Feds drop case over AR-15 definition (Joseph Roh, building ARs)

[ghostwong]

Have you seen this??

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar...nvs/index.html

[wpage]

Interesting. So if you press the green button you made it.

Not his shop. The ATF will probably win that one.

[kelvin232]

Did you even read it? That's not what it's about.

[kelvin232]

This is big news and I agree that they were probably smart from their perspective to suppress a decision.

[kelvin232]

Says doj/atf doesn't get to make determinations outside of the scope of legislation.

[kelvin232]

Oh, and ar-15s don't have receivers that can be considered firearms.

[Solidsnake87]

That is a fascinating article!!!!

Great post!

[John1960]

Feds drop case against Joseph Roh, in fear of losing the case and establishing case law that an AR15 lower does not meet the definition of a Firearm....

https://ktla.com/2019/10/11/feds-fea...ntrol-efforts/

Apparently a job well done by his attorney Gregory Nicolaysen.

[the_tunaman]

Interesting article. This didn’t seem to be the most bright comment from the defendant:

Moments later, he stood next to the agent in front of a large piece of equipment that is computer-coded to precisely machine parts for AR-15-style firearms.

“Go ahead and press the green button,” Roh told the undercover agent.

“The green button?” the agent asked.

“Yeah,” Roh replied. “That basically means that you did it — believe it or not.”

Too bad they weren’t able to fully force the decision, or get Sessions to identify similar cases across the country, as I’d expect there are plenty with similar criteria.

[Fyathyrio]

Judge says ATF rule-making is flawed, a lower isn't a firearm, and CNN is scared. Long article, worth the read even if it's on CNN.

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."

Prosecutors & ATF realize implications of the ruling, and offer a deal to bury the judge's opinion instead. Dude gets off, but basic issue of ATF making stuff up as they go along still remians (such as bumpstocks.)

[sbo80]

Thanks for the link. That's pretty huge. By the judge's rationale, even a Glock frame would not be a "firearm". Part of me wishes defendant would have rejected the plea. That would be "taking one for the team" big time. Not sure if he figured he'd lose on appeal to the 9th though. I wonder if also, there's a sudden dump of appeals from those already convicted of similar offenses, if there are any.

[VoR]

Does it change anything about having to get a serial number before milling out an 80% paper weight?
If it is not a receiver does it need a serial number?
What about polymer 80 glock style frames?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[elSquid]

From the CNN link:

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."

The lower receiver in Roh's case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.
He called the decision to classify it as a firearm nonetheless, the result of "secret, in-house decision-making."

So...

"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."

Seems like the last bit could be tossed, since it says "usually".

Then:

"That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism,

AR lowers house the "firing mechanism", so

"That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock,

So is it:

a) "hammer" AND ( bolt OR breechblock )

or

b) "hammer" OR "bolt" OR "breechblock"

If b) then an AR lower would be a firearm, but if a) it would not.

A mess. Looks like federal firearm charges for AR lowers have been negated until the Congress changes the law.

-- Michael

[mshill]

Originally Posted by elSquid

A mess. Looks like federal firearm charges for AR lowers have been negated until the Congress changes the law.

-- Michael

If you read the whole article you will understand that the ATF cut a deal so that this would not be precedent. It means nothing unless another case is brought before a likeminded judge.

[Uncivil Engineer]

So when is St Benetiz getting an AR lower case?

Are we going to have a situation where AR lowers are federally unregulated yet California is regulating 80% lowers?

Does that mean driving over the boarder and buying a stripped lower would be legal?

[elSquid]

Originally Posted by mshill

If you read the whole article you will understand that the ATF cut a deal so that this would not be precedent. It means nothing unless another case is brought before a likeminded judge.

It also means that every decent defense lawyer will be bringing this legal theory up in their similar court cases. That's a lot of Federal cases that ATF "needs" to ensure don't also make precedent.

The legal theory seems pretty straightfoward, and is not extreme.

-- Michael

[wolfwood]

this is the plaintiffs brief that got the tentative ruling

https://www.scribd.com/document/4298...-receiver-case

USA brief
https://www.scribd.com/document/4298...-receiver-case

reply

https://www.scribd.com/document/4298...-receiver-case

[menancyandsam]

[QUOTE=elSquid;23498703]From the CNN link:

So...

"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."

Seems like the last bit could be tossed, since it says "usually".

I read "usually" in the above to mean the barrel is usually threaded on the breechblock. I suppose you can have bolted on barrels or welded on barrels.

[BAJ475]

A few questions. Did he have a FFL as a gunsmith? If not and if his employees finished the assembly, would that not violate federal law?

[Rambo, John J.]

Originally Posted by the_tunaman

Interesting article. This didn’t seem to be the most bright comment from the defendant:

Moments later, he stood next to the agent in front of a large piece of equipment that is computer-coded to precisely machine parts for AR-15-style firearms.

“Go ahead and press the green button,” Roh told the undercover agent.

“The green button?” the agent asked.

“Yeah,” Roh replied. “That basically means that you did it — believe it or not.”

Too bad they weren’t able to fully force the decision, or get Sessions to identify similar cases across the country, as I’d expect there are plenty with similar criteria.

If the agent pushed the button, does that mean that the agent manufactured the receiver rather than Roh? Is that why he had the agent push the button?

[CCWFacts]

So... if an AR15 lower isn't a firearm, what part of the AR15 is the firearm?

I'm a bit worried that it could make things worse. I definitely wouldn't want someone to decide that the upper is the firearm, or that the bolt carrier is the firearm, or who knows what.

[wolfwood]

here is the tentative ruling

https://www.scribd.com/document/4298...on-R-29-Motion

[saudadeii]

This could affect other rifles where the upper is the “firearm”, and the lower houses the firing mechanism, like MP5s, PTRs, and others.

[Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

So when is St Benetiz getting an AR lower case?

Are we going to have a situation where AR lowers are federally unregulated yet California is regulating 80% lowers?

Does that mean driving over the boarder and buying a stripped lower would be legal?

You keep on driving over that boarder and he's going to die.

*border - territorial boundary

*boarder - someone who pays room and board in a home/facility

[samz4mc]

Originally Posted by elSquid

From the CNN link:

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."

-- Michael

Let’s break the (English language) sentence down to its components, shall we.

1) That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer. AND...
2) That part of a firearm which provides housing for the bolt or breechblock. AND...
3) That part of a firearm which provides housing for the firing mechanism. AND...
4) That part of a firearm which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.

I think that’s how language experts would break it down. Commas matter.

Therefore, ergo, 3 dots in triangular formation...

You must meet all four conditions to be defined as a firearm frame or receiver.

Cheers!

[VaderSpade]

All of these cases are chipping away at Government agencies ability to make up the rules as they go.


Supreme Court to hear veteran’s case challenging VA’s power to interpret its own rules.
the Supreme Court will take on two cases related to veterans’ benefits in 2019.

In addition to Gray v. Wilkie, the Supreme Court justices will review Kisor v. Wilkie. If the Court rules in favor of the veteran in Kisor, the decision could potentially overturn another Supreme Court ruling — Auer v. Robbins (and Bowles v. Seminole Rock and Co.) – that gives federal agencies, like the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the power to interpret their own regulations.



Trump just signed two executive orders that further limits this.

[VaderSpade]

I was raided by, well by everyone. USPS, ATF, FBI, DOJ, CHP, Local Sheriff, SWAT, and I'm sure others.

They flew in from all over the US, and helicopters were circling my house in the days before the raid. I shutter the think what it cost the tax payers.

Under a law that says; any part when added to a firearm that allows it to fire more than one round per pull of the trigger makes that firearm an illegal machine-gun.

Under that law they arbitrarily determined that engraving a 1/8" triangle proof mark onto a raw upper made it a "counterfeit machine-gun"! This was a customers part and was NOT yet engraved but had instructions to engrave that proof mark.

They kept that upper along with other 80% lowers that had Colt engraved on them. They also took (and kept) thousands of hours of my art work that had nothing to do with "machine-guns" and dozens of SD cards with my trail camera videos. And they copied everything off of two of my computers and destroyed one of those computers.

Thirteen agents with M-16's went through my home for six hours and found nothing else illegal.
The USPS guy told me he had to draw the line when SWAT wanted to come in with flash bag grenades, and later the Sheriff said "You should be grateful we didn't shoot your dogs". My 11 year old yellow lab.

In the end they told me "Make no mistake you broke the law and manufactured "counterfeit machine-guns"!!! BUT we don't think you intended to break the law so we won't prosecute as long as you cease & dissent!

Before my case they found finished receivers with sear engravings at U.S. Anodizing and arbitrarily determined that engraving a fake sear onto a finished receiver made it a "machine-gun".
In that case they also said they didn't think the people intended to break the law so "we won't prosecute as long as you cease & dissent"!


Their house of cards is falling!




.

[NATO762]

"AR-15s, as we speak today, do not have a receiver by the definition of the existing law and that's a huge issue," he said. "It shows that the laws are obsolete and they're out of sync with the realities of today's firearms market."

This seems like a great lever point...

[Mute]

Originally Posted by wpage

Interesting. So if you press the green button you made it.

Not his shop. The ATF will probably win that one.

The ATF had won in a sense. The judge basically dismissed the manufacturing charge because he actually followed the letter of the law of what constitutes a firearm and not the ATF's loose, make it up as you go, interpretation of the law. However, the charge of selling a firearm without a license held. However, ATF made a deal to eventually drop that charge, based on Roh's willingness to cooperate, so that they can nullify the judge's ruling. They didn't want it to get out that the ATF's interpretation that an AR lower meets the written law's definition of a firearm is incorrect. If that ruling is allowed to stand, it would pretty much undo most firearm frame/receivers from being considered a firearm by law.

[elSquid]

Originally Posted by Mute

However, ATF made a deal to eventually drop that charge, based on Roh's willingness to cooperate, so that they can nullify the judge's ruling. They didn't want it to get out that the ATF's interpretation that an AR lower meets the written law's definition of a firearm is incorrect.

And the ATF would have gotten away with it, were it not for those meddling kids at CNN who ( unthinkingly? ) decided to publish the info nationally.

I'd be curious in knowing if similar cases in the past had quietly been swept under the rug. It seems unlikely that this is the first lawyer that actually bothered to read the federal definitions for the crime that his client was charged with. ( OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me that the bulk of lawyers never did, and simply had their client plead out. )

-- Michael

[hitdank]

I would just want a standard across the board, such as with the sig556. I can understand the hk and uzi being upper receivers but the sig is the exact same principle. Even sig swiss considers the lower receiver and upper conversion kits.

[BAJ475]

First, there are several thread that are discussing this case. Perhaps the mods can combine the more recent ones into a single thread.

At first this seemed interesting. Then I realized that it will not go anywhere, because Congress will change the law to comport with what the ATF has been doing. IMHO this just fine. There is no way that Congress is going to allow prohibited persons (ie felons) the ability to legally obtain all of the parts necessary to put together a fully functional AR or other firearm. So, we support the ATF's past position or face the possibility that every part of a firearm would have to be transferred through a FFL.

[jeffyhog]

Roh may have skated on this case, but what if it leads to a change in the law? Legislators are already talking about restrictions on "precursor parts" and I could see a push for a European style system where significant components would be serialized and regulated. Would be much more restrictive and cumbersome than it is now.

[jwb28]

So did they give you your stuff back and pay for the damaged computer?

Originally Posted by VaderSpade

I was raided by, well by everyone. USPS, ATF, FBI, DOJ, CHP, Local Sheriff, SWAT, and I'm sure others.

They flew in from all over the US, and helicopters were circling my house in the days before the raid. I shutter the think what it cost the tax payers.

Under a law that says; any part when added to a firearm that allows it to fire more than one round per pull of the trigger makes that firearm an illegal machine-gun.

Under that law they arbitrarily determined that engraving a 1/8" triangle proof mark onto a raw upper made it a "counterfeit machine-gun"! This was a customers part and was NOT yet engraved but had instructions to engrave that proof mark.

They kept that upper along with other 80% lowers that had Colt engraved on them. They also took (and kept) thousands of hours of my art work that had nothing to do with "machine-guns" and dozens of SD cards with my trail camera videos. And they copied everything off of two of my computers and destroyed one of those computers.

Thirteen agents with M-16's went through my home for six hours and found nothing else illegal.
The USPS guy told me he had to draw the line when SWAT wanted to come in with flash bag grenades, and later the Sheriff said "You should be grateful we didn't shoot your dogs". My 11 year old yellow lab.

In the end they told me "Make no mistake you broke the law and manufactured "counterfeit machine-guns"!!! BUT we don't think you intended to break the law so we won't prosecute as long as you cease & dissent!

Before my case they found finished receivers with sear engravings at U.S. Anodizing and arbitrarily determined that engraving a fake sear onto a finished receiver made it a "machine-gun".
In that case they also said they didn't think the people intended to break the law so "we won't prosecute as long as you cease & dissent"!


Their house of cards is falling!




.

[VaderSpade]

Originally Posted by jwb28

So did they give you your stuff back and pay for the damaged computer?

NOPE, gun control through intimidation.

[banker1]

IANAL....but I came here tonight specifically to see what folks were saying about this article....my interpretation and again IANAL...but it appears the way the Feds have described a firearm...and the way lowers , uppers and what not are assembled...you will never be able to legislate this without a complete ban on firearms and/or firearm parts....because there will always be a way around it...

[ronlglock]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/...ntrol-efforts/

[Jimi Jah]

Originally Posted by John1960

Feds drop case against Joseph Roh, in fear of losing the case and establishing case law that an AR15 lower does not meet the definition of a Firearm....

The same crap got pulled in NY when their "bans" were reported to be "not enforced". NY pulled their law to avoid a SCOTUS loss.

[fearofgod]

Wow, that really stinks VaderSpade. I hope and wish you could fight their illegal confiscation and trespass. Of course they have the full financial backing of the government, but we Americans have to pay for everything ourselves.

[riderr]

I see why ATF got scared. If the finished receiver is not a firearm, the wild buying spreee will start tomorrow, no more 4473 form, millions of the finished receivers sold over the counter the very next week. Note, it applies to a wide range of firearms, not AR-15 only.

Finally, we have judges on CA9 who really read and follow the law.