View Full Version : California man forfeits 3,804 80% AR lowers to the US government
Did Mr. Cook break the law here? No, and he was forced to forfeit his property. Tyranny at its best.
alif. - Christopher Cook, of Bakersfield, agreed to forfeit to the United States approximately 3,804 polymer AR-15 lower receivers manufactured in violation of federal firearms laws, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced. AR-15 lower receivers are classified as firearms under federal law.
According to documents filed by the Government in the civil forfeiture case, Christopher Cook manufactured and sold unserialized polymer AR-15 lower receivers online and from his retail store in Bakersfield. Cook also distributed his product to other dealers who sold them at gun shows. Cook’s lower receivers were made of polymer and contained cavities with different color polymer, making it easier for purchasers to mill out the cavities and convert the lower receiver to an operational firearm. Cook holds a dealer’s license and was trained on the laws governing the manufacture and sale of firearms. Cook does not, however, have a manufacturer’s license.
Starting in January 2014, undercover federal agents purchased approximately 33 lower receivers directly from Cook’s retail store, through his company’s online store, or from one of his distributors. Not one of the lower receivers purchased by undercover agents were serialized for later identification, nor did Cook or his distributors initiate background checks. In April 2014, federal agents executed warrants at Cook’s business and personal residence, seizing the 3,804 lower receivers. According to the Government’s complaint, Cook contracted with a Southern California plastics company to manufacture approximately 40,000 of the multi-colored polymer lower receivers. In the stipulation in which he agreed to the forfeiture of the lower receivers, Cook did not admit to the allegations in the Government’s complaint.
http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/bakersfield-man-forfeits-3804-lower-receiver-firearms
So he basically got into trouble over 3,800 plastic blocks.
http://previews.123rf.com/images/jackf/jackf1104/jackf110400084/9211073-Plastic-toy-blocks-on-white-background-Stock-Photo.jpg
The airsoft community in CA must be crapping their pants.
Isn't the point of 80% lowers that they aren't actually guns? Theoretically you could make a 60% lower. Or a 50%.
If someone else mills them, then that's them. They could be a paperweight or a potential gun.
If he was skirting past it to full lowers with holes plugged then yeah, but otherwise hunks of aluminum are hunks of aluminum no matter how many feelings it hurts
Isn't the point of 80% lowers that they aren't actually guns? Theoretically you could make a 60% lower. Or a 50%.
If someone else mills them, then that's them. They could be a paperweight or a potential gun.
If he was skirting past it to full lowers with holes plugged then yeah, but otherwise hunks of aluminum are hunks of aluminum no matter how many feelings it hurts
Even worse, these were hunks of polymer.
Worse than that, he contracted the work to a CA plastics company. They apparently didn't get in trouble for manufacturing them. But HE got pinged for not having a manufacturers license even though he didn't make them. He did have a dealers license to sell them, even though they aren't firearms yet.
And yes that is the point of an 80% receiver. Except in CA where logic doesn't apply.
The airsoft community in CA must be crapping their pants.
I remember traveling a bit and going to a gunstore that turned out to be an airsoft store.
The retardation factor was high. I was literally in and out. I mean...you look in a gated window, see something pre-ban, figure out how far into dutch you're willing to go across the country then realize it's a toy. Like a mirage in the desert.
Seriously, I wanted to punch a kitten. Oh well...
Linebacker
02-10-16, 19:15
What am I missing? It seems clear to me that he broke Federal law.
What am I missing? It seems clear to me that he broke Federal law.
If he's guilty, then Lego is a co-conspirator.
What am I missing? It seems clear to me that he broke Federal law.
What federal law did he break?
Worse than that, he contracted the work to a CA plastics company. They apparently didn't get in trouble for manufacturing them. But HE got pinged for not having a manufacturers license even though he didn't make them. He did have a dealers license to sell them, even though they aren't firearms yet.
This.
IIRC, they consider using different colors to be manufacturing a complete lower, because the process usually requires molding the primary color, then injecting the second color later in the process. If that's the case, then yes, they consider it illegal. Not saying it's right, just that's how they see it.
BATFE has lost all credibility and must be disbanded. BATFE is an enemy of "We The People," and its draconian measures against those exercising their God-given 2A rights is antithetical to liberty, and no different than the IRS's targeting of conservative non-profits. I could go on, but I am already on too many watch lists.
http://bearingarms.com/ep-armory-forfeits-3800-80-polymer-lowers-feds-called-illegal/
The Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) sent a letter to EP Armory letter (PDF) which argues that the EP Armory part is a firearm receiver, and therefore, their sale by EP Armory and Ares Armor constitutes illegal sales of firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
How did they determine this?
First, the FTB initially claimed that the beige(ish) part in the center of the EP Armory part (pictured more clearly below) was created after the injection molded part (the clear polymer), resulting in the creation of a firearm that wasn’t undone by the injection of the beige(ish) nylon into the fire control group area, which EP Armory calls the “biscuit.”
The FTB claim was that EP Armory created what they viewed as clearly a firearm receiver, and then tried to cheat the system by backfilling it with another colored bit of material in the fire control group area to pull a fast one.
http://cdn.bearingarms.com/uploads/2014/03/1040678_481458885271383_982958890_o-e1395076239190.jpg
EP Armory countered by explaining to the FTB that in their manufacturing process, the “biscuit” is actually created first, and that the rest of the material is then injection-molded around it. There was no void being filled, because the void never existed at any stage of the manufacturing process.
While technically (and rather obviously) true as a fact of the manufacturing process, the FTB is now arguing that the process alone is enough of a deviation from how things have always been done to render it non-compliant.
IIRC, they consider using different colors to be manufacturing a complete lower, because the process usually requires molding the primary color, then injecting the second color later in the process. If that's the case, then yes, they consider it illegal. Not saying it's right, just that's how they see it.
No color has nothing to do with it. ATF has ruled a lower that has the FCG cut out is a firearm even if it has a temporary filler in it. Polymer80 had to change their design as a result.
Looking at the picture, I can see now how this is an issue.
I don't agree with the law but they have him on paper. That looks like a 95% lower only plastic.
Not agreeing with the law, just say'n
Leaveammoforme
02-10-16, 20:26
Looking at the picture, I can see now how this is an issue.
I don't agree with the law but they have him on paper. That looks like a 95% lower only plastic.
Not agreeing with the law, just say'n
One could argue that 80% lowers are actually closer to 95%. One company even marketed theirs as 95% lowers.
The ATF doesn't put any stipulation on percentage of completion. They do however put stipulations on what makes a lower cross the line to a firearm.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-“80”-or-“unfinished”-receivers-illegal
Ruling was made and Mr. Cook played a little too deep in the gray area.
So what exactly is the process of removing the biscuit?
So what exactly is the process of removing the biscuit?
drill, dremel, router, mill, etc.
Be sweet if you could melt it out but that does not work, nor does it come out whole with a hammer or pliers.
Ok, that's what I was wondering, if you could heat it up or melt it or some such.
I can see the point of view but if a block of shaped material is being formed and fused onto another block of material. Then it seems to me the "biscuit" is simply a built-in template.
Leaveammoforme
02-10-16, 20:59
Ok, that's what I was wondering, if you could heat it up or melt it or some such.
I can see the point of view but if a block of shaped material is being formed and fused onto another block of material. Then it seems to me the "biscuit" is simply a built-in template.
Using the biscuit as a template was the marketing angle. EP could've just molded everything at the same time as one solid piece and avoided all this.
My posts may sound like I support the ATF's position, which I do not. It's easy for me to see how they made the case though.
Yeah, it's kinda strange. It's like they are saying rainbow pasta is still egg and various colored flower and the egg is illegal.
What am I missing? It seems clear to me that he broke Federal law.
You are missing everything. These weren't firearms, he wasn't even the actual manufacturer, no laws were broken. But he got strong armed into giving up his entire inventory.
What laws do you believe were broken?
IIRC, they consider using different colors to be manufacturing a complete lower, because the process usually requires molding the primary color, then injecting the second color later in the process. If that's the case, then yes, they consider it illegal. Not saying it's right, just that's how they see it.
ATF can "consider" it an alien space weapon, doesn't make it so. There is NOTHING in the law that states 80% lowers in a rainbow of colors are now firearms. Otherwise if I fill an airsoft receiver with blue plastic I have now made a firearm.
http://bearingarms.com/ep-armory-forfeits-3800-80-polymer-lowers-feds-called-illegal/
So using that ridiculous logic I guess all those reactivated Dewatts are no longer true machine guns because they were filled where other material was missing.
ATF can "consider" it an alien space weapon, doesn't make it so. There is NOTHING in the law that states 80% lowers in a rainbow of colors are now firearms. Otherwise if I fill an airsoft receiver with blue plastic I have now made a firearm.
You don't think I'm in disagreement, do you? :no:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/oops-government-agents-seize-toy-guns
You don't think I'm in disagreement, do you? :no:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/oops-government-agents-seize-toy-guns
Was just addressing their position. ATF really needs to lose their ability to legislate by decree.
And yeah, the WA seizure of airsoft "machine guns" is what I was thinking of. Thank god they still aren't making die cast metal toy guns anymore or some kids would get nailed for their "readily converted" machine guns.
Isn't this old ass news?
Nope this is recent "same stupid shit from the ATF."
Bakersfield man forfeits 3,804 lower receiver firearms
12:57 PM, Feb 9, 2016
Moose-Knuckle
02-11-16, 02:21
I know I feel safer . . .
Thankfully the feds got these Mega Bloks off the streets before some poor kids in some place like Chiraq are killed.
Between things like this and . . .
Amish farmer targeted by FDA raids shuts down raw milk business
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/15/10418406-amish-farmer-targeted-by-fda-raids-shuts-down-raw-milk-business?lite
. . . I'm glad they are leaving all of those islamic enclaves be that are conducting para-military training.
Terrorist Training Camps in the US
http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001
AnthonyCumia
02-11-16, 03:10
Did Mr. Cook break the law here? No, and he was forced to forfeit his property. Tyranny at its best.
http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/bakersfield-man-forfeits-3804-lower-receiver-firearms
Thank God they got this sick freak off the street instead of cartel thugs, MS13, Crips, Bloods, Guerrilla Family, rapist, and other scum, right?
I fail to see the difference between this and taking a complete aluminum lower and filling the fcg pocket with plastic.
A complete lower was made, it was not serialized, and what ever else is required of making a lower for sale. The fact this is illegal seems super straight forward to me.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
ramairthree
02-11-16, 09:55
I fail to see the difference between this and taking a complete aluminum lower and filling the fcg pocket with plastic.
A complete lower was made, it was not serialized, and what ever else is required of making a lower for sale. The fact this is illegal seems super straight forward to me.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
You could have a wonderful career with ATF with how you look at things then.
I fail to see the difference between this and taking a complete aluminum lower and filling the fcg pocket with plastic.
A complete lower was made,
No it was not. Two dis-similar color polymers were bonded into a solid. The non-clear polymer in the photo above simply forms a 3D template. No different than having a solid 80% with a blueprint taped to it.
Here, have an egg and rethink it.
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/mind/striped-pasta.jpg
Nope this is recent "same stupid shit from the ATF."
Bakersfield man forfeits 3,804 lower receiver firearms
12:57 PM, Feb 9, 2016
I think that's the big hubbub that ares gear was dealing with a few years ago. Maybe they finally ruled on it.
The irony (Or maybe the right word is stupidity) of arguing how 2 pieces of plastic makes a firearm on a forum of supposed pro gun folks who supposedly believe in "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
I don't know wether to pull my hair out or just get some popcorn and laugh anymore.
Tyranny sure is making a huge comeback. Sad how many folks are okay with it because of some unconstitutional laws.
I need to find a new planet to inhabit...
The irony (Or maybe the right word is stupidity) of arguing how 2 pieces of plastic makes a firearm on a forum of supposed pro gun folks who supposedly believe in "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
I don't know wether to pull my hair out or just get some popcorn and laugh anymore.
Tyranny sure is making a huge comeback. Sad how many folks are okay with it because of some unconstitutional laws.
I need to find a new planet to inhabit...
I am amazed at the sheer number of cowards present here on M4C. I've observed members that support registration, UBCs, AW bans (ironic since we're on M4C, so maybe FED troll), waiting periods, gun "protection" orders, etc. They fail to understand that all gun control laws are unconstitutional, and their sole purpose is to control free men. Congress must stop funding ATF, a domestic terrorist organization.
Please.
I get it, I don't want or like gun laws either.
What I do get is the law. I get the idea there is two pieces there even if "bonded" together and one of those pieces is a complete lower.
Please.
I get it, I don't want or like gun laws either.
What I do get is the law. I get the idea there is two pieces there even if "bonded" together and one of those pieces is a complete lower.
So if you "get" the law- whats the deal?
Constitution is SUPREME law of the land, everything else that runs counter to it is null and void PER the Constitution.
It seems people just let this go without a fight, without so much as even caring. (This is not directed at you specifically)
Please.
I get it, I don't want or like gun laws either.
What I do get is the law. I get the idea there is two pieces there even if "bonded" together and one of those pieces is a complete lower.
No, it is NOT, because they ARE bonded together. If they were NOT bonded together, THEN you would have a complete lower.
If I forge an aluminum receiver around a steel template block, that is NOT a complete firearms receiver.
It either IS or IS NOT a firearm. No tap dancing, no shuffling, no redefining the word "is."
"Can you start installing FCG and other parts without performing a milling process?" No? Then it is NOT a complete firearm.
Now everyone understands you can't just stuff a complete lower receiver with kleenex and call it an 80%, and ATF seems bound and determined to suggest that is what is going on here, as if that biscuit is nothing but a plug of silly putty.
But that is NOT the case and this entire situation is both absurd and offensive.
Linebacker
02-11-16, 14:27
There is no one more pro-2nd than I, but it is reasonable that the federal government regulate the manufacture of firearms and this is not a contentious subject matter. It also stands to reason that a functional portion of a particular firearm be serialized, thus treated as an actual firearm, thereby controlling large numbers to those who can lawfully purchase. Additionally, has it been established that the lowers qualified as 80%'ers?
Please.
I get it, I don't want or like gun laws either.
What I do get is the law. I get the idea there is two pieces there even if "bonded" together and one of those pieces is a complete lower.
Ok, look,, go to the store and get some clear resin that hardens and bonds.
Now take a penny or a quarter.
We will say the resin represents the clear lower you see in that photo and the penny represents the 'biscuit' and fire control area.
Now suspend the penny by a thread over a cup so it hangs in mid air.
Now pour in the resin.
Now, tell us at what point in time the solid finished product becomes a regulated lower. At any time during the process, just tell us when did it stop being simple materials and when did it become a real lower. ...and don't forget that the solid block has to have some sort of alteration to the fire control area which is being represented by the penny to be considered more than an 80% lower.
Additionally, has it been established that the lowers qualified as 80%'ers?
He was raided or investigated in 2014. The Trial was recent. It sounds like the trial ended when he agreed to turn them over. So no, I don't think they ever had to stand the test of law. They just decided to give it a go and he folded without admitting guilt or that they were correct in their understanding of the matter.
Date: 02-09-2016
Case Style: United States of America v. Christopher Cook
Case Number: 1:14-cv-1999-JAM-SAB
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?s=CA&d=88200
http://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/file/822866/download
http://bearingarms.com/ep-armory-forfeits-3800-80-polymer-lowers-feds-called-illegal/
Love the concept, but is the part microwave safe? Dishwasher safe? Important requirements for all of my kitchen plastics.
I am amazed at the sheer number of cowards present here on M4C. I've observed members that support registration, UBCs, AW bans (ironic since we're on M4C, so maybe FED troll), waiting periods, gun "protection" orders, etc. They fail to understand that all gun control laws are unconstitutional, and their sole purpose is to control free men. Congress must stop funding ATF, a domestic terrorist organization.
I wish you would tone down your rhetoric, like all the time.
'Coward' is a very, very strong word.
Do not mistake calmness for tolerance, kindness for weakness, or patience for acceptance.
We, as a whole, would like to do things the proper way. We would sooner educate and persuade vs sloganeer and preach.
Chest thumping and shrillness is a hippie tactic. Effective? Maybe. But very sophomoric and reserved for those lacking the most basic of dignity.
Trying the head on approach gets you hemmed up in Federal Court. Or shot.
No such thing as a martyr.
Guns are an easy issue for the government to go crazy on. It makes them accountable and it makes them not all powerful.
Which is why they'll piss millions to bankrupt and jail you.
The government is like an ocean. At times calm, and others a perfect storm.
Stupid sailors drown and lose their ship.
Smart sailors make it to port and sail another day.
A lot more is good by presenting the Truth and empowering everyone than dressing up like a Militia wannabe screeching about "OUR GUNZ BAHGAWD OUR GUUUUUNZ!"
and speaking speciously about those who elect a more sophisticated approach.
Or maybe you're a bit of a loudmouth.
Either way, just some advice.
There is no one more pro-2nd than I, but it is reasonable that the federal government regulate the manufacture of firearms and this is not a contentious subject matter. It also stands to reason that a functional portion of a particular firearm be serialized, thus treated as an actual firearm, thereby controlling large numbers to those who can lawfully purchase. Additionally, has it been established that the lowers qualified as 80%'ers?
Serilization is an infringement of my natural rights. In 1776 the vast, vast majority of small arms were not serialized. The Federal government has no authority to regulate our small arms.
I wish you would tone down your rhetoric, like all the time.
'Coward' is a very, very strong word.
Do not mistake calmness for tolerance, kindness for weakness, or patience for acceptance.
We, as a whole, would like to do things the proper way. We would sooner educate and persuade vs sloganeer and preach.
Chest thumping and shrillness is a hippie tactic. Effective? Maybe. But very sophomoric and reserved for those lacking the most basic of dignity.
Trying the head on approach gets you hemmed up in Federal Court. Or shot.
No such thing as a martyr.
Guns are an easy issue for the government to go crazy on. It makes them accountable and it makes them not all powerful.
Which is why they'll piss millions to bankrupt and jail you.
The government is like an ocean. At times calm, and others a perfect storm.
Stupid sailors drown and lose their ship.
Smart sailors make it to port and sail another day.
A lot more is good by presenting the Truth and empowering everyone than dressing up like a Militia wannabe screeching about "OUR GUNZ BAHGAWD OUR GUUUUUNZ!"
and speaking speciously about those who elect a more sophisticated approach.
Or maybe you're a bit of a loudmouth.
Either way, just some advice.
I appreciate the kind words, Firefly. If pertinent, please let know if I at any time misrepresented truths or facts.
Serilization is an infringement of my natural rights. In 1776 the vast, vast majority of small arms were not serialized. The Federal government has no authority to regulate our small arms.
Does it follow the spirit of the Framers? No.
Have courts, SCOTUS, and statutes given them authority? Yes.
Do I like it? No.
Does talking about the government being a fraud with no powers change things?
No.
Now if you said "Ya know this is contrary to the intent of the framework of our Bill of Rights. We should get these laws reversed and abolished."
That'd be great. Make more sense. Like you were actually wanting to get stuff done.
But when you say some these things you sound like the Sovereign guys who claim their DUI conviction isn't lawful because of gold trim around the flag inside the courthouse and such a thing means all judgements or decrees are unlawful because the gold trim indicates maritime law.
Yes, those people exist. Nobody likes them. Even those that might agree with them if they weren't crazy-acting.
What rubbed me the wrong way is how freely you tossed out coward. That word means something. Same as rape, murder, and racism.
Painting with such a broad brush because guys are wanting to go about things the legal way while such opportunities exist and aren't just spitballing disdain over the government and its vast and various agencies doesn't engender people too well to gun rights.
Just because these other people want to cheapen words doesn't mean we should.
Just saying
Now if you said "Ya know this is contrary to the intent of the framework of our Bill of Rights. We should get these laws reversed and abolished."
Better hurry too.....
http://www.guns.com/2016/02/11/california-bill-in-play-to-regulate-unfinished-lowers-as-firearms/
There is no one more pro-2nd than I, but it is reasonable that the federal government regulate the manufacture of firearms and this is not a contentious subject matter. It also stands to reason that a functional portion of a particular firearm be serialized, thus treated as an actual firearm, thereby controlling large numbers to those who can lawfully purchase. Additionally, has it been established that the lowers qualified as 80%'ers?
You are doing it backwards. It has to be established by a court of law that they are NOT 80% lowers. Just because ATF forms an opinion doesn't mean it is correct.
ATF has given us constructive possession, which means if you have all the parts to manufacture a machine gun, you in fact are in possession of a machine gun and if it's not registered, it is illegal.
ATF has also specifically listed Molotov cocktails as a named "destructive device" requiring registration.
So if you own a glass bottle, a rag and some form of accelerant, according to the stated positions of ATF taken in combination with each other, then YOU are in possession of an unregistered and illegal "destructive device."
They can enforce this right now if they wished, the definitions already exist. So at some point we need to declare "shenanigans" and we need to revisit and redefine a lot of their definitions. There was a time firearm receivers were simply a "part", no different than bolts or barrels. They did not constitute a firearm unless assembled into a functional configuration. We need to get back to that because ATF is seriously abusing the "what constitutes a receiver" crap.
I can fit a shotgun shell into a lead pipe right now, do I have an unregistered receiver? FCG is nothing but a threaded end cap and a spring loaded nail. Should ATF raid home depot and confiscate all of their lead pipe stock?
We also need to stop defining "suppressors" as a firearm for purposes of regulation. You can't fire a suppressor. There is no "receiver" so ATF is having it both ways and that's just more bullshit. Next they'll define a barrel as a "receiver", what's to stop them?
Cincinnatus
02-11-16, 17:08
As usual, Steyr is spot on on this topic. Hear hear!
As usual, Steyr is spot on on this topic. Hear hear!
I agree.
Linebacker
02-11-16, 18:07
Serilization is an infringement of my natural rights. In 1776 the vast, vast majority of small arms were not serialized. The Federal government has no authority to regulate our small arms.
Regulation and infringement are two different concepts.
Linebacker
02-11-16, 18:15
Steyr, nice reply. It is well within ATF's authority to rule as to whether an activity is lawful or not. If ATF were to abuse that authority, a lawsuit could of course be pursued in order to redress, but at great expense obviously. What I believe got the producer of the plastic lowers is, the very broad definition of a "manufacturer", which at first glance the producer has seemed to qualify.
Take a peek and let me know your thoughts...
Section 7.2 What is a “manufacturer”?; What is “manufacturing”?
7.2.1 “Manufacturer”. As defined by the GCA, a “manufacturer” is any person engaged in the
business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution.109 Similarly,
NFA defines the term to mean any person “who is engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms”,
that is, firearms subject to the NFA.110 To determine who is a “manufacturer” of firearms, we must look
to see whether the person manufactures firearms as discussed in Section 7.2.2.
7.2.2 “Manufacturing”. “Manufacturing” is not defined by the law, regulations, or any formal ATF
ruling. Nevertheless, the term has been interpreted by ATF to cover activities other than producing a
firearm from scratch. As interpreted by ATF, the term covers virtually any work performed on a firearm
during the process of preparing the firearm for subsequent sale. For example, a person having a contract
with a manufacturer to apply finishing or other work on firearms, or firearms frames or receivers, to
prepare them for subsequent sale by the manufacturer would be a “manufacturer” required to qualify as
such. Of course, if the person produced firearms parts other than frames or receivers for the
manufacturer or performed work on firearms parts not defined as “firearms,” the person would not be a
“manufacturer.”
I get annoyed at people who try to get around these laws. Not because I agree with the laws, but because I feel the effort should be geared towards overturning the laws...
But maybe I am just an idealist..
I get annoyed at people who try to get around these laws. Not because I agree with the laws, but because I feel the effort should be geared towards overturning the laws...
But maybe I am just an idealist..
I'd be more annoyed at the lawyers who try to craft laws in such ways to address subtle nuances under the guise of legalise personally.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Regulation and infringement are two different concepts.
Infringement refers to the violation of a law or a right
Government regulations can, and specifically the ATF regulations in this case, infringe on our natural rights. Comprendes, amigo?
Nevertheless, the term has been interpreted by ATF to cover activities other than producing a
firearm from scratch. As interpreted by ATF, the term covers virtually any work performed on a firearm
during the process of preparing the firearm for subsequent sale. For example, a person having a contract
with a manufacturer to apply finishing or other work on firearms, or firearms frames or receivers, to
prepare them for subsequent sale by the manufacturer would be a “manufacturer” required to qualify as
such. Of course, if the person produced firearms parts other than frames or receivers for the
manufacturer or performed work on firearms parts not defined as “firearms,” the person would not be a
“manufacturer.”
He never made a firearm.
Steyr, nice reply. It is well within ATF's authority to rule as to whether an activity is lawful or not. If ATF were to abuse that authority, a lawsuit could of course be pursued in order to redress, but at great expense obviously. What I believe got the producer of the plastic lowers is, the very broad definition of a "manufacturer", which at first glance the producer has seemed to qualify.
Here's the first problem, Cook didn't actually make them. He contracted another CA plastics company to make them.
Second problem is they never made a firearm. You seem to be under the impression that somebody "filled" a receiver. That is not the case. The 80% receiver was formed around the biscuit, so at no time did a receiver actually exist.
I get annoyed at people who try to get around these laws. Not because I agree with the laws, but because I feel the effort should be geared towards overturning the laws...
But maybe I am just an idealist..
So you are bothered by "parts kit" guns that took 922r which intended to prevent an entire class of firearms from being imported altogether and resulted in manufacturers producing domestic receivers and other parts that allowed for the production of a domestic version using kits?
I personally love it when every time ATF passes some stupid ass law or regulation, that does NOTHING to prevent crime, makes firearms safer or in any way prevent criminal access and someone comes along and says "What if I use a US made receiver and don't put a bayo lug or flash hider on it?" and ATF realizes they have just created a new cottage industry of "parts kit" guns that actually are cheaper than the ones they just banned.
Moose-Knuckle
02-12-16, 00:47
I get annoyed at people who try to get around these laws. Not because I agree with the laws, but because I feel the effort should be geared towards overturning the laws...
But maybe I am just an idealist..
Oh I don't know . . .
When the BATFE approved Sig's "arm brace" they essentially deregulated SBRs. Not my thing but meh . . .
No, it is NOT, because they ARE bonded together. If they were NOT bonded together, THEN you would have a complete lower.
If I forge an aluminum receiver around a steel template block, that is NOT a complete firearms receiver.
It either IS or IS NOT a firearm. No tap dancing, no shuffling, no redefining the word "is."
"Can you start installing FCG and other parts without performing a milling process?" No? Then it is NOT a complete firearm.
Now everyone understands you can't just stuff a complete lower receiver with kleenex and call it an 80%, and ATF seems bound and determined to suggest that is what is going on here, as if that biscuit is nothing but a plug of silly putty.
But that is NOT the case and this entire situation is both absurd and offensive.
Here's the first problem, Cook didn't actually make them. He contracted another CA plastics company to make them.
Second problem is they never made a firearm. You seem to be under the impression that somebody "filled" a receiver. That is not the case. The 80% receiver was formed around the biscuit, so at no time did a receiver actually exist.
I was under this same impression.
If it was done the other way around, it seems a fine line. Technically no he didn't make a receiver. It is a clear attempt to skirt around the 80% deal and make it much easier than finishing a firearm. Like the sig arm brace, is it legal, apparently, is it asking for trouble, so far seems that way.
I could see how finishing a receiver, the last 20% of it, could be construed as doing the last 20% of the manufacturing process. Like the last bit machining. I can see how making a receiver specially to be completed with aspects that had nothing to do with the initial manufacturing process to make it only 80% as not what an 80% receiver is all about. At what point in manufacturing a plastic lower is a plug in the fcg pocket needed? Never. With aluminum that material starts there, with polymer you would mold or cast it as the shape needed. The poured mold plastic lowers seem to be legally much more straight forward.
While I do not stand by my statement he made a receiver first, I do stand by my statement of 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'. The intent to skirt the law is clear, whether he did or not is for the courts to decide.
No, it is NOT, because they ARE bonded together. If they were NOT bonded together, THEN you would have a complete lower.
If I forge an aluminum receiver around a steel template block, that is NOT a complete firearms receiver.
It either IS or IS NOT a firearm. No tap dancing, no shuffling, no redefining the word "is."
"Can you start installing FCG and other parts without performing a milling process?" No? Then it is NOT a complete firearm.
Now everyone understands you can't just stuff a complete lower receiver with kleenex and call it an 80%, and ATF seems bound and determined to suggest that is what is going on here, as if that biscuit is nothing but a plug of silly putty.
But that is NOT the case and this entire situation is both absurd and offensive.
When I saw the photo I thought the lower was made and then the different color plastic was inserted. It looks like all he needs to do is keep the color the same and he would have been "Ok" with ATF. Seems strange.
When I saw the photo I thought the lower was made and then the different color plastic was inserted. It looks like all he needs to do is keep the color the same and he would have been "Ok" with ATF. Seems strange.
The ATF would have been ok with it not if the colors were the same but it was molded as a single piece.
I don't think the receiver in question is an 80% receiver as much as it is a 120%. It has a 100% receiver made over a "20%" plug = 120%. That plug has nothing to do with manufacturing the lower. It serves zero purpose, other than to try to skirt a law. I can even see how an "80%" polymer receiver with a solid FCG pocket, all molded at once is even getting close, as when molding the plastic there is zero reason to have that extra material.
There is another thread about a poured/cast lower that is polymer. You buy the mold and plastic and pour your own lower. This seems like the clearly legal route for making an at home receiver out of plastic.
When you look at 1911 or AR15 metal receivers that are 80%, a standard forging or billet block is used, just like for a 100% receiver. Then 80% of the machine work is done for you, and then you do the remaining 20%. That 20% is not made up work strictly to make it a 80% receiver it, that is the remaining 20% that needs to be done either by you, or by a manufacturer. I do however thing if it was one single piece of plastic molded at the same time, the ATF would have left them alone.
daddyusmaximus
02-12-16, 13:03
Get your 80% lower while you can... and don't get plastic.
I see where he may have pushed the limit, but the grabbers are still gaining ground.
The ATF would have been ok with it not if the colors were the same but it was molded as a single piece.
I don't think the receiver in question is an 80% receiver as much as it is a 120%. It has a 100% receiver made over a "20%" plug = 120%. That plug has nothing to do with manufacturing the lower. It serves zero purpose, other than to try to skirt a law. I can even see how an "80%" polymer receiver with a solid FCG pocket, all molded at once is even getting close, as when molding the plastic there is zero reason to have that extra material.
There is another thread about a poured/cast lower that is polymer. You buy the mold and plastic and pour your own lower. This seems like the clearly legal route for making an at home receiver out of plastic.
When you look at 1911 or AR15 metal receivers that are 80%, a standard forging or billet block is used, just like for a 100% receiver. Then 80% of the machine work is done for you, and then you do the remaining 20%. That 20% is not made up work strictly to make it a 80% receiver it, that is the remaining 20% that needs to be done either by you, or by a manufacturer. I do however thing if it was one single piece of plastic molded at the same time, the ATF would have left them alone.
Your 120% explanation makes sense to me. I'll bet that it becomes party line if any BATFE official reads it. :rolleyes:
For anyone: What are the implications, if any, of going in with a couple guys and buying the mold and resin? I couldn't see any, just thought I'd ask.
I was under this same impression.
If it was done the other way around, it seems a fine line. Technically no he didn't make a receiver. It is a clear attempt to skirt around the 80% deal and make it much easier than finishing a firearm. Like the sig arm brace, is it legal, apparently, is it asking for trouble, so far seems that way.
It isn't an attempt to skirt the law. It is an attempt to offer the most popular product within the confines of the law.
That is like me making a 922r complaint gun that requires 7 US parts and using 10 US parts so I don't "skirt the law." If the requirement is satisfied, it is satisfied. There is no "must be the same color" requirement to having a qualifying 80% receiver.
And once again these laws are all bullshit to begin with.
They pass a regulation.
We produce something more desirable than what they intended while complying with the regulation.
They say "Hey....wait.....we didn't really think of that so we are going to change our minds...again."
Your 120% explanation makes sense to me. I'll bet that it becomes party line if any BATFE official reads it. :rolleyes:
For anyone: What are the implications, if any, of going in with a couple guys and buying the mold and resin? I couldn't see any, just thought I'd ask.
Since you wouldn't be completing an 80% receiver through the usual process but building a "from the ground up" receiver I am certain ATF would declare you an unlicensed manufacturer. Your mold would be seen as a receiver factory.
Legislating and ruling from a cubicle....
Linebacker
02-12-16, 15:07
Infringement refers to the violation of a law or a right
Government regulations can, and specifically the ATF regulations in this case, infringe on our natural rights. Comprendes, amigo?
in·fringe·ment
noun
1.
the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
"copyright infringement"
2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.
"the infringement of the right to privacy"
The ATF regulations in this case, in no way hinders the acquisition of an AR style firearm, nor adds to the cost. Serialization is a requirement of thousands of products and is not a contentious subject matter, unless one is robbing banks, Etc...:-)
in·fringe·ment
noun
1.
the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
"copyright infringement"
2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.
"the infringement of the right to privacy"
The ATF regulations in this case, in no way hinders the acquisition of an AR style firearm, nor adds to the cost. Serialization is a requirement of thousands of products and is not a contentious subject matter, unless one is robbing banks, Etc...:-)
The government has no business regulating our small arms - in any manner whatsoever. If you want to mark your firearms, for any purpose you see fit, so be it. The less the government knows about what the sovereign, i.e., We The People, have in inventory, the better. Perhaps you want your other enumerated Rights to be regulated similarly? I didn't think so.
in·fringe·ment
noun
1.
the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
"copyright infringement"
2.
the action of limiting or undermining something.
"the infringement of the right to privacy"
The ATF regulations in this case, in no way hinders the acquisition of an AR style firearm, nor adds to the cost. Serialization is a requirement of thousands of products and is not a contentious subject matter, unless one is robbing banks, Etc...:-)
I would suggest Mr. Cook had his rights seriously infringed since 1. he wasn't even the manufacturer, 2. at NO TIME was a complete receiver manufactured by anyone and 3. serial numbers are only required on completed receivers and then only if they were going to be offered for resale.
If a customer purchased one with no intent to ever resell it, a serial number would NEVER be required. This requirement is part of the 1968 Gun Control Act and is only required of the manufacturer of a complete firearm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968#Marking_requirements
Firearms manufactured prior to the Gun Control Act and firearms manufactured by non-FFLs remain exempt from the serial number requirement.
The non-FFLs of course are never allowed to sell such firearms, otherwise they would require a manufacturers license.
In this case, ATF isn't even following their existing rules and regulations and basically bullied Mr. Cook into forfeiting his property. Mr. Cook likely did this because he didn't have the resources to take on the Federal government who has endless resources provided by the tax payer.
The fact that you and I can still buy an AR-15 rifle doesn't not mean infringement didn't occur. More to the point, if it was your property that you researched and verified as "compliant" given current ATF definitions that was seized, I'm sure you'd feel very infringed upon.
This is an epic overreach on the part of ATF. But it happened in CA and there are pictures that make it look like a complete receiver exists. If the clear plastic was black and non transparent then maybe more people would be able to figure out the absurdity of this seizure. Then again I've seen people who supported ATF on their "airsoft" seizure so there are no guarantees.
I think of the effort required to bend and complete an AK flat into a receiver (sometimes even done with screws) and I can tell you that removing that biscuit requires a lot more effort and precision.
Agreed, this is pure and simple strong arm politics. It's extortion. They knew they didn't have a case. They knew he couldn't / wouldn't chance going to court for the cost and potential of getting a "glove doesn't fit" jury... it is CA after all.
It was a shake down and set up for CA legislature to pass more laws. It was at best, at the very best for the ATF... you could say they were honestly mistaken and DA simply ran with it because after all he side with the guys trying to write more restrictive laws. So at best you say ATF simply made a mistake in understanding what they were looking at. The other side of that coin is that what they did was criminal in nature. Not unlike the rape girl from Rolling Stone magazine or Nyfong.
Either way you slice it, it shows the ATF should be out of the small arms business all together. Their purview has become akin to the Salem witch hunts. At some point you just need to step back and say, this is just insane. An inch off a barrel, a suppressor, it's just insanity.
Always Think Forfeiture
All Things Felonies
All Technicalities Forwarded
Leaveammoforme
02-12-16, 17:39
Always Think Forfeiture
All Things Felonies
All Technicalities Forwarded
And that's final.
Moose-Knuckle
02-13-16, 00:42
Truth bomb . . .
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Truth bomb . . .
Your quote makes me think if two assinine laws recently passed in VT. It's a traffic ticket to smoke in the car with a child under 12 or to let your car idle longer than 5 min. Two asinine laws I have no intention of ever enforcing. As a parent I would not met a anyone smoke in the car with my kids. As a kid I was around smokers all of the time. The police don't need to be the smoking and idling police.
Now if you said "Ya know this is contrary to the intent of the framework of our Bill of Rights. We should get these laws reversed and abolished."
That train left many moons ago.
Your quote makes me think if two assinine laws recently passed in VT. It's a traffic ticket to smoke in the car with a child under 12 or to let your car idle longer than 5 min. Two asinine laws I have no intention of ever enforcing. As a parent I would not met a anyone smoke in the car with my kids. As a kid I was around smokers all of the time. The police don't need to be the smoking and idling police.
The days of righting rights and wronging wrongs, are gone my friend.
IIRC you said you were in an admin type position.
Surely you know that guys in the executive seats forget about guys on the streets. Guy gets disabled oh well. Guy gets messed over oh well.
Guy whips some ass then it's an "aw shit" because it is open to review by peoplewho have never been in a fight, never been shot at, never had to drive fast while showing due regard. So...it's easier to just pass the buck
They come up with these stupid BS laws because it is easier and more political to cut seatbelt tickets than clean up a ghetto.
Pardon my bitterness but my years have left me with a lot of scars, a gimp foot, and no friends.
Oh well.... f it.
Your quote makes me think if two assinine laws recently passed in VT. It's a traffic ticket to smoke in the car with a child under 12 or to let your car idle longer than 5 min. Two asinine laws I have no intention of ever enforcing. As a parent I would not met a anyone smoke in the car with my kids. As a kid I was around smokers all of the time. The police don't need to be the smoking and idling police.
I've seen plenty of adults smoking in a car in which there were present young children. No child should be exposed to second-hand smoke. I hope the VT law passes, and as a peace officer you are tasked with enforcing the law.
Eurodriver
02-13-16, 16:04
I've seen plenty of adults smoking in a car in which there were present young children. No child should be exposed to second-hand smoke. I hope the VT law passes, and as a peace officer you are tasked with enforcing the law.
Oh look, more "I just want the government to leave me alone. I never hurt anyone" folks trying to pass more government laws to bother people. Don't you support bans on same sex marriage as well?
Gun owners are ridiculous.
Oh look, more "I just want the government to leave me alone. I never hurt anyone" folks trying to pass more government laws to bother people. Don't you support bans on same sex marriage as well?
Gun owners are ridiculous.
Yes, same sex marriage is similarly harmful to minors. Children can't consent to take part in potentially harmful behaviors, so they must be protected.
Thankfully not all gun owners are hot heads.
Some people just want the world to suit them at all times.
Everyone else just grows up and lives with the world as it is.
Cowards never make it into the pages of history books.
Singlestack Wonder
02-14-16, 17:13
Yes, same sex marriage is similarly harmful to minors. Children can't consent to take part in potentially harmful behaviors, so they must be protected.
Thankfully not all gun owners are hot heads.
+1 Its interesting that the same posters in this thread who state that the manufacturer did nothing wrong while a clear violation of the law (I.e. offering a cavity via removal of a plastic piece for a fcg) occurred, still state that politicians who are running for President shouldn't defend the unborn and promote the end of abortions in our society. Seems like they want it both ways in order to suit their rationale.
Cowards never make it into the pages of history books.
Move to CA, spend all your money to fabricate the exact same 80% receivers, then tell the ATF to go **** themselves.
Linebacker
02-14-16, 18:38
Ok, I need all you guys to form a circle, click on link and sing along. :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGU8_9UuSM4
+1 Its interesting that the same posters in this thread who state that the manufacturer did nothing wrong while a clear violation of the law (I.e. offering a cavity via removal of a plastic piece for a fcg) occurred, still state that politicians who are running for President shouldn't defend the unborn and promote the end of abortions in our society. Seems like they want it both ways in order to suit their rationale.
Except there is no "removal of a single plastic piece". It is essentially one chunk of plastic and is fused at the molecular level. No seam, no part line, etc. You could not mechanically pull it out
Which is what many seem to be missing.
Linebacker
02-14-16, 20:23
Except there is no "removal of a single plastic piece". It is essentially one chunk of plastic and is fused at the molecular level. No seam, no part line, etc. You could not mechanically pull it out
Which is what many seem to be missing.
Why were they manufactured?
Why were they manufactured?
Not for make-your-own dildo enthusiasts for sure.
Why were they manufactured?
Same reason as any 80% receiver.
Typically so people who don't want to "register their guns" can lawfully complete the receiver themselves. This is completely legal so long as it isn't offered for resale and when done by an individual no serial number is ever required.
I'm getting the sense that you really don't understand things like 80% receivers, receiver flats or part kit guns.
As a reminder. Yes, the shit is stupid. I think we all get it. Unfortunately members here attacking one another isn't going to change things. Most of us disagree with these stupid laws. But, until the black flag is hoisted and the revolution begins we live within framework of bureaucrats and stupid laws.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.