POLYMER80 Raided by ATF

[IE80percenter]

Also, in California you run the risk of breaking the law in a felonious way every day you get out of bed. Most people have no idea the laws of this state and how they impact their daily lives.....until they get reported on by someone or catch the eye of Johnny Law.

[John Browning]

^Yep.

[AregularGuy]

That is what the receipt says. I doubt they would list "BBS KIT". The poster says "Maybe that implies that is what they purchased. It is unclear and only assumption can be made. I didnt read the thread so there may be more info.

[Mendo223]

I am really confused about how telling people who shouldn't be taking to stop talking is being a snitch. If you don't know the laws, best to stay silent until you do.

I have been here a long time. I am not a snitch looking to make trouble. If I had that intent, telling people to stop taking seems to make me the worlds most incompetent honey pot snitch trap.

I'm not pointing fingers or doing anything to further the work of the CA DOJ or ATF.

You misconstrued a post that was simply ASKING ABOUT THE LEGALITIES surrounding these kits.

THE POST DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ORDERING, POSSESSING, or BUILDING an illegal kit.

[IE80percenter]

ATF property receipts are almost as sloppy as DEA property receipts. Descriptions are ambiguous or vague and it's done on purpose. Local law enforcement evidence intake receipts look like launch instructions for a Saturn 5. Want to know why? Because local law enforcement is way more liable for lost property than the Feds, and can be sued way easier.

For all anyone knows, a ATF agent surrendered the items written down on that property sheet to a coworker and posted it on the internet. Because that image has been instrumental in scaring the crap out of the 80% community since all this news broke.

[Mendo223]

. Most people have no idea the laws of this state and how they impact their daily lives.....until they get reported on by someone or catch the eye of Johnny Law.

^Yep.

^YUP.....but its funny in this instance because you are reporting on something that isnt even illegal.

Since when is it illegal, to ask questions on the legality of certain gun laws??

My post was specifically to LEARN THE LAWS to NOT commit any felonies, and hopefully someone reading learns as well and they dont get in trouble...

[bwiese]

My bet is Polymer80 guys didn't have great legal representation except maybe at their start, and then
they generalized their products without spending more for deep advice...

If they were really sharp, they'd have 2 separate companies:

#1 - one just selling the so-called '80%' receiver

#2 - one with an FFL07 that mfgs whole pistols and sells spare parts
and drilling frames etc.

Anyone wanting to build would buy frame from entity #1 and parts from entity #2.

The whole "80%" crap is very grey at best - for years I've been warning that 80% to one guy is 75% to
another and 90% to ATF or CA DoJ (both of whom could differ from each other).

So Poly80's problems most likely revolved around the 'whole kit' , since ATF has historically regarded, in
many situations, separated items being treated the same as assembled (kinda a form of constructive
possession) ...

- < '80%' of receiver is one threshold;

- an 80% receiver + rest of parts means totatlity is a different
higher percentage toward a complete working gun.

This is a case where selling a (non)receiver and a (non)gun are not quite the same.

Any defense will require hard *** attack on ATF consistency and past regulatory history showing
different treatments of otherwise (near)equivalent situations.

The trouble with gun people is they're cheap and try to save money and shortcut things, when they
need to tread lightly. They must have known they already were on the radar with all the news
discussions of 'ghost gun' crap...

[IE80percenter]

Well, just go with for right now, for most Californians, it is illegal to finish and complete a P80 frame.

Best laid plans of mice and men....

[John Browning]

^I think it is ALL Californians since this isn't a roster issue.

[RickD427]

So out of curiosity, how many search warrants have you seen signed off by a judge where the PC is " subject suspected of owning a unregistered firearm" where the subject is not under investigation for any other crime, has no criminal history, and is not a prohibited person?

I'm curious how often that particular scenario equates into a warrant and raid.

To answer your question directly, I've never seen such a warrant, and I would be very surprised to see such a warrant. One of the requirements to get a warrant is for there to be PC that a crime has been committed. There ain't no crime in owning an unregistered firearm (unless it's an AW, .50BMG Rifle, or NFA weapon - we're talking about Glock clones here).

But somehow, I think you already knew that.

But what has your question got to do with this thread? The search conducted here was of a manufacturer/marketer who was selling a combination of 80% frames and the tools and parts needed to complete those frames.

[RickD427]

My bet is Polymer80 guys didn't have great legal representation except maybe at their start, and then
they generalized their products without spending more for deep advice...

If they were really sharp, they'd have 2 separate companies:

#1 - one just selling the so-called '80%' receiver

#2 - one with an FFL07 that mfgs whole pistols and sells spare parts
and drilling frames etc.

Anyone wanting to build would buy frame from entity #1 and parts from entity #2.

The whole "80%" crap is very grey at best - for years I've been warning that 80% to one guy is 75% to
another and 90% to ATF or CA DoJ (both of whom could differ from each other).

So Poly80's problems most likely revolved around the 'whole kit' , since ATF has historically regarded, in
many situations, separated items being treated the same as assembled (kinda a form of constructive
possession) ...

- < '80%' of receiver is one threshold;

- an 80% receiver + rest of parts means totatlity is a different
higher percentage toward a complete working gun.

This is a case where selling a (non)receiver and a (non)gun are not quite the same.

Any defense will require hard *** attack on ATF consistency and past regulatory history showing
different treatments of otherwise (near)equivalent situations.

The trouble with gun people is they're cheap and try to save money and shortcut things, when they
need to tread lightly. They must have known they already were on the radar with all the news
discussions of 'ghost gun' crap...

This is a really good summary here.

If you read the BATF letter giving 80% recognition to the Polymer 80 frame, the letter makes clear that one of the decision factors involved in the approval was the amount of skill and effort required to complete the frame. The letter also cautioned that any change to the factors on which they gave approval would require resubmission. Then Polymer80 sold those frames along with kits designed to reduce the amount of effort and skill required for completion. Go figure.

[Quickdraw559]

That is what the receipt says. I doubt they would list "BBS KIT". The poster says "Maybe that implies that is what they purchased. It is unclear and only assumption can be made. I didnt read the thread so there may be more info.

ATF property receipts are almost as sloppy as DEA property receipts. Descriptions are ambiguous or vague and it's done on purpose. Local law enforcement evidence intake receipts look like launch instructions for a Saturn 5. Want to know why? Because local law enforcement is way more liable for lost property than the Feds, and can be sued way easier.

For all anyone knows, a ATF agent surrendered the items written down on that property sheet to a coworker and posted it on the internet. Because that image has been instrumental in scaring the crap out of the 80% community since all this news broke.

[IE80percenter]

My bet is Polymer80 guys didn't have great legal representation except maybe at their start, and then
they generalized their products without spending more for deep advice...

If they were really sharp, they'd have 2 separate companies:

#1 - one just selling the so-called '80%' receiver

#2 - one with an FFL07 that mfgs whole pistols and sells spare parts
and drilling frames etc.

Anyone wanting to build would buy frame from entity #1 and parts from entity #2.

The whole "80%" crap is very grey at best - for years I've been warning that 80% to one guy is 75% to
another and 90% to ATF or CA DoJ (both of whom could differ from each other).

So Poly80's problems most likely revolved around the 'whole kit' , since ATF has historically regarded, in
many situations, separated items being treated the same as assembled (kinda a form of constructive
possession) ...

- < '80%' of receiver is one threshold;

- an 80% receiver + rest of parts means totatlity is a different
higher percentage toward a complete working gun.

This is a case where selling a (non)receiver and a (non)gun are not quite the same.

Any defense will require hard *** attack on ATF consistency and past regulatory history showing
different treatments of otherwise (near)equivalent situations.

The trouble with gun people is they're cheap and try to save money and shortcut things, when they
need to tread lightly. They must have known they already were on the radar with all the news
discussions of 'ghost gun' crap...

80% is a term made up by the industry. There is no such thing as a 80% anything when it comes to firearms. It is either a firearm or it is not in ATF. When it comes to receivers or frames ATFs position has been if you can mount parts to it with no work it is a firearm and subject to title 1 or title 2 of the GCA. If not, it's nothing. It's not even parts.

Where the 80% industry gets tripped up is with the position of ATF on "readily convertable into a firearm". This is a catch all for constructive intentions. ATF has never gone on record as to what blanket qualifies for " readily convertable". This is why manufacturers always submit their items to ATF Tech Branch to get an opinion letter on their item. Where P80 went wrong is they never submitted a BBS kit to the Tech Branch nor did they receive an opinion letter stating the BBS kit with all its components didn't meet the criteria of a firearm. P80 just assumed that because the frame was deemed not a firearm the way it was packaged and sold that the frame kit packaged with everything else would be viewed the same.

And because of that they are getting bent over with extra kitty litter and pop rocks by ATF. Same thing happened with the pistol brace fiasco. If the model of pistol brace you bought didn't have a determination letter specifically for your model brace you run the risk of ATF viewing your braces pistol as a unregistered SBR.

[IE80percenter]

This is a really good summary here.

If you read the BATF letter giving 80% recognition to the Polymer 80 frame, the letter makes clear that one of the decision factors involved in the approval was the amount of skill and effort required to complete the frame. The letter also cautioned that any change to the factors on which they gave approval would require resubmission. Then Polymer80 sold those frames along with kits designed to reduce the amount of effort and skill required for completion. Go figure.

You beat me to it...

[RickD427]

You beat me to it...

It's good to hear that I was at least faster than someone else.

Librarian "Beats me to it" all of the time.