ATF ignores restraining order against business and raids Ares Armor

I've always been under the impression that even if you build one itself, it has to be serialized. Is that incorrect? Either way, long arms still have to be registered in CA, so it is still illegal.
 
I would think that if i was making a gun from an 80% recv AND it had to be serial numbered and registered (a Kail requirement?) then I as the "maker" of the gun would be responsible for that. The whole thing with 80% lowers is that the buyer is "making" the firearm.

As a comparison. If i "make" a SBR out of a 16" AR, then, i have to engrave my info and record a S/N with ATF. Most people just use the existing S/N but you dont have to. I could have put my info on it and put any S/N i wanted as the maker of the gun

A company that takes a hunk of material and makes it into ALMOST a firearm. Still has not made a firearm. If i take that hunk of whatever and make a firearm outta it... Then i have made a firearm and all rules apply to ME
 
SHE3PDOG said:
...even if you build one itself, it has to be serialized... Either way, long arms still have to be registered in CA, so it is still illegal.
Click to expand...
Does CA explicitly require a newly-made long gun to have a serial number in order to be registered?
 
BATFE doesn't enforce state law.

As to the comparison with an SBR, those are governed by an entirely different set of statutes, so that's not really an apt comparison.
 
GC70 posted some good links in his post #36.

According to the US attorney, Ares promised to turn the lowers and records of customers who purchased them over to the BATFE. "Simultaneously", Ares was preparing a lawsuit and filing for a restraining order. There is a lesson here: After making a deal with the devil you renege at your peril.


Quote:
On March 10, 2014, ATF Division Counsel contacted an attorney representing Ares Armor about the AR-15 lower receivers and Ares Armor agreed to voluntary surrender them. See Declaration of Paul Ware. This was in lieu of obtaining a search warrant for these items pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41. Id. Ares Armor’s attorney agreed that it would turn over the firearms on March 12, 2014. Id. This agreement was confirmed at 5:00 p.m. on March 11, 2014. Id.

But, while representing to ATF that an agreement was in place for the voluntary surrender of the firearms, Ares Armor was simultaneously preparing a lawsuit and applying for a temporary restraining order preventing ATF from taking possession of this contraband. Indeed, Ares Armor’s CEO freely admits to this ruse. See Declaration of Dimitrios Karras (ECF #1-2 at 2, par. 9(b) (“I agreed to their terms in order to delay an impending and unjust raid against Ares Armor long enough to obtain legal protection under the law.”). When an ATF agent appeared to take possession of the illegal firearms as agreed on March 12, 2014, the ATF agent was presented with a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on March 11, 2014.

See declaration of ATF Division Counsel Paul J. Ware:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/212487675/DOJ-Response-Ares-Armor
 
A private person that completes a 80% lower for his own use need not register it not must they affix a serial number to the lower.

Many are confused by when reading about 80% lowers. The term is one that just came to be adopted in the firearms community to mean a lower receiver the manufacture of which is not so complete that it will be considered a "firearm" under the Gun Control Act of 1986.

One need not have a FFL dealers license to sell an 80 nor a FFL manufacturer's license to manufacture one - since it is not a firearm. Moreover, since it is not a firearm, a prohibited person may possess an 80. A prohibited person may not complete an 80, since they would than be in possession of a firearm.

A non-prohibited person may complete an 80 for their own use. If they do so for anyone else, they are manufacturing and need an FFL manufacturer's license.

Ares Armor and EP lowers find themselves in a pickle for reasons that are unclear, and I hesitate to fix blame or evil intent on either, although I cannot approve of some of their decisions. Any culpability of one, if there be any, is not necessarily shared by the other. My opinion is irrelevant, but I mention it out of fairness in case some bias shows through.

While a retailer or manufacturer of an 80 is not required by law to do so, standard procedure is that one first obtains a "determination letter" as to whether a lower will be considered not to be so complete that it qualifies as firearm. Neither EPlower not Ares obtained a determination letter, although there are some vague claims being circulated that EPlower consulted with a local BATF agent that indicated that there would not be a problem in getting such a determination.

Not all lowers from EPlowers or Ares are claimed to be illegal, but only ones manufactured from polymer. I believe that another company manufactures polymer lowers that have not been deemed to be firearms, but theirs differ from these is aspects that one side say are material and the other say are not. (Aluminum or other metal lowers are not here in issue.)

Ares asserts that sine BATFE in the past has found that lowers requiring no more manufacturing steps to complete (such as the drilling of certain holes) have been determined not to be firearms, that it's polymer 80s must be determined not to be firearms. I suspect that BATFE will disagree for several reasons.

Because two different colors of polymer are used, the FCG well is easily identified. Also, because of the manner in which the well is plugged, it is easier to remove the polymer from the well without the use of either a mill or CNG machine. The locations for drilling certain holes are also marked. All this enables a unskilled buyer to complete a lower in a fraction of the time it takes to complete a typical metal lower.

All the nonsense about whether Ares broke an agreement to surrender the "contraband", when it snuck out to get a TRO, and the stuff about jack booted out of control ATF Nazis is all fodder for the press as far as I can see. The only real issues are if the lowers were so complete that they were readily converted to expel a projectile and if such a definition is legally clear enough to be enforced in regulation of the rkba. At first blush it seems too ambiguous, but those of you with better legal minds may wish to expound on the doctrine of judicial deference to administrative agencies.

I hope this has been more helpful then it has been confusing and apologize for mistakes that I am sure I made as this is all of the top of my head.
 
Because two different colors of polymer are used, the FCG well is easily identified. Also, because of the manner in which the well is plugged, it is easier to remove the polymer from the well without the use of either a mill or CNG machine. The locations for drilling certain holes are also marked. All this enables a unskilled buyer to complete a lower in a fraction of the time it takes to complete a typical metal lower.
Click to expand...
That's a good theory, that I've heard from many people that have never seen one of the EP Armory lowers. But, in reality, the "plug" is under-sized and doesn't just magically leave a properly-dimensioned fire control group pocket, once it's milled out. Aside from all of the interlocking ribs that have to be removed... You still have to mill the polymer of the receiver to the proper dimensions, after the plug is gone.

And, I can tell you from the hands-on experience, that an unskilled idiot with an unregistered dremel and hand drill will take far longer to turn one of those 80% lowers into a functional receiver, than someone experienced with their milling machine will take to finish an aluminum "80%" lower.

The "plug" polymer is a beast to work with. And when you combine it with the dissimilar polymer of the actual lower, it makes progress very slow.


(And all of the holes that are marked on the EP Armory lowers, with their "drill guides", are in the wrong place. Drilling where they tell you to will only result in a functional lower if you get lucky and have your drill wander to where it should be. ;) To do it right, you need to cut the drill guides off with a chisel, and layout the correct positions yourself.)
 
Perhaps, FrankenMauser. All I know is from watching a guy with a dremel, who probably had some skill, do a lower in about 45 minutes. Others have posted elsewhere that they are easier to complete, which I expect was the reason for going with the double polymer design. Make them easier to complete and increase the pool of buyers. I don't believe I ever suggested that they could be finished faster with a dremel (unregistered?) than a mill. The operative issue is that they are more readily completed.
 
If the govt claims that the partially finished plastic is a firearm, and thus illegal, then can only be doing so by an interpretation of the phrase "readily converted".

And it seems the key in that is the word "readily". It seems rather arbitrary to me. Is there a rule or standard that says how long, and with what tools it must take to be "readily", vs. "not readily"?

I mean, if it takes a guy with a milling machine 10 minutes, and a guy with an unlicensed dremel 45 minutes and poor me with a totally unregistered hand file 5 hours of labor to remover a certain amount of material, it makes no real difference, in the physical world. You have the same thing when finished.

But, apparently it does make a difference in the legal world.

Such a world we live in...
:(
 
Perhaps, FrankenMauser. All I know is from watching a guy with a dremel, who probably had some skill, do a lower in about 45 minutes.
Click to expand...
I know exactly which video you're referring to. That guy was pushing so hard to finish quickly, that he broke nearly all of his tools in the process (the Dremel, several rotary bits, a drill bit, etc.). And.... He didn't finish that receiver in the 57 minutes quoted for completion. He turned it into something the ATF would call a "firearm" but it would not have been functional at the point.

He still needed to ream several holes for detent pins or plungers; the fire control group pocket still needed to be opened to allow installation of the trigger and hammer; and, since he used the molded-in drill guides, the hammer and trigger pin and selector holes were likely drilled in the wrong locations.

I can't prove it, but I strongly believe that the completed rifle shown at the end of the video was actually built on a different lower, because the one featured in the video turned out to be non-functional.
 
It seems rather arbitrary to me. Is there a rule or standard that says how long, and with what tools it must take to be "readily", vs. "not readily"?
Click to expand...
There is no written rule or standard -- or at least not one that is available to the public. That is part of the problem. Even when you get a "one off" determination letter from ATF's Firearms Technology Branch, it is always subject to change or withdrawal, subject to them arguing that what you are selling now is not the same as what they evaluated, subject to a new interpretation, subject to . . .
 
44 Amp:

This is really over my pay grade, but some of the attorneys here are free to correct me where I go wrong.

The law in question is found in a section of the Gun Control Act of 1986 defing a firerarm. See 18 USC 921(a)(3)(B):

(a) As used in this chapter—
(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.

(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) 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;

(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or

(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Click to expand...

here is where I murder what has come to be called the Chevron doctrine, which basically requires the courts to give deference to an agency charged by Congress with the administration of an ambiguous law, so long as its interpretation is a possible one given the intent of Congress in enacting the legislation. Forgive me if I am too lazy to pull up the actual doctrine and have it botched up.

What then does "readily converted" mean? Just when is a receiver's manufacturing so complete that it is "readily" converted? Federal firearms law uses the term readily is several places in regards to things that are readily converted, restored, adaptable (to sporting purposes), obliterated, altered, removed, seen (as in can a sign be readily seen), disclose (disclose information), available (make readily available for inspection), and probably some other conditions.

How readily does ATF permit an 80% lower to be converted before it becomes a firearm? The plain language definition of "readily" suggests immediately or very quickly, but ATF seems to require a couple of hours of time from the little I have read of the problem. If such an interpretation is not excluded by what is known of legislative intent, Chevron mandates the Courts to accept ATF's decision.

Or does it? I wonder if more might be required of a law of Congress infringing on a fundamental constitutional right. Even if the Act is valid, should an administrative agency at least be required to publish standards so that the people are provided with due process of law concerning constitutionally protected rights? I am neither smart not educated enough to know the answers.
 
"I've always been under the impression that even if you build one itself, it has to be serialized. Is that incorrect? Either way, long arms still have to be registered in CA, so it is still illegal."

Incorrect. Up until January 1, 2014, sales of long arms were not registered with the DOJ, only recorded in the FFL's books. (This includes all private face to face transactions, which are required to be conducted through an FFL in California) A homemade firearm does not have to be serialized or registered under federal or state law unless and until you decide to sell it, at which point a serial number has to be engraved or permanently attached. Further, there are restrictions on the number of firearms that you can build and sell; exceeding that limitation will render you a "manufacturer" who is required to have an FFL-07 license. Selling a homemade firearm in California NOW will result in the firearm being registered with the DOJ.
Senator De Leon, calling them "ghost guns", has submitted a bill to require the retroactive registration of ALL EBRs, including homemade firearms built from 80% lowers. That bill is pending.
 
EP Armory sent an email to all of their registered customers today:

Our Loyal EP Armory Customers,

We have been going through some tough times here at EP Armory lately as the result of an ATF investigation into our polymer precursor receiver product (aka polymer “80% lower”). The investigation has hurt our sales, and we’ve been swamped with emails and phone calls asking about the situation and the legal status of our product. There has been lots of speculation, and rumors are going around. A lot of the information out there is wrong.

We want to set the record straight, but as hard as we have tried, we simply haven’t been able to respond to each inquiry individually. We hope this message, and information that has been published or will soon be published by our attorneys at Michel & Associates, P.C. will help answer some of these questions. You can access the available information about this investigation, related investigations, and a bunch of other helpful information, HERE.

ATF offices throughout the state of California and across the country have also gotten lots of calls from concerned citizens seeking direction relating not only to the legality of the sales of EP Armory’s product, but to “80% lowers” in general. And they aren’t happy with the vague “answers” they’re (not) getting from ATF.

Although EP Armory has been largely silent so far about the actions of ATF regulators in mischaracterizing our polymer precursor lower receiver product as a “firearm,” we have been taking concrete actions to protect both our interests, and the privacy rights of our customers. Our lawyers have been and are working hard on our, and our customers’, behalf. They are in discussions with representatives from the highest levels of the ATF to resolve the outstanding legal issues regarding our polymer precursor receiver product, and to get our property and records returned to us as soon as possible. Through these ongoing discussions with ATF officials, ATF lawyers, and lawyers with the United States Attorney’s Office our lawyers at Michel& Associates, P.C. hope to convince the ATF investigators that these polymer precursor receivers are not “firearms” under the law, should not be regulated as such, that these investigations should be concluded, and the seized records and property returned.

We need your support to win this fight! To help us fund and win this legal battle, we will set up an “EP Armory Legal Defense Fund.” We ask. . . Once we win our fight to resume sales of our EP80 polymer lower non-firearm, we will promptly ship EP80's! You can be among the first to receive a Polymer 80% Receiver once the legal issues are resolved. And we are confident that they will be back! Of course, if you would prefer to support us by purchasing another of our products, we still have the entire remainder of our product line available, including our aluminum 80% lower receivers, which the ATF has not mischaracterized as “firearms” under the law, and which were not seized. You can order our products HERE. We appreciate your support!

From the front lines in the fight for the right to keep and bear arms,

Sincerely,

EP ARMORY
Click to expand...

One of the items of note is the ATF letter determining that the 80% lower was a firearm.

Everything comes down to a single sentence:
"We further noted that the fire-control cavity has been formed and then, at a later time, filled in with plastic material."

It's all misinterpretation by the ATF technology branch - making assumptions about what they were looking at, without direct knowledge.

EP Armory's attorney sent a letter to try to clarify the misinterpretation of the sample presented, but it appears to have been ignored, in favor of the opinion of idiots in 'positions of power'.
 
It's all misinterpretation by the ATF technology branch - making assumptions about what they were looking at, without direct knowledge.
Click to expand...
Whose word are we taking for that? If the ATF's statement is correct, then I can certainly see why they wouldn't approve of the lowers.
 
Whose word are we taking for that? If the ATF's statement is correct, then I can certainly see why they wouldn't approve of the lowers.
Click to expand...
EP Armory, Ares Armor, and every other entity involved in this investigation has only ever stated that the lowers are formed around the block that fills the fire control group pocket (referred to as a 'biscuit' in the attorney's letter).

In addition, I've seen the lowers, myself. I am not an expert in injection molding, but the experience I do have points only to supporting EPA's claims: That the FCG pocket 'block'/biscuit is inserted into the mold, and then the rest of the lower is formed around it. It is not a "firearm" that has the FCG pocket filled with "plastic material" after the fact.


I do agree, though. If they ATF's statement was correct, their evaluation (declaring it a 'firearm') would be correct. I just haven't seen any evidence that the ATF is correct.
 
So, essentially, if the item is made the way the seller (and the manufacturer) say it is made, the AFT screwed up, it is not a firearm, even under their broadest definition.

If the ATF is correct, then it is, and their actions were correct.

On the surface, at least, this one seems like a simple trip to the factory would result in a slam dunk.

I wonder what will actually happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top