ATF rule making, the Law and a couple quietly dismissed court cases...

This is a remarkably balanced article for CNN.

It seems the DOJ and ATF have quietly dismissed a couple cases recently involving 80% lowers and AR lowers in general because they were concerned that judge's would essentially toss out most of ATF's regulations.

Read it here:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html


This is truly an eye opening article regarding the disconnect between ATF rulemaking and the actual law. Great read.

RE: 80% lowers:

Though the trial lasted less than a week, Selna deliberated for more than year. In April, he issued a tentative order in which he determined that the ATF had improperly classified the AR-15 lower receivers in Roh's case as firearms.
He rejected the prosecution's argument that the ATF's interpretation of the regulation describing a receiver could reasonably be applied to the device at issue in Roh's case.
"There is a disconnect," the judge wrote.

Selna added that the combination of the federal law and regulation governing the manufacturing of receivers is "unconstitutionally vague" as applied in the case against Roh.
"No reasonable person would understand that a part constitutes a receiver where it lacks the components specified in the regulation," Selna wrote.
Therefore, the judge determined, "Roh did not violate the law by manufacturing receivers."

Click to expand...

Sounds about right.

Very interesting article - it actually caught & kept my attention after a 12-hour day!! Thanks for posting and kudos for reading CNN.

Windini said:

kudos for reading CNN

Click to expand...

know your enemy?

Excellent! That really could gut a lot of federal gun control laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think how that would apply to semi auto pistols!

CD

Agreed, surprisingly fair article by CNN.

I found it interesting that Roh was found to be manufacturing the receivers. I have to agree that having the customer “push the green button” on the CNC is a bit of a stretch to equate to them creating the receiver. Roh’s company provided the machinery and CNC files, the customer merely pressed a single button and was present.

I’m also surprised that he assembled the rest of the firearm. It seems like he could have dodged the single charge that stuck, illegally selling firearms without a license, if he simply offered the customer a “rifle build kit” separate from the lower and provided instructions on how to assemble them.

I hope you all noticed the ATF’s multiple quoted comments around this case having the potential to reverse 50yr of gun control, make tracking more difficult for them, making enforcement more difficult for them, etc. These are clear signs in my mind that their perceived purpose is flawed and they have lost sight of the fact that they are a LE & regulatory agency that has to work within the confines of the law, not redefine it.

I look forward to others using these arguments in future cases that can become case law and/or overturn federal gun control laws.

The shadow government doesn't want upset it's power...

Just proves that entire agency, along with all gun laws, are unconstitutional

Good article by CNN (see: "blind squirrel").

Imagine the field day a court would have in the NFA world, where shoelaces become machine guns, metal tubes become suppressors, intent defines function.

JohnFreeman said:

intent defines function.

Click to expand...

As in 'red flag laws'?

As in.
"Thought crimes"

I saw an interesting court case, Rohg Industries Corp et al v. Moore's Machine Company but could not find any details. I wonder what that was all about.

It seems to me what they were trying avoid is that the federal law definition of what a long gun is, is based on a bolt gun and that a 100% lower is not a gun by that definition but is a gun by the BATFE's interpretation. I've always thought the BS you have go thru to acquire/xfr a 100% lower or a bolt gun receiver was absolutely insane since neither one on their own can fire a bullet and therefore is not a gun/firearm.

I suspect CNN's motivation for publishing this is in anticipation of a Democratic Congress and Democratic president working to "fix" the issue with the law.