ATF ignores restraining order against business and raids Ares Armor

I read that the hearing was canceled, that the parties agreed that the TRO issue is moot subsequent to the raid, and that the parties submitted a joint motion to lift the TRO. While I do not recall the source, I do recall that did not include a link to the motion.

I will not pretend to understand this. Even though the TRO was modified, there was still a remaining interest to be protected. If my interest were the subject of a restraining order arguably violated by the party bound by the order, wouldn't I file a motion to show cause?

The article indicated that the court granted this joint motion, canceled the hearing, and made clear in its order that the movant was still free to pursue its claims.
 
Last edited:
People maybe getting confused

After reading the documents, all I can say is that I smell a rat somewhere. It appears that the lowers in question did indeed meet the requirement for an 80% receiver, and as rendered by Frankenmauser, it appears they were manufactured in accordance with BATF regs. . . .
Click to expand...
We need to keep in mind that we are talking different businesses. Ares Armor is the topic of the thread. Frankenmauser's post referred to EP Armory. Whether EP received evaluation letters from the BATF is irrelevant as to whether Ares Armor is in compliance.
 
Whether EP received evaluation letters from the BATF is irrelevant as to whether Ares Armor is in compliance.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Ares Armor was selling EP's product. That would seem to make such letter relevant as to the physical product. If Ares was engaged in some other act alleged to be illegal, then that is a different question.
 
My understanding is that Ares Armor was selling EP's product. That would seem to make such letter relevant as to the physical product. If Ares was engaged in some other act alleged to be illegal, then that is a different question.
Click to expand...
That's how I see it.
 
As I understand it, Ares was selling EP's unserialized (80%) lowers, which BATFE now says were firearms. For better or for worse, I don't think Ares' sign really helped keep them under the radar.
 
thallub said:
The BATFE claims that a type of 80 percent polymer lower being sold by Ares and others is a finished lower that was modified.

How does one go about getting a restraining order against a federal raiding party?
Click to expand...

How do you take something that's a completed **thingie** and modify it so that it's 20 percent UNcomplete?

Only the BATFE could possibly think in such terms. (Brought to you by the same people who determined that a shoelace was a machine gun.)
 
(Brought to you by the same people who determined that a shoelace was a machine gun.)
Click to expand...
One of my favorites was the sheet of 12(?) gauge sheet metal with the scribed outline of a modified 10/22 disconnector, that was declared a machinegun.
(Anybody have a link for that story? I can't find one, but it's so ridiculous it makes you laugh.)
 
Aquila Blanca said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thallub
The BATFE claims that a type of 80 percent polymer lower being sold by Ares and others is a finished lower that was modified.

How does one go about getting a restraining order against a federal raiding party?

How do you take something that's a completed **thingie** and modify it so that it's 20 percent UNcomplete?

Only the BATFE could possibly think in such terms. (Brought to you by the same people who determined that a shoelace was a machine gun.)
Click to expand...

In this case, I *think* the reasoning was that the BATFE is saying a completed lower was taken, and parts of it "filled in" with a differently-colored polymer or resin, which would allow the buyer to just drill out the colored part to have a completed lower. Like a reverse color-by-numbers AR lower receiver.
 
How do you take something that's a completed **thingie** and modify it so that it's 20 percent UNcomplete?
Click to expand...

Well in all fairness, I can take the intake manifold off the engine in your car, and in doing so turn a completed engine into an incomplete one very easily.

I'm just saying that the following logic could be applied by the ATF- you can always modify something so that it is incomplete rather than complete.
 
Chris B said:
How do you take something that's a completed **thingie** and modify it so that it's 20 percent UNcomplete?
Click to expand...
Well in all fairness, I can take the intake manifold off the engine in your car, and in doing so turn a completed engine into an incomplete one very easily.

I'm just saying that the following logic could be applied by the ATF- you can always modify something so that it is incomplete rather than complete.
Click to expand...
Not an equal comparison. An automobile engine is like a complete AR-15. Removing a manifold is like removing the upper receiver. The lower receiver is the "firearm." That's like the engine block. So a fair comparison would be to take a completed engine block and then fill in some or all of the cylinder bores, then sell the engine and require the purchaser to bore out the holes (again?).

If, indeed, these receivers were completed and then the recess for the fire control group was filled in, I can see the BATFE's point, but IMHO it's such a technical point that it should not be worth pursuing. Whether the plastic in the recess was there first or added last, it still has to be machined out to make a working receiver. I have seen (but NOT worked on!) two different flavors of aluminum AR-15 lower receivers. One had the recess for the fire control group machined, the other did not. The one that had the fire control group recess cut didn't have all the pin holes drilled.

I was told by the guy who was showing these things that one was originally declared an 80% receiver by the BATFE, then they changed their mind so the machining sequence was revised to the other sample, which was (at that time, anyway) blessed by the BATFE. But ... the AR-15 jigs you can buy on the Internet are set up to both cut the FCG recess and make all the pin holes in the correct places. So ... what difference does it make? The whole "80% finished" concept is incredibly nebulous and arbitrary. I'm not a machinist and I only have a cheap, benchtop drill press. If I were to attempt an 80% AR-15 receiver, it would take me ten times longer than a guy who knows what he's doing and who has a milling machine. So what might be an 80% receiver for him would be more like a 40% receiver for me, in terms of time and effort.
 
I don't have any expertise on whether a lower is an 80% lower or a completed lower. I did a little research and could not find a BATF regulation that specifically states what they consider to be a completed upper. Is there such a regulation? If not, there should be.
 
KyJim I don't have any expertise on whether a lower is an 80% lower or a completed lower. I did a little research and could not find a BATF regulation that specifically states what they consider to be a completed upper. Is there such a regulation? If not, there should be.
Click to expand...
There's no need for a ATF definition for an AR "completed upper"........they aren't firearms. ATF regulations make no mention of "80% lowers" in regards to AR's or any other firearm. The term "80% lower" is commonly used to describe an unfinished frame or receiver that when finished becomes a firearm frame or receiver.


If you meant "lower" instead of "upper", then yes, ATF does have a definition of a firearm.

§478.11 Meaning of terms.
Firearm. Any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device; but the term shall not include an antique firearm. In the case of a licensed collector, the term shall mean only curios and relics.
Click to expand...

If the unfinished frame or receiver is "readily convertible" into a firearm frame or receiver, then it is a firearm. What is "readily convertible"? I think ATF Technical Branch evaluates the amount of machining and work required to convert the item into a working firearm. This would be different for nearly every unfinished receiver or frame submitted.

How do you know if the unfinished frame or receiver is "readily converted"? You submit a sample to ATF Technical Branch for evaluation. They will respond with a determination letter telling you if your sample is a firearm or not. If they deem it a firearm or readily converted to a firearm, they will also tell you what must be done to make it not readily convertible to a firearm.

Determination letters apply only to the person submitting the sample and only to that sample provided to ATF Technical Branch.
 
One point, dogtown tom. Your explanation was clear and concise, but what you gave as ATF's definition of a firearm is not the bureau's but is found in the Gun Control Act of 1968. I am aware of no BATFE regulation further clarifying the GCA. At least not a regulation available to the public, but suspect there may be something like an internal policy for determining whether a receiver is too complete for it to be considered not to be a firearm.
 
Dreaming100Straight One point, dogtown tom. Your explanation was clear and concise, but what you gave as ATF's definition of a firearm is not the bureau's but is found in the Gun Control Act of 1968. I am aware of no BATFE regulation further clarifying the GCA. At least not a regulation available to the public, but suspect there may be something like an internal policy for determining whether a receiver is too complete for it to be considered not to be a firearm.
Click to expand...
The regulations you read in the GCA '68 ARE the ATF's regulations and every ATF regulation is a clarification of the law and includes the intent of Congress (ex. "sporting purpose" is an ATF standard based on the intent of Congress in passing the GCA'68) Congress doesn't get into the minutae of laws, that's the role of regulatory agencies. A new Federal law that is a hundred pages in length may spawn regulations in the thousands.

You'll likely never find an internal policy because policy is concrete. When an item is submitted to Technical Branch it is evaluated on its own merits. Remember, if you don't like the determination by Technical Branch you can always appeal their decision (see Thompson Center)
 
As someone who has actually been in their store, I can tell you that they were marketing these as unregistered, unserialized receivers. That is a big no-no by both federal and CA standards. It does not surprise me at all that the ATF is coming after them. Now, whether or not the premises behind the ATF's accusations are true, I have no idea, but it doesn't surprise me that they are trying to get them shut down at all. I am a little surprised that they are pulling sales records to find out who they were sold to, but that's about it.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's how it is.
 
As someone who has actually been in their store, I can tell you that they were marketing these as unregistered, unserialized receivers. That is a big no-no by both federal and CA standards.
Click to expand...
So, portraying an unregistered, unserialized receiver as an unregistered, unserialized receiver is a bad thing?
Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal by Federal standards, to tell the truth. Perhaps California's "progressive" nature has outlawed that, though....


I guess if I ever go to California, I'll need to make sure to tell the guys at the border checkpoint that my Ford Ranger is actually a Lamborghini Diablo. :rolleyes:
 
What I mean is, they are 80% lowers, but they are openly marketing them with the idea that you can make a complete lower that is unserialized and unregistered, which is illegal.
 
What I mean is, they are 80% lowers, but they are openly marketing them with the idea that you can make a complete lower that is unserialized and unregistered, which is illegal.
Click to expand...
Actually, it isn't. You can make firearms for your own personal use, as long as they're not NFA items or "assault" firearms assembled from imported parts.
 
Does anyone know if there was a sign in the store, or anything in the packaging of the "80% receivers" telling the purchaser that they were required to comply with all applicable laws if they "finished" the receiver?

Marketing the product as something that could be made into a receiver is honest, it is what the product is made for. NOT telling purchasers that there are laws that govern the finished product is unethical, perhaps, but I don't think it is illegal in itself.

Implying that getting one of these would let you make an unregistered, un serial numbered gun may be pandering to certain ..less desirable.. segment of the market, but it is not the seller's responsibility to ensure the buyer complies with the law after they purchase the product.

While I will admit to a degree of bias where my opinion of the ATF is concerned, it appears to be another case where things will hinge on a very technical interpretation of regulation as to whether the law actually has been broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top