According to the judge's ruling, a firearm frame needs to contain the hammer, the bolt or breechblock, and the firing mechanism in order to meet the letter of the law. An AR-15 lower only contains two of those three items, so according to the judge, cannot be a firearm as defined in the law.
By that same reasoning, a 1911 has no frame that can be considered the firearm, either, because the 1911 has no bolt or breechblock in the frame. The breechblock is part of the slide.
And striker fired pistols such as the Glock don't have hammers at all, in addition to the lack of a breechblock in the frame.
And many bolt action rifles are striker fired, so there is no hammer in the frame.
It is a stupid ruling.
Where did a judge change the ATF’s definition of tye AR-15?
bfl
“...in the Gun Control Act of 1968: One section of the Act allows any private individual to build a firearm at home for personal use if they can otherwise legally own a gun.”
Does the statute actually say “at home”? (If you know, please tell me where to look. I’ve scanned a LOT of the text and haven’t found the relevant part yet).
If the law does stipulate “at home”, how does building your rifle in some guy’s warehouse qualify for the exception. I assume the warehouse is not the customers’ “home” (but in CA, who knows...).
Abolish the ATF. Abolish Federal agencies that are redundant of state agencies. Every state has an “agency” to license and otherwise regulate firearms. The same is true of Alcohol and Tobacco.
The Federal government has too many priorities. It shoud cease activities that are redundant of state activities and focus on a few priorities and do them well.
There is no way Congress and the President can govern effectively when so many priorties means nothing is a priority and nothing is done competently or successfully.
That is true regardless of whom is in Congress and who the President is.
This is common practice for the ATF and is proof positive they only care about control and retaining their power. ATF knows many of their rediculous rulings and arbitrary pronouncements would never withstand any legitimate court and defy logic and reason. So the second they fear they will lose and possibly have to give up one of their pet unconstitutional laws or clown suit rulings they drop the charges and railroad some sort of other legal peril for the accused. It’s way past time to completely remove the F from this agency.
Somebody please check this link out and post a new thread:
“ABC is using video from Knobb Creek annual machine gun shoot as Turkish attack on Kurds in Syria”
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/dhqc1f/abc_is_using_video_from_knobb_creek_annual/
The article is fouled up. It's unclear what the "receiver" at issue comprises. Is it a stripped receiver made from the blank? Or is it the assembled receiver with springs, pins, trigger, sear, disconnect, and hammer? Logically, the argument tends towards the stripped receiver.
The article also confounds the U.S. Code with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The U.S. Code is the law. The CFR is regulation implementing the code. From what I can tell, the U.S code does not define what a frame or receiver is; only that it is a firearm per the code.
If the US Code is vague on something, regulations usually try to make it specific. It's up to the courts to decide what the law really intends.
A few years ago, I owned both a Colt AR-15 and a Heckler and Koch HK-91. I thought it was interesting that the serial number on the HK-91 (as is the case in most rifles) was on the upper receiver, but the AR-15 was on the lower. I wondered how Stoner and Armalite decided, or were instructed by the government, to stamp the serial number. But even if the government regulations are vague as to the definition of “receiver”, I bet the courts would eventually decide that whatever rifle part has the serial number stamped on it is the part regulated by law. If you purchase or ship a serial-numbered handgun frame or a rifle receiver, you have to consider the applicable laws. All other parts are just “parts”, not subject to regulations.
Good
Title is inaccurate.
The BATFE agreed to drop charges to avoid this type of ruling.
Perhaps a future Supreme Court will recognize that.
BFL
Hmmmm....