual meaning might not have sunken in, and there’s none so blind as those who refuse to see….

  7. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Lawyers in this day & age are unfortunately a evil necessity,,, good ones are really hard to find, & if you do find a good one, hold on to your wallet…

  8. avatar Dan says:

    What about M16 lowers? Seems like the same precedent would apply to them. 🧐

    1. avatar guest says:

      Once you drill that third hole the gov’t says it’s a machine gun, and the fire control parts on the lower also count as machine gun parts. It doesn’t have to be a receiver to be a machine gun. I know a guy with a registered full auto bolt for an uzi, the receiver is title 1 and the bolt is title 2.

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The episode underscores the need to develop good reading comprehension skills.

  10. avatar No One Special says:

    I don’t want to be the one to bring up the elephant in the room but while politicians present themselves as extremely lacking in common sense, they are not that stupid. I have no doubt that this will be addressed behind closed doors and back alley deals will be made to ram through new legislation to “fix” this to allow the government the control they so desperately long for. The rock and hard spot the government likes to keep everyone between opens up with this and allows wiggle room for escape. Trust me, the powers that be can’t allow that.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Sometimes state law fills the gaps. California Governor Noisome just signed a bill that will require that “precursor” parts for ARs go through the same “back ground check” now required for the purchase of ammunition. We will only be able to buy specified parts from a dealer, and mail order upper receivers, barrels and 80% lowers will have to go through a dealer. (He signed six other bills, but included the caveat that the strictest laws in the country “still have a long way to go.” A**hole.

      1. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

        Yeah, he’s an elitist control freak, the way all collectivists are.

      2. avatar Dr. Blue says:

        Unless to run them at the same time, background checks would make it very costly.

  11. avatar Hannibal says:

    This isn’t a good thing for most gun owners. The status quo on the question of AR lowers is fairly useful. Any change is likely to be negative.

    1. avatar M1Lou says:

      It’s a trap. Imagine if they made the upper and lower a receiver. Then you could no longer just swap uppers around at will. I have never purchased a complete AR, I always make mine out of parts. I also do some swapping for testing purposes. Nothing good could come from the ATF messing with this.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “Then you could no longer just swap uppers around at will.”

        That would depend I think. The ATF seems to be fine with “force matching” parts on other rifles as well as mismatched SN#’s all over the gun which could be easily interpreted by the uninitiated to be *the* SN.

        Look at some milsurp imports and *the* SN has been stamped by the importer out near the end of the barrel. Does that mean you can’t rebarrel an imported Mauser? I’ve never heard such a claim.

  12. avatar enuf says:

    27 CFR § 479.11 – Meaning of terms.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11
    Frame or receiver. 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.
    ——————————————-

    So the Ruger 10/22 receiver is also not a firearm? It meets all the specifications above until we come to the “and firing mechanism” part of the description. The “and” makes it a must-have item inside the receiver.

    The firing mechanism in the 10/22 is an independent assembly not housed by the receiver anymore than the AR-15. Two pins loosely hold the firing mechanism in place just as in the AR-15 two pins hold its firing mechanism in place below the upper receiver.

    If the 10/22 receiver does not have a firing mechanism within it, is it a firearm under the law?

    The fix for this wouldn’t be all that complicated. Congress would rewrite the definition to include the entire firearm and designate the ATF the responsibility to determine where the serial number should be located. Would not surprise me if all major parts would then end up having to be serialized.

    The complicated part is getting it all thru Congress. Which, right now, ain’t about to happen.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Would not surprise me if all major parts would then end up having to be serialized.”

      The old automotive way might be employed, “matching serial numbers”, that collectors love to find in old cars.

      Or a variation, like “BR 123456” for barrel, and “BT 123456” for the bolt…

  13. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Careful what you wish for.. The way Congress writes laws we could wind up with some fucked up abortion that defines an AR15 as a combined upper AND lower half AND require matching serial numbers on the two halves which makes it illegal to use one lower for any use other than than the upper that it was sold with….

  14. avatar John in AK says:

    With no more legal training than the average cop, I can fix that definition with one word: ‘Or.’

    “. . . hammer, OR bolt, or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is USUALLY etc.”

    If the subassembly carries the hammer, OR the bolt, or the breechblock, AND the firing mechanism, it’s a receiver, whether or not it’s threaded, because ‘usually’ isn’t an absolute.

    Honestly, if I weren’t a judge, I’d simply assume that that first ‘or’ was already understood given the placement of the comma and the ‘or’ before ‘breechblock,’ making it unnecessary for the subassembly to contain either, nor even the hammer. Logically, if one isn’t an anal-retentive legal dickhead, an AR-15 lower is just as much a ‘receiver’ as is the frame of a Glock; Neither has a breechblock, bolt, or any threading, but both certainly contain the firing mechanism.

    This doesn’t seem to be a ‘victory’ of any sort, being simply another case of a sharp lawyer getting someone who has clearly committed a gun felony ‘off’–something that people here often say is the actual PROBLEM with ‘gun control,’ wherein the Feds aren’t prosecuting violators of laws that already exist, but instead want to write new laws.

    Well, this gives them a perfect opportunity to write new laws. Now, they can get a politician to rewrite this, and to declare any major part of a firearm as a ‘controlled’ bit, especially those with ‘hammers, OR strikers, OR bolts, OR breechblocks, OR the firing mechanism, OR threading’ such as upper receivers (Striker? Check. Bolt? Check. Threading? Check. , for example and change our world forever.

    Congratulations.

    Don’t do us any more favors.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The law means what it says or it doesn’t. When someone avoids conviction or penalties because the law does not line up with the charges, this isn’t some legal trickery. This is how a nation of laws is supposed to work.

      Do you have a problem with the “gunshow loophole” as well?

      Read the Second Amendment… ALL of these gun control laws are contrary to the supreme law of the land. There is no such thing as a “gun felony” for this guy or anyone else of which to be found guilty. In his case, the law clearly did not support the charges.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        No, this was indeed legal trickery. POTG should condemn him and others like him because:

        “His customers, more than two dozen of whom were legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, could push a button, pull a lever, and walk away a short time later with a fully assembled, untraceable semi-automatic weapon for about $1,000, according to court records.”

        This gentleman provided arms to more than two dozen who were forbidden from owning arms. Convicted felons, mentally disturbed individuals, underage.

        How many of his customers were gangbangers, who are using these weapons now in their criminal organization.

        How many of his customers were convicted felons, who now have a weapon to continue whatever particular career of crime they enjoy.

        How many of these customers are mentally defective, just waiting to use that find A.R. 15 to write the wrongs and society.

        Go ahead, call him a hero. And once again reasonable people will think that POTG are not capable of living in society and owning lethal weapons.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No, this was indeed legal trickery. POTG should condemn him and others like him…”

          How do people get things like this so wrong, so consistently. Just like the anti-gunners we want what we want, just the way we want it…only we are righteous, and anti-gunners are not.

          “Legal trickery”. Using the law to defend a client is not trickery. The only reason making and selling guns, untraceable, in your basement is illegal, is because a law says so. Or does it?

          In the case at hand, the written law is demonstrated to not read as the ATF (and others) want. Is it some how acceptable that charging someone with a crime simply because the LE agency wants an activity to be a crime? Haven’t we just gone through episodes where people were forced to plead guilty to crimes that don’t exist, in order to keep the government from destroying their family?

          Let’s begin with the premise that a well-constructed law making building and selling guns without being a permitted manufacturer is desirable. Got that? Do you realize that you have just endorsed a restriction to the Second Amendment that has no basis in the constitution? “Well, common sense.” Really? “Common sense”? Why is your idea of common sense any better than that of the anti-gun cartel? Do you see what is going on?

          So, let’s begin with the premise that a poorly constructed law is being used as a bludgeon to obtain a result you favor, yet that result cannot actually be supported by the wording of the law. Now what? Just fill-in the blanks with the desired outcome, and proclaim your prejudice is law? And then declare a person who does not violate the actual law is a criminal who got away with it because of a “loophole”?

          Let’s review that favorite time in history when violators of law were proclaimed heroes, far and wide. Let us return to these thrilling days of yesteryear and look at the civil rights movement. People were violating a law (maybe a bunch of law), and were being declared heroes. And the laws they violated were not all vague notions being twisted by LE to achieve a result. When good lawyering freed those civil rights activists, should they have been condemned for using “legal trickery”?

          The fact here is that someone (or some someones) paid close attention to the wording of the law, and found the law actually said one thing, while LE was using their own judgement to achieve a result not actually supported by law. This is no different that all the countless times people “got away with it” because of a “technicality”, because of “legal trickery”. In the instant case, the judge was not “tricked”. People just go complacent having things their own way, with nobody looking closely at what they were doing. So keep forward in your mind, this is a government doing what it is we accuse government of doing with our Second Amendment protected RTKBA…abusing the law; infringing.

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          In case you didn’t already know criminals can already get firearms. Grow a pair of balls and take responsibility for your safety and security. Regardless of what you might otherwise think the government doesn’t give so much as rats ass about your safety or security.

        3. avatar Arc says:

          Doesn’t matter, legal is legal. No laws were broken, hence why the ATF backed down.

        4. avatar No One Special says:

          Miner49er, your logic is a liberal ideology, supported only by a liberal agenda. It is also a communist school of thought demanding that others agree with you whether they want to or not. You can have your point of view. Hell you can even have it your way as it pertains to you. What you and every other candy ass liberal can’t do is force your bullshit off on others freely. That comes at a cost I would bet good money on that you and your ilk are not willing to pay.

        5. avatar Dr. Blue says:

          @ARC, yes he did break the law. He was running a firearms manufacturing business without a license. I.E. he was “in the business.” DOJ let high priced lawyers screw them around along with a dipshit judge or maybe they did that intentionally given it was Loretta Lynch. He likely knew many of his customers were prohibited persons which is also against the law.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “He was running a firearms manufacturing business without a license.”

          Unless, of course, he wasn’t making firearms, right?

          We don’t get to decide what is or isn’t a firearm just because we don’t like someone, same as with ATF. For now, because the gov’t backed down, we can only go with what the judge determined…not a firearm IAW the law. It is a telling moment when gov’t backs away from an issue before the court.

          If gov’t was correct, the entire case could be settled by laying out a copy of the applicable law, then showing, in detail, specifically how the product violated the law; case closed.

          So, think about it….even if gov’t lost at trial, an appeal for error in interpretation would be available. And then on to the SC. Why did the gov’t not press the issue? Could it be the gov’t decided it was likely to lose at every level? Why would that be?

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        “His customers, more than two dozen of whom were legally prohibited from possessing a firearm,“

        He facilitated prohibited persons acquisition of A.R. 15‘s and you don’t think any laws were broken.

        Fascinating.

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          How many criminals obtain firearms the same way that you don’t know about? Unless a way is figured out to change people what you want isn’t obtainable the way you and those like you suggest. I really wish liberals would own up to their own fear and lack of a spine. You all are afraid of your own mortality and your inability or unwillingness to protect yourselves. How many people have been killed by stabbing or blunt force trauma? How about drunk driving? I don’t hear you going on about knives, baseball bats, and vehicles being banned. Why? Because if those things were banned it would directly affect your candy ass and your ilk. This why people that value their freedom in one way or another tell you to get bent. You can’t talk about common sense when you are seriously lacking the same.

        2. avatar Kingpasser says:

          Correct, he violated not a single law that is on the books. Facts not your fealings are the only thing that matters.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…you don’t think any laws were broken…”

          Haven’t read where anyone commenting here made that declaration. The issue was not about prohibited persons, nor about FFL paper. The issue was/is the misuse/abuse of law by a federal agency. The prohibited person angle was an ancillary consideration, only in that if the law did not actually provide for criminal charges for making non-firearms, then no crime was committed, and prohibited persons did not buy/make firearms. What you are arguing is, “everyone knows what a gun is, and those lower receivers being made are parts of guns, so they are one and the same.”

          You should be very concerned about the ability of government to spin a law anyway they want in order to control an activity government doesn’t like.

        4. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” He facilitated prohibited persons acquisition of A.R. 15‘s and you don’t think any laws were broken. ”

          Yeah, laws were broken, and the judge so much as said so:

          “Selna did find that Roh was guilty of selling completed firearms without a license, subjecting him to a possible prison sentence.”

          And that’s where it ends. Kudos to the lawyer for finding the fault lines in the law the way it is written. If someone walks on what you call a “technicality” that would be the fault of the sloppy and incompetent legislators, not the defendant. What you’re saying is that “shall not be infringed” isn’t really what was intended, so it can be ignored. Well, that ain’t gonna fly. The letter of the law is it– there is no “spirit”.

        5. avatar Mark N. says:

          Except for a couple of completed rifles (probably requested by an ATF snitch), the defendant did not sell any rifles at all, or as far aw we know, the parts to build them. All he sold was access to a pre-programmed CNC milling machine that allowed the user, with his own 80% lower, to mill his own complete lower at the push of a button. After that, every thing is a lego set, with just a couple of special tools needed So these prohibited persons came into the shop with a bunch of legally acquired parts which they were legally allowed to possess, and with a little milling, could assemble their own rifles. At no time was the shop owner required to run a background check on anyone. It was the criminals’ choice to break the law.

          And as to the point about criminality, FBI statistics show that very very few rifles of any type are used to commit crimes.

        6. avatar rt66paul says:

          He was not a licensed gun seller, he hosted gun build parties for individuals. If that was what he truly did, the law should never have arrested him. It is not a legal requirement that he checks IDs or runs his party goers’ names to make sure they can legally have a gun. These people are basically taking a class on how to build a firearm, not buying one from him. They have other ways to buy firearms, even cheaper ways to get them.

          It was part of the plea that said he sold finished rifles to these people, that was a legal fiction. He has to stay out of trouble and it will be wiped away in a year – I do not believe that the court could have convicted him successfully as a seller of rifles without the get out of jail/wipe my slate clean deal.

        7. avatar Huntmaster says:

          It clearly says “shall not be infringed.” and the left is constantly trying to tell us it doesn’t really mean that. You want to talk about taking advantage of some silly technicality? Really!

        8. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          Which laws, chapter and verse, were broken? There is no federal charge that I know of for “facilitating” a prohibited person acquiring a firearm.

          They could have charged him for manufacturing without a 07 FFL – but they screwed up on their definition of a receiver, so that charge is done and gone.

          They could have charged him with selling a firearm if he provided materials to machine, but apparently he didn’t do that either.

          What he did was provide access and instruction to machine and tools that enabled a person to complete the building of an AR-pattern rifle. There are no laws covering that activity. Lawyering is in the details, which is why lawyers advise you to not act as your own lawyer when you’re arrested. This gent got hold of a good lawyer who actually read the law and regulations, and found out that the ATF, like many regulatory agencies, has been making up the law as they went along – much like the IRS, FBI, et al.

      3. avatar John in AK says:

        Yeah, yeah, I know. “Shall not be infringed” is inviolable, boilerplate, absolute, means only what it says no matter what some Supreme Court decides, every mentally-defective homicidal maniac with multiple felony convictions has an absolute right to have a gun if he’s not in prison, and so on. Everyone attending a Trump rally should be able to carry an MSR into the venue and wave it about a bit. Terminal patients in hospices should have a sidearm. Drunks in bars should have an absolute right to have a shotgun close at hand, just in case. Opioid addicts have a God-given right to a reliable ‘piece’ on the off-chance that those flying purple clawed monkeys are REAL.

        And unicorns fart cotton candy and shit Skittles, all men are handsome, tall, and virile, and all women are beautiful, tall, and own liquor-and-gun stores.

        If you actually, truly believe that ‘shall not be infringed’ means ‘shall not be regulated or controlled in any way, shape, or form, without exception,’ then you are delusional.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If you actually, truly believe that ‘shall not be infringed’ means ‘shall not be regulated or controlled in any way, shape, or form, without exception,’ then you are delusional.”

          If the 2d isn’t absolute, what is/are the limit(s) to how much regulation is permitted by the 2d? Where is the bright line beyond which no government may intrude? Situational? Then not only is the Second Amendment PlayDoh, the entire constitution is fluid so as to be meaningless, except as a standard from which to deviate.

          Without inviolable standards, we are left with “the rule of men”, the mob. Any list of exceptions to the constitution, no matter how derived, is as valid, or invalid, as the next person’s list of allowable exceptions. That means the only standards are those determined, at the moment, by government officials. It is this condition the framers sought to restrain.

          And one of my favorite cautions…without inviolable standards, the 13th Amendment is not absolute.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Your rant tells much about your thinking so you might as well come out of the closet and join Moms Demand Action.

          Here’s your goat.

        3. avatar John in AK says:

          Do you draw any lines, yourself? If ‘shall not be infringed’ is absolute and immutable, does that mean that there can be no interference with anyone’s right to possess a firearm under any circumstances? Anywhere? No matter what?

          You assert that ‘government’ can NEVER interfere with a citizen’s right to possess a gun, correct? Or, just maybe, are there some ‘infringements’ that you’re OK with? If so, which ones? How is this possible, given that ‘shall not be infringed’ is immutable?

          ‘Splain it for me.

          Oh, that 13th Amendment? It’s not immutable, either. For example, a court can sentence you to involuntary servitude, for life if they like, if you piss them off. Sorry.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “For example, a court can sentence you to involuntary servitude, for life if they like, if you piss them off. ”

          Please stay on subject. Slavery and jail sentences are not the same. Jail is a choice…one chooses to take action that can result in being in jail.

          Dodging the question, “where is the bright line” is sophistry not worthy of response. You made the charge that absolutism is delusion. It is your responsibility to list the restrictions you find intolerable, and explain why they have moral authority over other lists of restrictions.

        5. avatar Woody W Woodward says:

          ” . . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Note the period (.) that immediately follows the phrase “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” That period means the same thing today that it meant in 1791. Nobody is required to like what it means but that’s just the way it is – – learn to live with it.
          [W3]

      4. avatar Tim says:

        Agreed. And all the gun control laws do not address the real heart of the matter; hold accountable those that abuse their constitutional rights to deprive others of theirs.
        If any crime is committed against a citizen then it is the perpatrator of that crime that should be held accountable & punished not society at large.

    2. That would mean upper and lower were both firearms.

      Don’t try to be clever and help the enemy.

  15. avatar B says:

    Good job Dan. When I saw the CNN link posted the other day, these were my exact thoughts.

    The vid didn’t clearly mention to viewers (especially those unfamiliar with guns) that he was using 80% lowers that are NOT considered firearms by the ATF.

    Just another BS government bully tactic to further their agenda. Hope this guy recovers from the rape.

    1. avatar Dr. Blue says:

      Running a firearms manufacturing business without a license is illegal i.e. “in the business.” https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2010-10-manufacturing-operations-maybe-performed-licensed-gunsmiths-under/download

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Running a firearms manufacturing business…”

        It is the very word, “firearm” that is in question. If the product is not a firearm under the law, then firearms are not being manufactured.

        Why is it people visiting here are incensed that ATF declares that the collection of certain materials, regardless of the individual location of the materials, can be declared “constructive possession” of a silencer, but are somehow aggravated that the gov’t wasn’t allowed to easily misapply a law defining “firearm”?

      2. avatar Ichneumon says:

        Actually, according to the legal language, Roh wasn’t “manufacturing” anything himself, even aside from the question of whether the lower receiver was legally a firearm or not.

        The definition of “manufacturer” is “any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution”.

        Roh carefully set up his operation so that he himself did not “manufacture firearms”, nor did he “sell or distribute” them. All he did was provide the tools and instructions that other individuals could use all by themselves to personally construct their own firearms.

        He just had a more sophisticated version of the folks who sell books and jigs and drill bits and molds and so on that people can acquire so as to make their own guns — and both ends of that kind of transaction have repeatedly been green-lighted by the ATF as being well within the law.

        As for him not doing background checks on the people renting his equipment, there’s absolutely no law requiring him to. Transferring a gun to a prohibited person is illegal, but renting them machining equipment is not, even if they use the equipment to do create something illegal for them to then possess (that’s on them).

  16. avatar Mark John says:

    Someone mentioned jurisdiction Federal v. State. Well if no one is making lowers or forging 80% lowers in your state and they have to be brought in via carrier. They then become regulated under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. A whole new set of cans can be opened up THESE LAWS. Definitions on the state levels take a back seat to federal laws.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      My 80% lowers were manufactured by a company within my state, so I’m good.

    2. There is no such thing as an “80% receiver.” That is a marketing term. There are “Firearms” and “Not firearms.” Per federal law, a receiver with no trigger well or action holes is “Not a firearm.”

      Legally it’s a block of metal.

  17. avatar MakeGunsGreatAgain says:

    Do you think same type’s of say “soft spots” can be found in the pure communist BS – NFA and 1968 GCA laws? Fantasy but can always dream right? Hate waiting year/year+ for items that shold and can be “approved” like in real time when you pay for them. SOB communists!

    1. avatar MakeGunsGreatAgain says:

      Oops… SHOULD… typo

  18. avatar Imayeti says:

    So, if I buy an upper now, when the law changes and lowers are no longer regulated, I can buy a lower?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      That really depends on what your state has to say about it. Even if no longer regulated by the ATF, your state may still require a background check for a serialized lower. Even still, the ATF does not regulate 80% lowers, and aonly a few states (California for one) do so. If you have access to a drill press, it is pretty easy to do, if more expensive that just buying a $50 lower when on sale.

    2. avatar Zzzxx says:

      Nothing is stopping you from buying a lower today…

      If you’re prohibited from owning a firearm, then having the lower suddenly become not regulated means you still can’t possess a functioning firearm…

      Having the lower be unregulated doesn’t magically change other gun laws…

  19. avatar burley says:

    The ATF’s interpretation of what constitutes a firearm is not the problem and has never been. It’s the ATF’s existence (first of all) and it’s interpretation of “shall not be infringed” that’s the heart of the matter.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Correct,un Constitutional laws enforced by a un Constitutionally authorized agency.

    2. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

      I agree that the ATF should not exist. There is NOTHING in the Constitution authorizing such an agency, though the same could be said about many Federal agencies. In the case of the ATF, though, I find it particularly egregious because they only exist to investigate and enforce laws which are malum prohibitum instead of laws which are malam in se. The money wasted on that agency would be better spent going after those who commit real crimes such as murder, assault, robbery, kidnapping, etc.

  20. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

    Same tactic employed by the State in NYSRPA case….get jammed up by the courts and they try their best to run from the case, argue its not relevant anymore, or threaten the court. Idiots write these laws, morons enforce them, and imbeciles judge them.

  21. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Wouldn’t the same argument apply to many semi-automatic pistols? The lower receiver of, say, a Glock doesn’t have the bolt, breechblock and isn’t threaded to receive the barrel, either.

    1. avatar Fyooz says:

      Kalashnikovs typically do not have threaded trunnions to seat the barrel either.

      they’re smoothbored, press-fit, and a cross-pin holds the barrel at the right headspace for the bolt.

  22. avatar Dan W says:

    Simple enough to make it Illegal since it doesn’t fit the definition. That or make pinning the upper and lower together mandatory to make it compliant.

  23. avatar ARR says:

    Hmmmmm. The “lower” of a 1911 does not have provision for nor contain a bolt/breechblock, nor is it threaded to accept the barrel, nor is the barrel “permanently aligned with the bore” (pistol definition) nor a rotating cylinder as mentioned in the revolver definition (both of which are excluded from the “any other weapon” definition).

    Is the 1911 a gun?

    1. avatar No One Special says:

      “nor is the barrel “permanently aligned with the bore” (pistol definition)”

      Huh? The bore is a part of the barrel. So the bore is permanently aligned with the barrel as much as it was when the bore was drilled.

  24. avatar ARR says:

    Yep, you’re right.

  25. avatar Hankus says:

    The legal definition sounds like a better match for an AR upper. Depends upon what your definition of “firing mechanism” is.

    “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” – Bill Clinton, August 17, 1998

    1. avatar CplCamelToe says:

      Yup.
      “Firing mechanism” could just as readily be the striker/firing pin, and most split-“frame” designs have the barrel and breech together in the upper part.

      I think that was the part implied in the article about the ATF being scared by the potential ramifications of this ruling. Most semi-auto pistols would be wrong too.

      In light of this discussion, it would seem that the Ruger Mk pistols, 10-22, and the Bushmaster ACR were rare examples of when the ATF actually won their game of Receiver-Spin-The-Bottle.

  26. avatar John in Ohio says:

    There have been similar problems for the FCC. AFAIK, they are smart enough to have those cases sealed or even don’t pursue them when they get swatted down administratively so word doesn’t leak out. These fine examples, coupled with all of the unconstitutional actions of government, shows that the Emperor truly has no clothes.

    1. avatar Jerry says:

      Could you give some examples of where the FCC is making things up as they go, and the consequences of being overruled? I have several FCC licenses so this sounds really interesting. The FCC-created regulations on radio are almost as silly as the regulations on guns.

      I wonder if I could run my own legal pirate radio station without being 12 miles out to sea 🙂 or maybe just use a part 90 radio in part 95/80.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Troll harder next time, Jerry. This attempt was pathetic.

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          Not everyone who disagrees with you is a ‘troll,’ my friend. What you tend to do here when confronted with an opinion that you do not like is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout “Nononononononono!” without really refuting the other’s argument.

          That’s what Liberals do. Considering your rant, you might as well join Antifa.

          Sound familiar?

  27. avatar Shaun Wagner says:

    I don’t see how the judges ruling is correct. The law doesn’t state that it has to have a hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, it states that a receiver provides “housing” for such components. Pretty easy read, to me.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      The lower receiver only houses the hammer and firing mechanism, the bolt are housed in the upper.

      By definition the part that is defined as the firearm requires all three.

  28. avatar LKB says:

    To me, the positive aspect of this case is that the judge did not just roll over for the ATF’s winking at the definition of “firearm” — while it clearly pained him to do so (a year to render a decision on a bench trial?), in the end he actually read and applied the law.

    Hopefully, the courts handling the challenges to the bump stock ban will do likewise — given the clear definition of “machine gun” in the statute, it seems like that will be an easier case.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Hopefully, the courts handling the challenges to the bump stock ban will do likewise — given the clear definition of “machine gun” in the statute, it seems like that will be an easier case.”

      Would that make careful ‘venue shopping’ a desirable tactic to attack that law?

  29. Excerpt:
    CNN’s article is titled, He sold illegal AR-15s. Feds agreed to let him go free to avoid hurting gun control efforts.
    ——————————————————————
    All this show is that OUR government at ALL (levels) is involved in tyrannical activity the name of Public Safety…Its called “Authoritarianism!” The war against the general public, the 2nd Amendment, firearms, or any personal weapons for that matter…Is called “Constitutional Infringements…”

    1. “Edit BUTTON= Shows/IN the name of…”

  30. avatar Raggs says:

    This is BS. He is not a federally licenced firearms dealer. There for he broke the law. This is just another example of the government not doing its job.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “He is not a federally licensed firearms dealer. There for he broke the law.”

      Which “law” is that? Selling firearms, or manufacturing (teaching to build) something that is not a firearm? They are not the same offense.

    2. avatar Dwight Hasnen says:

      Nope. Scott Glover never sold a firearm.

      He sold a chuck of aluminum the ATF didn’t call a firearm. Then he rented time on a CNC machine.

      Neither of those are in the business of selling firearms.

      This should have never been a case in the first place. The ATF didn’t like what he was doing. That doesn’t mean he broke any law. massive overreach on their part.

      The prohibited people that made their own reciever are the ones that did.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Right, and the guy driving the getaway car for the bank robbers can just say hey, “I have a drivers license and I was just driving so I didn’t break any laws!”

        A lawful act, committed to further a felony becomes an unlawful act.

        This guy was an accessory before, during and after the fact of these prohibited persons illegally acquiring lethal weapons.

  31. avatar Paul Berglund says:

    This was simply a mistake made by the Judge mis-interpreting the definition. It doesn’t have to be threaded. An AR-15 receiver is no different than break open action, it doesn’t have to have a bolt, and it functions like a breach block.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “This was simply a mistake made by the Judge mis-interpreting the definition. It doesn’t have to be threaded. An AR-15 receiver is no different than break open action, it doesn’t have to have a bolt, and it functions like a breach block.”

      Upon what do you base your conclusion/claim? Either the actual law says what is says, or it doesn’t. The defense counsel, and the judge read the law in detail, and laid that template over the items in question, and determined the plain language of the law did not prohibit the items in question. Thus, there was no crime, and criminal charges may not emanate from a non-crime.

      1. avatar Robert says:

        “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 have to be threaded: “usually threaded” just means “doesn’t always have to be threaded” so that one’s right out. The article’s author isn’t competent enough to explain that “hammer, bolt or breechblock” means that it’s describing 3 items and the firearm must contain one. It’s basically legally read “hammer OR bolt OR breechblock”, AR lower does contain a hammer. Firing mechanism is the trigger. So it contains a Hammer and a trigger and isn’t required to be threaded. So yeah, the actual law says it. Stop getting excited, TTAG is a shitrag trying to get clicks

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          Wait! So you’re a lawyer or a judge right? I mean you are putting a two letter word (or) in a law where it doesn’t exist. The judge didn’t see it that way nor did the attorneys on either side. Oh, you must be a politician or former politician, right? I’m just trying to figure out your qualifications to add a word that isn’t there and furthermore no one else came to the same assumption that it is there and just not said?

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “TTAG is a shitrag trying to get clicks”

          And this is important enough to force you to visit here?

          We will be greatly grieved if you never visit again, but eventually, we will recover. No need to worry about us clickers, but thanks for your concern.

          BTW, the only one excited is you.

          If the judge in the case decides the law doesn’t apply to the lower receiver, then it doesn’t apply to the lower receiver, until a judge in a higher court reverses the decision. Since there is no appeal represented in the article, all we have to go on is the report of the disposition of the case.

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          You should also note that the original article appeared on CNN, not this “shit rag.” If you think it is bad reporting (it isn’t as it reported what actually happened), then blame CNN.

        4. Copy and paste from the law:

          Frame or receiver. 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.

          Read it here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11

          If the CNN report and our interpretation of it are so far off, why has the ATF killed two prosecutions in order to keep this from becoming case law?

  32. avatar Dale Menard says:

    This case is enormously important.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “This case is enormously important.”

      Based on the article, the case was intentionally rendered unimportant because it never reached a verdict, just a settlement that prevented a trial from setting precedent.

      1. avatar WARFAB says:

        From CNN: “Following Selna’s tentative order, the prosecution and defense agreed to a deal in which Roh would plead guilty to the charge against him, but would be allowed to withdraw that plea if he stayed out of trouble for a year. Prosecutors would then dismiss the case. If Roh abides by the deal, he will have no criminal conviction and serve no time behind bars.”

        If Roh doesn’t abide by the deal, does that mean Selna’s ruling creates the legal precedent that the feds are trying desperately to avoid?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If Roh doesn’t abide by the deal, does that mean Selna’s ruling creates the legal precedent that the feds are trying desperately to avoid?”

          It would seem that if Roh violates, he goes to jail, the culmination of a plea bargain, not a trial. It would be a continuation of the status quo regarding ATF enforcement. However, Roh’s lawyers could prevail on appeal, which would set a precedent. Or Roh could lose on appeal, reinforcing the status quo.

          The deal in place is not actually justice, or legal resolution. It is “tie”, a decision manufactured to give everyone something. Take out all the mumbo jumbo, the decision says, “Accept a conviction, but do no jail time, with a promise to forget, in return for a big “never mind” on the part of the government.

          As a spectator, I can see where the real effect is to by time for government to reinforce their stance because eventually some smart lawyer will use “the deal” as precedent for demanding an overturning of the ATF policy. In pointing to a case as precedent, attorneys are not limited to only the final decision, but can call on the reasoning given for setting the precedent. In this case, government would have a difficult time claiming that they would have won, but decided they had more important things to do, and reached “a settlement”. Although….

          Courts are known to favor finding “the intent of the legislature”, not the actual result of the actual wording of the legislation. This is how Roberts fashioned a tax authority for Obamacare. Roberts decided that it was not the mission of the court to thwart congress, and it was obvious congress, reflecting the will of the people, intended to establish Obamacare. So, the court discovered a foundation that would facilitate. The same could be done regarding the Roh case.

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      The issues that this case raised are important. As for the case itself, it’s gone as far as it’s going to go. Nonetheless, the cat is out of the bag now and I’m sure there will be ample opportunity in the future to make something important out it. Careful what you wish for, though. I’m seeing a potential for unintended consequences, some maybe unpleasant.

  33. avatar Canada Ethan! says:

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…PERIOD….the ATF is unconstitutional and all laws against any arms not just fireARMS is unconstitutional immoral and unjust….and not just in america either…all humans on earth have inalienable natural freedoms, liberties abd rights, especially firearm and defense rights, including the 2nd amendment, regardless if their government recognizes and acknowledges them or not!!!!!

  34. avatar Robert says:

    This is by far some of the least competent reporting of a case I’ve ever seen. “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.” Alright lets actually read this. This basically means there are 2 required parts and one optional part, the first required part is a “hammer, bolt or breechblock”, the second required part (as designated by the word AND) is a “firing mechanism”, and the third optional part (again, designated by the word AND) is “USUALLY threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel”. The USUALLY means it’s an optional requirement and not required on all firearms. The fact that an AR lower provides housing for the hammer as well as the firing mechanism means it’s good to go. The wording designates it’s hammer OR bolt OR breechblock, not hammer AND bolt OR breechblock. He wouldn’t have plead guilty to a crime if he knew the feds didn’t have a case. You’re knowingly stretching the facts and using specific wording such as “sources familiar” because you know you’re blatantly misrepresenting facts and it’s shameful.

    1. avatar Reathe says:

      Rules for using commas without looking like a fool

      https://www.businessinsider.com/a-guide-to-proper-comma-use-2013-9

      4. Use commas to separate items in a series.

      I saw a duck, a magician, and a liquor store when i went out running.

      That last comma, known as the serial comma, Oxford comma, or Harvard comma, causes serious controversy. Although many consider it unnecessary, others (including Business Insider) insist on its use to reduce ambiguity.

      There’s an Internet meme that demonstrates its necessity perfectly. The sentence, “We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin,” means the speaker sent three separate invitations: one to some strippers, one to JFK, and one to Stalin. The version without the Oxford comma, however, takes on an entirely different meaning, potentially suggesting that only one invitation was sent — to two strippers named JFK and Stalin. Witness: “We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin.”

      ——————————————–

      By your argument then the upper and the lower is a fire arm. Every pistol slide is a firearm, and the frame as a fire arm as well. Aftermarket bulpup stocks would be fire arms as well because they have their own firing mechanism.

      You’re knowingly distorting the argument by focusing on wording such as “usually”, when the whole subject of the statement is “to receive the barrel”, the option that you claim pertains to whether threaded or not.
      This isn’t semantics. This isn’t a loophole. This isn’t a Jedi mind trick. This is strait up reading comprehension. It’s shameful if English is your first language, and this is the information you gain from its use. I will break it down for you.

      1. Yes, he committed a crime, and was convicted. Engaging in the business of selling firearms for profit without a licences. As you have said at greater lengths: a bad man.
      2. The charge of manufacturing firearms without a licence was dropped because the AR-15 lower does not conform to the letter of the law definition of firearm.
      3. He got a sweetheart slap on the wrist in exchange for dropping the nasty can of worms the ATF opened, that if he continued to fight, it would F-k up the entire Gun Control con game.

      That is it.

    2. That was a direct quote from the CNN story. Here’s the language from the law:

      “Frame or receiver. 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.”

      Read the law here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11

      CNN inserted a comma after ‘breechblock” for some reason. Other than that, they quoted the law accurately.

  35. avatar Tip of the Spear says:

    Law’s are Laws only when “They” want them to be.

  36. avatar BackTheBlue says:

    “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.”

    The operative word here is “OR”, which means the “receiver” only has to house one item. The second operative word is “usually” meaning – most of the time, but not all of the time.

    The ATF’s current definition is correct under the law, and there is no need for them to change it.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The ATF’s current definition is correct under the law, and there is no need for them to change it.”

      If that were so, the ATF would have pressed the issue all the way to trial. At the moment, all that counts is the judge concluded the ATF twisting of words was problematic. The ATF will have the “correct” definition once a case challenging reaches trial, and appeal, and appeal, and so on.

      But to make this abundantly clear….the ATF’s own trial lawyers (as in government lawyers) concluded the risk of losing was so great it was best to not let the matter be adjudicated. Those trial lawyers didn’t even want to take a risk by having the ATF officially change its stance so as to make the issue moot (and reassert their claim at some time in the future). One might speculate the issue was so unfavorable to government as to be the linchpin that, once removed, would uncover the entire bogus underpinning of a boxcar full of unconstitutional gun regulations.

    2. avatar Jason says:

      Without a comma after “bolt”, it reads “hammer, bolt or breechblock, firing mechanism”

      Hammer- yes
      Bolt or breechblock-no
      Firing mechanism- yes

  37. avatar Mike Briggs says:

    Just because someone took a brown rifle and spray painted it black and added a grip to make it easier to hold doesn’t make it a military assault rifle. Military and Swat police carry FULL automatic weapons,which the average LAW ABIDING citizen are not allowed to own. Semi-automatic are permitted to be owned since they were made a 50 years ago. Full automatic means you hold the trigger back and it will fire continuously ,only military and police can own these. These politicians who want to outlaw weapons are guarded by men with assault weapons. CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO GET WEAPONS,THERE IS A BLACK MARKET FOR THAT. You tell that sissy richmans son Beto Orouke to come to my house PERSONALLY and take my gun collection.BETO go into the inner cities gangs and take their assualt weapons first.Then come to the law abiding citizens. Its easy to pick on people who respect the law ,GANGS DON’T.Get rid of them first or You are just political cowards.

  38. avatar Claude Jones says:

    In order for any gun control law to stand, we have to ignore the 2nd Amendment, which is crystal clear. So far, the governments(s) have been quite successful at pretending the 2nd does not mean what it says.

  39. avatar Tip says:

    So where is this Black Market for Guns?

  40. avatar Bill Wright says:

    Did not read all comments so may be duplicating.
    Hope this article’s POV prevails but I am dubious. Law listing components housed by a receiver is an “or” list. Even without the bolt the hammer is housed in the serialized receiver. This is plain english so I am not surprised that a judge is confused by it.

    Good luck to anyone relying on this get out of jail free angle.

    1. avatar Jason says:

      That’s what I was thinking. Only thing is there SHOULD be a comma after “bolt” to make it clearly any of the 3. I’m with you…I read it as legit and not confusing.

  41. avatar Tip says:

    The Term ” Black Market” is used to make it sound like anyone can just walk around the the back street and hook up and lay down some cash and walk away with an ar-15, that is so Funny.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The Term ” Black Market” is used to make it sound like anyone can just walk around the the back street and hook up and lay down some cash and walk away with an ar-15, that is so Funny.”

      You must live in a monastery.

  42. avatar Tip says:

    What is the online website for Black Market Guns Anyone? That is just so Funny Please anyone?

  43. avatar Jason says:

    the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel…

    Seems like a correct definition to me. Only thing that may be the saving Grace is no comma after bolt. That would make it one of the 3, Which it is. As far as threaded, it does state “which is USUALLY”.

  44. avatar Will Drider says:

    I’ll give you another example:
    Installation of a forward verticle grip on a handgun. There is no law that says its illegal, Law does state that rifled barreled handguns are SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT from being AOWs. ATF has lost in two cases reqarding this issue. ATF still persists with their old memo (ATF has long held…..) on the subject and mention in their Q&A Section that people desiring forward vertical grips on handguns must go the NFA AOW route: Your manufacturing or possesing a unregistered NFA AOW. It fails on several points noted in two Cases. It’s less “manufacturing” than installing a scope and does not change the “originally designed” single handed use which is still available. We need only review every LE (including BATFE) Firearms training and qualification standards to demonstrate two handed handgun use is taught and required. Yet, BATFE “Policy” which is in direct conflict with the NFA as written into Law: continues as a threat of criminal prosecution. Please Note that some forward “Angled devices” have been approved by ATF and there is no restriction mentioned on the installation of forward “horizontal grip(s)” though ATFs “Policy” justifications could be applied to any “direction or allignment” if they desire it to.
    ATFs Memo is over ten years old yet there has been no Change to the LAW to substantiate ATFs “Policy”!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “ATFs Memo is over ten years old yet there has been no Change to the LAW to substantiate ATFs “Policy”!”

      Once worked for a federal agency that sometimes announced new policies, or changes to old via visual aids used in training classes. That was a formal distribution channel.

  45. avatar Andrew says:

    If you think about it, the situation is the same for many other arms such as G3s, M14/M1A, and so forth.

  46. avatar Mark H says:

    Three items:
    1 – the hammer,
    2 – bolt or breechblock,
    3 – firing mechanism,

    On an AR-15 type rifle, the lower contains the hammer. The upper contains the bolt. It’s unclear what is meant by “firing mechanism”. Trigger? Sear? Firing pin?

    Under ordinary Cheveron deference, it would seem that ATF has the authority to decide which half of the receiver is the controlled component. It honestly strikes me as bizarre that ATF chose to make it the lower rather than the upper. Certainly more convenient for all of us, but the lower is certainly the simpler component to manufacture.

  47. avatar Greg R Perry says:

    An extra wrinkle: on October 9, 2019, President Trump issued an Executive Order that limits what federal agencies can enforce if it is not explicitly in regulations. That’s actually requiring them to comply with the law – the Administrative Procedures Act, which has only been loosely followed by power-hungry feds. “Agencies may impose legally binding requirements on the public only through regulations and on parties on a case-by-case basis through adjudications, and only after appropriate process, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.”
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-rule-law-improved-agency-guidance-documents/

  48. avatar Martin Zuniga says:

    How could anyone know where that 80% lower used in any shooting know where it came from, if it has no markings? Also, being able to make your own firearm is covered under the the second amendment. Not everyone has the money to buy an expensive gun in order to protect themselves. I read a lot of misinformation coming from CNN and no o e really questions their lies!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “How could anyone know where that 80% lower used in any shooting know where it came from, if it has no markings? Also, being able to make your own firearm is covered under the the second amendment. ”

      1. The 80% item is not classified as a firearm, and as an unfinished lower receiver doesn’t work as a fire control group; work is needed to “finish” the lower receiver such that it can function as an actual lower receiver.

      2. A person can legally “make” an AR style rifle in their basement, without so much as a “by your leave” to any one. That rifle is private property of the builder, and, federally, requires no serial number. It is if and when that rifle is sold to another person that a serial number is required. You can make a thousand rifles in your home, and use them. Selling the first one, serialized, does not alter the legality of the 999 remaining.

      1. avatar GaShooter says:

        YES!! I have been trying to make this fact known for a while as so many, especially heavy duty gun folk, assume it is illegal to make your own gun. It ain’t! Look at how Eugene Stoner revolutionized the Firearm world when he did. There are a lot of false assumptions about firearms, in fact.

        Everyone seems to have overlooked a key component of the case in review. The defendant requested a BENCH TRIAL. Very smart move. If he had been tried by a jury of 12 civilians he would have likely been judged by emotion in a highly liberal state – by going straight to the judge, he skipped the kangaroo court and went up against a law that his lawyer knew likely wouldn’t hold up to the test of legality.

        I am so glad to live in a state where gun rights seem to be strengthening and don’t have to mess with or worry about bans on firearms models nor “red flag” laws.

  49. avatar WARFAB says:

    From CNN: “The prosecutors’ filing said a ruling in favor of the defense could impact the receivers for up to 90% of the firearms in America.”

    The implications beyond AR-15s hadn’t occurred to me. Most serialized pistol frames aren’t ‘recievers’. The new serialized chassis that get put into polymer pistol frames sure as hell aren’t receivers either.

  50. avatar WARFAB says:

    From CNN: “Following Selna’s tentative order, the prosecution and defense agreed to a deal in which Roh would plead guilty to the charge against him, but would be allowed to withdraw that plea if he stayed out of trouble for a year. Prosecutors would then dismiss the case. If Roh abides by the deal, he will have no criminal conviction and serve no time behind bars.”

    I’m not a lawyer, but it seems that if Roh doesn’t stay out of trouble for a year, then the case doesn’t get dismissed and Selna’s ruling will create the precedent that the feds don’t want. My guess is that Roh could do pretty much whatever he wants during the next year and nobody is going to bring charges against him.

    I won’t be offended if someone with more legal knowledge corrects me.

  51. avatar Mitch says:

    I think everyone is missing the big picture here. Guess what? I cannot think of a single semi-auto hand gun that fits the Federal definition of a receiver (glocks, 1911’s, etc). There is not a location for a barrel to thread on these guns. Plus, there are several other guns (FNFAL, AK pattern rifles, etc), where the “receiver” (currently defined by the ATF) has all of the required components defined by the Federal statute. I see some serious changes coming. They are gonna come in 2 phases:
    1) Folks start sticking their thumbs at the ATF and start making/selling these parts (where legal by state law). Think about it, cloned glock receivers, Sig P320 clones, 100% AR lowers…
    2) Congress broadens the definition to include “ALL PARTS”. The party stops here! No more complete AR uppers.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The party stops here! No more complete AR uppers.”

      No more semi-auto anything.

      Of course, such legislation will have to get through House, Senate, President.

  52. avatar Geoff says:

    Should also invalidate the ATF changing the definition of a machine gun to include bump stocks.

  53. avatar BusyBeef says:

    So when can we order stripped 100% lowers to our houses?

  54. avatar Geoff says:

    Would this also mean the ATF defining a .50 Caliber bolt action upper receiver as a firearm is WRONG as there is no firing mechanism? The trigger and stuff are in the AR lower.
    https://modernrifleman.net/2018/08/08/atf-decides-a-50-bmg-ar-15-upper-is-a-firearm/

  55. avatar DavidR says:

    Congress didn’t address the question in 2016 after Lynch wrote her letter because they were anticipating winning the election and banning all “assault weapons”. They haven’t done anything since because they’ve been preoccupied with trying to get rid of the President by any means, fair or foul, plus there is a split Congress. Let’s hope things don’t change after 2020.

  56. avatar Old law prof says:

    Wrong. The problem stems from a definition in a ATF “interpretative” regulation. The agency csn change it. But they need to follow the formsl APA process. NO no legislation needed.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Wrong. The problem stems from a definition in a ATF “interpretative” regulation. The agency csn change it. But they need to follow the formsl APA process. NO no legislation needed.”

      The APA is a sham to lull the public. The APA only requires agencies make announcements of some proposed regulation changes so many days prior to adoption, and provide the public a means to comment. No agency is required to respect the comments, and may proceed after the comment period to do as they intended.

  57. avatar JDT says:

    It’s amazing, I can take an AR15 buttstock, tube, handgrip, and screw them all together and make a illegal machine gun out of just those parts.

  58. ““It does seem like there is problem,” Winkler said.”

    I see no problem.

  59. avatar Charles K says:

    Bottom line. F_CK the government and its BS rules and regulations that were written by a bunch of ass clowns that are ANTI-AMERICAN and know dick about firearms. Buy 80% Lowers and build your own . 218 lowers milled to date with the original 5D Tactical jig purchased a year ago and still going. Well worth the $250 paid

  60. avatar JOHN HANCOCK says:

    BATFE were merely revenuers until 9/11 then got dual status with Treasurery and Justice…. makes no difference as ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NFA 34′ was an excise tax measure, because everyone knew the Fed’s couldn’t make laws regarding firearms. Somehow the feds have morphed an excise tax into law…. kinda like the EPA has done with the “Clean Air and Water Act or the obamanation did with Odumbocare, Washington bureaucrats are making $hit up as they go…. WITH NO VOTE OF THE PEOPLE mind you.

    The first challenge of NFA 34′ (Miller 39′) was LAUGHED out of the lower courts, then tried in Absentia by BATFE. Lying has always come naturally to the BATFE. So SCOTUS overturned the lower court but the reason given is VERY INTERESTING reading. Most reasonable people would interpret Miller 39′ as protecting military weapons. (SCOTUS basically overturned the lower court because the firearm in question “a shorty shotgun” didn’t have military value) I guess they never heard of Trench Guns.

    I used BATFE because the thugs so want to have that 3 letter designation like the big boy lairs…. you know the ones currently trying to perpetrate a coup de tat on a duly elected President. The 2nd amendment is there to protect us from this government. Love your country enough to despise this government, quit being sheep and playing their game.

  61. avatar BCFosheezy says:

    Am I the only one alarmed at the prospect of asking for new legislation on this? I get that the ATF is not our friend and I agree that their policy changes all the time, is vague, and nearly impossible to follow. So a law in a perfect world where everyone understands and supports the Second Amendment would be fine. We live in a world where people say disagreeing with a theory that hasn’t been and can’t be proven (new ice age/global warming/climate change) is denying science, while saying that you can change your gender if you feel like it and you’re not born a certain way…. in spite of biology proving them completely wrong. These are the people you’re asking to pass a law to regulate your rights. We don’t need more laws. The Second Amendment is the only law we need.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email