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.