An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

General discussions regarding topics that aren't covered in one of the other sub-forums. NO DISCUSSION OF POLITICS!

Moderators: ZS Global Moderators, ZS Postal Match Officers

Post Reply
User avatar
raptor
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 16804
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: Greater New Orleans Area

An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by raptor » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:27 pm

What rock have I been under. :oops:

I am sure others have seen this but this court case is news to me. I heard about it only today.
If it has been discussed here please let me know.

Apparently it is not precedent and other judges can either follow it or not so don't go running around assuming it is a binding decision.

The case hinges upon the 1968 Firearms Act's definition of a receiver. The receiver as we all know is the regulated portion of a firearm.

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.”

Now apparently the person involved is not exactly someone who we may or may not want as a friend and did plead bargain one charge.
This is apparently nothing new:
In July 2016, 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.


https://www.ammoland.com/2019/10/batfe- ... precedent/

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-a ... s-trouble/

A CNN perspective:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15 ... index.html


Extending the logic a revolver, bolt, lever and pump actions have receivers as do semi autos rifles like M-1, M-14 style actions, FAL, H&K and others. They have all three as a fixed unit/receiver. But the law clearly requires all 3 so a pistol like a Makarov or PPK that has a barrel pinned to the receiver may or may not also not be firearm.

However many semi autos like even the venerable 1911, Glock and S&W have lowers much like the AR style that can meeting that exclusion. The barrel and bolt/breech are in the slide which attaches to the lower. So Mech Tech and similar PCC may not be firearms?!

Anyway to fix it GCA68 has to fixed.

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by Stercutus » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:24 pm

There is more to it. Roh sold unfinished "receivers." The owners of those unfinished parts then showed up at his shop/warehouse, he set the unfinished parts up in a CNC machine, and the owners of the parts then pushed the button to initiate the machining process. Regardless of the definition of a receiver, Roh never made unlawful transfers because at no time did he actually sell (transfer) either a completed receiver or a completed firearm.

Roh followed the letter of the law, he simply found work around loop holes. Then he spent five years in court to have the ATF drop the charges when they realized they could not win. Roh was a shitbag to be facilitating sales to felons, feebles and other prohibited persons but such people generally can justify their acts to themselves given enough time.

It would have made a lot more sense to charge him as a conspirator to those actually possessing the guns but the BATFE is famous for it's missteps and failures of logic.
You go 'round and around it
You go over and under
I go through

User avatar
NT2C
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 7946
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:37 pm
Location: Outside of your jurisdiction officer

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by NT2C » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:39 pm

raptor wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:27 pm
Anyway to fix it GCA68 has to fixed.

Annnnd... I'm going to jump in and cut you off right there because the next step down that particular garden path is political and we are going to avoid that destination, right?

8-)

I will, however, point out that should such a repeal ever take place it would only happen in conjunction with an entirely new set of laws, the likes of which we probably DO NOT WANT.
Nonsolis Radios Sediouis Fulmina Mitto. - USN Gunner's Mate motto

Sic quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit; occidentis telum est - Seneca the Younger, Epistles

User avatar
raptor
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 16804
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: Greater New Orleans Area

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by raptor » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:46 pm

Stercutus wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:24 pm
There is more to it. Roh sold unfinished "receivers." The owners of those unfinished parts then showed up at his shop/warehouse, he set the unfinished parts up in a CNC machine, and the owners of the parts then pushed the button to initiate the machining process. Regardless of the definition of a receiver, Roh never made unlawful transfers because at no time did he actually sell (transfer) either a completed receiver or a completed firearm.

Roh followed the letter of the law, he simply found work around loop holes. Then he spent five years in court to have the ATF drop the charges when they realized they could not win. Roh was a shitbag to be facilitating sales to felons, feebles and other prohibited persons but such people generally can justify their acts to themselves given enough time.

It would have made a lot more sense to charge him as a conspirator to those actually possessing the guns but the BATFE is famous for it's missteps and failures of logic.

Yeah as I said Roh is not someone most ZS'ers would like to hang around with.

He did agree to an illegal sales charge. That seems to me a very compelling case.
Roh was guilty of selling completed firearms without a license, subjecting him to a possible prison sentence.
The ATF should have stuck to that charge.

User avatar
emclean
* * * * *
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:31 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Fido
Zombieland
Location: NW Indiana

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by emclean » Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:19 am

I guess that this is going to be a non-issue. I don't believe that the courts would rule that the lack of a comma makes many modern firearms not have a receiver, or that all those already existing one have to get all the components that are listed engraved with the mandatory markings for a receiver.

at some point someone else will use the same defense, and the DA will decide to go ahead and argue it on court, and let it get appealed up how ever far it goes.

boskone
* * *
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: Aggieland-ish

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by boskone » Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:25 pm

emclean wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:19 am
I guess that this is going to be a non-issue. I don't believe that the courts would rule that the lack of a comma makes many modern firearms not have a receiver, or that all those already existing one have to get all the components that are listed engraved with the mandatory markings for a receiver.

at some point someone else will use the same defense, and the DA will decide to go ahead and argue it on court, and let it get appealed up how ever far it goes.
Or they'd change it to something like "That part or assembly of a firearm...", and just consider the upper and lower receiver to be the relevant part.

Which would suck, because it would badly impede the ability to do things like having multiple uppers to switch between a single lower.

User avatar
NT2C
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 7946
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:37 pm
Location: Outside of your jurisdiction officer

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by NT2C » Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:59 am

emclean wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:19 am
I guess that this is going to be a non-issue. I don't believe that the courts would rule that the lack of a comma makes many modern firearms not have a receiver, or that all those already existing one have to get all the components that are listed engraved with the mandatory markings for a receiver.

at some point someone else will use the same defense, and the DA will decide to go ahead and argue it on court, and let it get appealed up how ever far it goes.
You'd think that... and likely be wrong.

The Most Expensive Typo in Legislative History

'For Want of a Comma, We Have This Case'
Nonsolis Radios Sediouis Fulmina Mitto. - USN Gunner's Mate motto

Sic quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit; occidentis telum est - Seneca the Younger, Epistles

boskone
* * *
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: Aggieland-ish

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by boskone » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:13 pm

NT2C wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:59 am
emclean wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:19 am
I guess that this is going to be a non-issue. I don't believe that the courts would rule that the lack of a comma makes many modern firearms not have a receiver, or that all those already existing one have to get all the components that are listed engraved with the mandatory markings for a receiver.

at some point someone else will use the same defense, and the DA will decide to go ahead and argue it on court, and let it get appealed up how ever far it goes.
You'd think that... and likely be wrong.

The Most Expensive Typo in Legislative History

'For Want of a Comma, We Have This Case'
Pertinent to the topic, consider also the grammatical arguments surrounding the placement of the comma and it's implications on the 2nd amendment.

User avatar
emclean
* * * * *
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:31 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Fido
Zombieland
Location: NW Indiana

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by emclean » Fri Oct 25, 2019 6:44 am

boskone wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:13 pm
NT2C wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:59 am
emclean wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:19 am
I guess that this is going to be a non-issue. I don't believe that the courts would rule that the lack of a comma makes many modern firearms not have a receiver, or that all those already existing one have to get all the components that are listed engraved with the mandatory markings for a receiver.

at some point someone else will use the same defense, and the DA will decide to go ahead and argue it on court, and let it get appealed up how ever far it goes.
You'd think that... and likely be wrong.

The Most Expensive Typo in Legislative History

'For Want of a Comma, We Have This Case'
Pertinent to the topic, consider also the grammatical arguments surrounding the placement of the comma and it's implications on the 2nd amendment.
fortunately that has been adjudicated, and been determined that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

User avatar
raptor
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 16804
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: Greater New Orleans Area

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by raptor » Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:35 am

Punctuation is important.

"Lets eat Grandma." "Lets eat! Grandma?" "Lets eat; Grandma."

User avatar
NT2C
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 7946
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:37 pm
Location: Outside of your jurisdiction officer

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by NT2C » Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:16 pm

raptor wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:35 am
Punctuation is important.

"Lets eat Grandma." "Lets eat! Grandma?" "Lets eat; Grandma."
Image

You left the apostrophe off every one of those "lets". :rofl:
Nonsolis Radios Sediouis Fulmina Mitto. - USN Gunner's Mate motto

Sic quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit; occidentis telum est - Seneca the Younger, Epistles

User avatar
raptor
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 16804
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: Greater New Orleans Area

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by raptor » Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:10 pm

NT2C wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 1:16 pm
raptor wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:35 am
Punctuation is important.

"Lets eat Grandma." "Lets eat! Grandma?" "Lets eat; Grandma."
Image

You left the apostrophe off every one of those "lets". :rofl:
Exactly!
As I said punctuation is important. It is good way to draw a response to a post.
:clap:

Homophones can be fun!

User avatar
Langenator
* * *
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:20 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 Days Later, Zombieland, Shaun of the Dead (and Larry Correia's Monster Hunter series if they ever make them into movies)
Location: Aggieland, TX

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by Langenator » Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:01 am

I can't find it anywhere that will let me embed the image, but always remember the Oxford comma.

https://imgur.com/fycHx
Fortunis Fortus Paratus

User avatar
raptor
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 16804
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: Greater New Orleans Area

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by raptor » Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:02 pm

Langenator wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:01 am
I can't find it anywhere that will let me embed the image, but always remember the Oxford comma.

https://imgur.com/fycHx
Gaaa! It burns..the image at the link burns...
:)

Image

User avatar
Stercutus
* * * * *
Posts: 13599
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:16 pm
Location: Time Out

Re: An AR-15 does not Legally have a Receiver & ATF Cannot Regulate It?!

Post by Stercutus » Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:24 pm

It was many years ago but I think I got that one right on the SATs.
You go 'round and around it
You go over and under
I go through

Post Reply

Return to “General Firearms Discussion”