Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-01-2018, 12:27 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 23,299
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default US v Wright.

Anyone else hear about this case out of the Northern District of Ohio?

Apparently, the US District Attorney's Office for Ohio prosecuted a SBR case.

The jury ultimately found the defendant not guilty.

The "SBR" turned out to be a Sharps Bros AR15 pistol with a Maxim Defense CQB Pistol PDW Brace and Stark Express angled foregrip.

It's being reported that during the trial, the US DA's Office attempted to bar the introduction of the BATFE arm brace determination letter as evidence.

It would appear that even outside of CA, having an arm brace installed on a handgun still opens you up to prosecution by the Gov.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-01-2018, 12:53 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This seems to be the only information on the case.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/2...might-be-next/
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2018, 1:06 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jack-booted gov thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,074
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
Anyone else hear about this case out of the Northern District of Ohio?

Apparently, the US District Attorney's Office for Ohio prosecuted a SBR case.

The jury ultimately found the defendant not guilty.

The "SBR" turned out to be a Sharps Bros AR15 pistol with a Maxim Defense CQB Pistol PDW Brace and Stark Express angled foregrip.

It's being reported that during the trial, the US DA's Office attempted to bar the introduction of the BATFE arm brace determination letter as evidence.

It would appear that even outside of CA, having an arm brace installed on a handgun still opens you up to prosecution by the Gov.
Important argument (from what I understand) was the aUSA was implying AFG + the arm brace = intent to circumvent NFA; it wan't the brace alone.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-01-2018, 1:30 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From the article it sounded like the brace was a stock or the forward grip was vertical so somehow that means it must be a sbr. As if the brace required the grip to be vertical. None of it made sense and just seemed like an attempt to confuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
Important argument (from what I understand) was the aUSA was implying AFG + the arm brace = intent to circumvent NFA; it wan't the brace alone.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2018, 8:56 AM
pdsmith505 pdsmith505 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 121
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Another interesting point is that the ATF attempted to prevent introduction of their determination letters as evidence, not because the ATF disagreed with the letters, but because the letters were not addressed to Wright specifically nor did they determine the status of his pistol specifically.

https://princelaw.files.wordpress.co...rminations.pdf

Quote:
The Court should preclude Wright from introducing ATF FATD classification letters at
trial. None of the letters was addressed to Wright. None of the letters relate to the specific firearm
at issue in this case.
The letters are not precedential. Rather, each letter relates to specific firearm
design specifications and prototypes that have nothing to do with this case. Because of this, the
letters are not relevant to this case. Introducing the ATF FATD letters at trial creates a grave risk
of confusing the issues and misleading the jury.

Last edited by pdsmith505; 11-01-2018 at 8:58 AM.. Reason: Added reference
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-01-2018, 9:02 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You heard them boys, time for us all to write the ATF asking for a determination letter for each of our guns.
Drowning the ATF in paper work seems like a reasonable response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdsmith505 View Post
Another interesting point is that the ATF attempted to prevent introduction of their determination letters as evidence, not because the ATF disagreed with the letters, but because the letters were not addressed to Wright specifically nor did they determine the status of his pistol specifically.

https://princelaw.files.wordpress.co...rminations.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-01-2018, 11:42 AM
audiophil2 audiophil2 is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surprise
Posts: 7,030
iTrader: 224 / 100%
Default

he stuck the rubber end of a cane to the back of the maxim so atf tried to say it was converted to a stock. if you find the pictures of the gun you might decide he deserves jail for abuse of rail mounts due to all the junk he added to the gun.
__________________

01FFL/03SOT AND 07FFL/02SOT
PHOENIX, AZ MIDDLEMAN TRANSFER DEALER SINCE 2010
10 round magazine conversion service
CA compliance service
Machine gun/suppressor rentals
Private 10 acre range rentals
Storage for your CA firearms/CA prohibited firearm purchases.

MY CALGUNS COMMERCIAL SALES SUBFORUM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...play.php?f=376
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-01-2018, 4:16 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is a good article on TTAG that details the facts, most of which reported here are wrong. Point one is that the determination letters sought to be excluded were manufacturer specific letters, not one for this particular device, and many contained proprietary information. The point of the defense was that these letters were not available to the average schmuck who could not find out what the ATF considered legal or illegal, and he was right. Finally the main thrust of the prosecution was that the contention that the length of pull of this pistol was 13.75", exactly .25" longer than permitted. But what they did to get to that measurement was to measure from the trigger on an angle to the end of the cheek brace, not parallel to the barrel as is the case when anyone else measures length of pull. When measured correctly, as the defense expert testified, the LOP was 13.5", including that cane tip that was added to allow the pistol to be stood on end in the guy's safe.

It took the jury 30 minutes to acquit. And by the way, defendant was represented by a public defender.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-02-2018, 5:57 AM
franklinarmory's Avatar
franklinarmory franklinarmory is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Benito County
Posts: 1,523
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The 13.5" standard was presented by Chief Curtis and department counsel during the NSSF Import/Export conference. Their logic was that they had many stocked weapons in inventory and the shortest stocks began at 13.5". It may seem arbitrary to some, but I was satisfied to hear their logical approach.

At the time, he also opined that the OAL of the firearm can be measured with the brace removed. That point could be of value to readers if the build has a vertical grip and it then is under 26" OAL.
__________________

www.franklinarmory.com
info@franklinarmory.com
ONLINE STORE: http://franklinarmory.com
Franklin Armory - Manufacturer of Quality, California Legal AR's, the F17 Series rimfire rifles in 17 WSM, the CSW, the Binary Firing System, the Drop-in Fixed Magazine, Reformation, and the New Rostered CA7 Pistol!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-02-2018, 7:49 AM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,192
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
Anyone else hear about this case out of the Northern District of Ohio?

Apparently, the US District Attorney's Office for Ohio prosecuted a SBR case.

The jury ultimately found the defendant not guilty.

The "SBR" turned out to be a Sharps Bros AR15 pistol with a Maxim Defense CQB Pistol PDW Brace and Stark Express angled foregrip.

It's being reported that during the trial, the US DA's Office attempted to bar the introduction of the BATFE arm brace determination letter as evidence.

It would appear that even outside of CA, having an arm brace installed on a handgun still opens you up to prosecution by the Gov.
That is outright prosecutorial misconduct and should be punished. Really? Prosecutor's have too much power and no culpability for bad deeds.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-02-2018, 10:36 AM
emmortal emmortal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 286
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklinarmory View Post
The 13.5" standard was presented by Chief Curtis and department counsel during the NSSF Import/Export conference. Their logic was that they had many stocked weapons in inventory and the shortest stocks began at 13.5". It may seem arbitrary to some, but I was satisfied to hear their logical approach.

At the time, he also opined that the OAL of the firearm can be measured with the brace removed. That point could be of value to readers if the build has a vertical grip and it then is under 26" OAL.
The point is though that the ATF has never made a public comment on LOP being 13.5", it's only commented in private to manufacturers, so there's no way for the public, or this defendant to have known that. Also, this had nothing to do with the brace itself, but rather the cane cap that was added on to the end of the brace that Wright explained he fashioned onto the end so it would sit upright in his safe. Still with it added, when measured correctly, it didn't reach a full 13.5".

This was a case of an over zealous DA and not the ATF reversing their prior statements on pistol braces.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-02-2018, 10:59 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,674
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

It also went over the 13.5 in limit because atf angled the measurement at 30 degrees towards the pistol grip. The correct way to measure it is from the end of the stock towards the bore of the gun. I do not know what the second point measuring point is/where measurement ends, but I remember seeing they completely fudged the measurement.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:11 AM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,169
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default BATFE underground LOP regulation?

Guy busted for SBR on an AR pistol with brace.

Quote:
When the gun was subsequently examined by the ATF, they deemed it an unregistered short barrel rifle (SBR). That determination was based on the fact that, according to the ATF’s measurements, the Maxim cheek rest — which had been altered with the addition of a rubber “cane tip” on the end — resulted in a length of pull that’s greater than the 13.5-inch limit the ATF says is the maximum for any similar AR pistol accessory.

Wright had apparently added the cane tip to keep the gun upright when stored in his safe. Prosecutors argued that was an illegal alteration to the gun.

As a result, Wright was charged with possession of an unregistered short barrel rifle, a felony.

There were a couple of problems with the case against Wright, however. First, the ATF has never issued an official public opinion letter stating that AR pistols with such accessories — cheek rests, pistol braces, etc. — must have a length of pull of no more than 13.5 inches to avoid being considered an SBR.

The ATF had communicated that fact to various manufacturers in private opinion letters concerning their specific products over the years (and some of those companies have chosen to make those letters public), but nothing has ever been communicated to the general gun-buying public by the agency.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...e-prosecution/
__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-24-2018, 12:52 PM
hitdank hitdank is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 76
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is this talking about the end of the gun to the trigger?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:18 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.