bohica793
Master
Based on a number of court cases, it may not be.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/us/ex-atf-agent-ar-15/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/us/ex-atf-agent-ar-15/index.html
-
Please read the new forum rules! REQUIRED!
Click Here: https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/general-forum-rules-code-of-conduct.70770/
-
New Reloading Sticky Thread for Trading, Swapping Gear, etc.
https://www.gulfcoastgunforum.com/threads/reloading-components-for-trade-item-value-and-photo.104847/
Interesting article - Is an AR receiver actually a firearm?
- Thread starter bohica793
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
SAWMAN
Master
I saw that on my computer news.
Great,swell,super-duper . . . however . . . I hope this newest revelation does not encourage people to poke a stick in the eye of the BATFE.
Things are pretty good now. Let's leave well enough alone. --- SAWMAN
Great,swell,super-duper . . . however . . . I hope this newest revelation does not encourage people to poke a stick in the eye of the BATFE.
Things are pretty good now. Let's leave well enough alone. --- SAWMAN
Some months ago I heard that head line and the ATF withdrew from court rather than pursue it. I do not want any games played with the current definition since it works just fine for me unless we can undo all 4473 requirements and regulation.
You do not want to get to where like in Europe where often it is the barrel that is also a regulated part. Do we want to return to:
Last edited:
wildrider666
Master
The "Word" got out. ATF/DOJ has been trying to come up with a "fix" but the problem is they don't want the fix to change previous Case convictions: it would be admitting they convicted persons of firearm posession without the evidence being "firearms". A Catch 22 dilemma where they can't fix the new problem without creating a larger one. Each of the prior convictions can be challanged (Case by Case) using the same definition limitation and ultimately prevail. This will not only free them, erase convictions but also create gov civil suit liability for their incarceration and all thing lost due to it. If the gov does a fix, ALL Cases can reference the Change and file an Appeal.
ATF/DOJ is looking for a justification to "grandfather" use of the curren definition as applied in previouse Cases and then a cutoff where upon a "NEW" definition becomes effective.
The "reciever" definition is not the only time gov/prosecutors dropped Charges to prevent a Ruling contrary to the gov position which would be used against the gov from then on. It is also why ATFs "long held positions" are never added to actual Law and remain as "Memos". The adding a vert foregrip to a handgun memo is 14 years old, now compare that to the speed the Change a Definition and ban BFS/BFD! ATF won't attempt to put foregrip/handgun issue under legal scrutiny.
Adding a vertical foregrip on a handgun, two Case gov dropped or lost on Appeal First is U.S. v. Davis, Crim No. 8:93-106 (D.S.C. 1993) (Report of Magistrate, June 21, 1993).[5] The prosecution was dismissed at the request of the Government before any review of that determination by the trial judge. Second Case is US v. Fix (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Christopher FIX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-10789. August 29, 2001).
ATF/DOJ is looking for a justification to "grandfather" use of the curren definition as applied in previouse Cases and then a cutoff where upon a "NEW" definition becomes effective.
The "reciever" definition is not the only time gov/prosecutors dropped Charges to prevent a Ruling contrary to the gov position which would be used against the gov from then on. It is also why ATFs "long held positions" are never added to actual Law and remain as "Memos". The adding a vert foregrip to a handgun memo is 14 years old, now compare that to the speed the Change a Definition and ban BFS/BFD! ATF won't attempt to put foregrip/handgun issue under legal scrutiny.
Adding a vertical foregrip on a handgun, two Case gov dropped or lost on Appeal First is U.S. v. Davis, Crim No. 8:93-106 (D.S.C. 1993) (Report of Magistrate, June 21, 1993).[5] The prosecution was dismissed at the request of the Government before any review of that determination by the trial judge. Second Case is US v. Fix (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence Christopher FIX, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-10789. August 29, 2001).
