He sold illegal AR-15s. Feds agreed to let him go free to avoid hurting gun control e

Found this kind of interesting. I could see where this might be bad.


Potential flaw in law regarding AR-15s exposed

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar...nvs/index.html

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Basically to paraphrase, in one case the judge ruled that a AR15 lower reciever does not meet definition of firearm.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 223to45

Basically to paraphrase, in one case the judge ruled that a AR15 lower reciever does not meet definition of firearm.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

---

It reads as if the Judge ruled that, because a lower does not contain a breechlock, firing mechanism, and is not threaded to accept a barrel, it does not meet the definition of a firearm. It seems the same could be said of many modern firearms, including most semi-automatic handguns and the majority of semi-automatic rifles.

Not the first time the feds don't appeal or have dropped a case to keep pro 2A rulings from advancing forward

Must be the same BS logic that let Eric "Gunwalker" Holder skate. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_War_Wagon

Must be the same BS logic that let Eric "Gunwalker" Holder skate. :mad:

---

Oh there's a reason the Feds have the conviction rate they do. They're WAY more selective with prosecutions than locals or state DA's.

So this Roh guy had a machine shop all set up and just allowed customers to press the button, milling out the lower he had just sold them. Second issue, is this a firearm?

You guys must be aware the first situation has happened before. When I first bought my AR in 2015, I went to another gun store to buy ammo and got in a discussion with an employee or two there. They would come over to your house, evidently with the equipment, and show you how to mill it out yourself for a fee of course. Is that illegal?

Where on the books does it say that an AR lower receiver is in fact a firearm?

Back in the '90s, ATF tried to similarly crucify Rich Celata and KT Ordnance in Montana for similar "build parties," which was the direct origin IIRC of the "maker must own the tools" rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diamondback

Back in the '90s, ATF tried to similarly crucify Rich Celata and KT Ordnance in Montana for similar "build parties," which was the direct origin IIRC of the "maker must own the tools" rule.

---

Which is tantamount to saying I need to be the licensed owner of the software in my phone for 4A purposes.

But yea some rights are less equal than others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk