The Vette Barn

The Vette Barn (https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   AR-15 Loophole Coming Soon? (https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121306)

Bill 01-13-2020 11:04pm

AR-15 Loophole Coming Soon?
 
https://apnews.com/396bbedbf4963a28b...ung-browser-us


Quote:

DALLAS (AP) — A subtle design feature of the AR-15 rifle has raised a technical legal question that is derailing cases against people who are charged with illegally buying and selling the gun’s parts or building the weapon.

At issue is whether a key piece of one of America’s most popular firearms meets the definition of a gun that prosecutors have long relied on.

For decades, the federal government has treated a mechanism called the lower receiver as the essential piece of the semiautomatic rifle, which has been used in some of the nation’s deadliest mass shootings. Prosecutors regularly bring charges based on that specific part.

But some defense attorneys have recently argued that the part alone does not meet the definition in the law. Federal law enforcement officials, who have long been concerned about the discrepancy, are increasingly worried that it could hinder some criminal prosecutions and undermine firearms regulations nationwide.

“Now the cat is out of the bag, so I think you’ll see more of this going on,” said Stephen Halbrook, an attorney who has written books on gun law and history. “Basically, the government has gotten away with this for a long time.”

Cases involving lower receivers represent a small fraction of the thousands of federal gun charges filed each year. But the loophole has allowed some people accused of illegally selling or possessing the parts, including convicted felons, to escape prosecution. The issue also complicates efforts to address so-called ghost guns, which are largely untraceable because they are assembled from parts.

Since 2016, at least five defendants have challenged the government and succeeded in getting some charges dropped, avoiding prison or seeing their cases dismissed entirely. Three judges have rejected the government’s interpretation of the law, despite dire warnings from prosecutors.

Federal regulations define a firearm’s “frame” or “receiver” as the piece considered to be the gun itself. But in an AR-15, the receiver is split into upper and lower parts — and some of the components listed in the definition are contained in the upper half. That has led judges to rule that a lower receiver alone cannot be considered a gun.

The lower receiver sits above the pistol grip, holds the trigger and hammer, and has a slot for the magazine. By itself, it cannot fire a bullet. But by treating the piece as a firearm, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is able to regulate who can obtain it. Because authorities consider the part to be a gun, people prohibited from having firearms have been charged for possessing them.

In 2018, prosecutors said a ruling against the government would “seriously undermine the ATF’s ability to trace and regulate firearms nationwide.” CNN first reported the case and its implications.

Last month, a federal judge in Ohio dealt the latest blow, dismissing charges against two men accused of making false statements to buy lower receivers.

“Any public citizen would be concerned about this loophole that we exploited,” said attorney Thomas Kurt, who represented defendant Richard Rowold. “As a citizen, I hope the ATF corrects this. As Mr. Rowold’s attorney, I’m grateful the judge followed the law in getting to the correct result.”

The gun industry estimates there are more than 17 million AR-15-style rifles in circulation, and the National Rifle Association once dubbed it “America’s rifle.” AR-15-style weapons were used in attacks in Newtown, Connecticut, Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida.

In the case of Rowold, who is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms because of felony convictions, the government claimed that he used another man as a proxy to purchase 50 lower receivers. The 2018 indictment also charged him with having 15 lower receivers. Kurt declined to comment on why his client had the parts.

The case rested on the ATF’s claim that the components were legally firearms. Judge James Carr called that a “plainly erroneous” reading of the law and said the agency has a duty to fix the problem.

“Misapplying the law for a long time provides no immunity from scrutiny,” Carr wrote in his order to dismiss.

Federal prosecutors in Rowold’s case and several others declined to comment. An ATF spokeswoman would not answer questions posed by The Associated Press but said the agency is “keenly assessing” Carr’s decision.

The problem has attracted attention at the highest levels of law enforcement.

In 2016, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch wrote a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan after a judge dismissed a case in Northern California involving a man with a felony record who was accused of buying an unmarked AR-15 lower receiver from an undercover agent.

Prosecutors argued that the case against Alejandro Jimenez should proceed even if the part “does not perfectly fit” the legal definition. The judge dismissed the charges.

The decision prompted Lynch to write that if the ATF wants an AR-15 lower receiver to be considered a firearm under the law, then it should pursue “regulatory or administrative action.” But there’s no public record of the ATF taking such a step.

“I can’t imagine why no one has taken the initiative to correct this,” said Dan O’Kelly, a former senior ATF agent and director of a gun-training company known as International Firearm Specialist Academy. His testimony has guided several defense attorneys.

Since Lynch’s letter, such prosecutions have continued to secure prison sentences.

In April, for instance, an Oklahoma man was charged with illegally possessing a firearm after police who pulled him over found loaded high-capacity magazines and the lower receiver of an AR-15-style rifle in his truck.

Jason Scott Pedro, a 37-year-old with a felony record for domestic violence, was sentenced in November to seven years in prison.

There’s no evidence in court records that Pedro’s lawyer challenged whether the lower receiver was rightly considered a gun. The attorney did not respond to requests for comment but has filed a notice of appeal.

“I think the criminal defense bar has kind of let their clients down for letting this go on for all these years,” Halbrook said.

In one case, an ATF expert testified that the same principle could apply to many other firearms. Prosecutors worry that more rulings against the government could allow people prohibited from having guns to purchase weapons piece by piece with no regulation or background check.

Franklin Zimring, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, is skeptical of that claim and said the same behavior could often be prosecuted under state laws.

The AR-15 is a popular model for gun enthusiasts to legally build at home. The rifles are sometimes constructed out of partially machined receivers, often called “80% receivers,” which can be bought and sold without background checks and need not have serial numbers because they are unfinished.

If federal officials want to maintain control in this growing do-it-yourself gun market they need to first establish functional regulation of lower receivers, said Kristen Rand, legislative director at the Washington, D.C.-based Violence Policy Center.

“From a public safety standpoint,” she said, ”this is very important and isn’t just an in-the-weeds legal definitional problem.”

___

Dazio reported from Los Angeles. Associated Press Writer Lisa Marie Pane in Boise, Idaho, and researcher Jennifer Farrar in New York City contributed to this report.

FX VETTE 01-13-2020 11:13pm

Good Lawd Dats Allotta Werds

Bill 01-13-2020 11:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by FX VETTE (Post 1716059)
Good Lawd Dats Allotta Werds

Tl;DR: Since the ATF's definition of a firearm includes features in both the upper and lower receiver of an AR, then just the lower by itself doesn't actually meet the definition of a firearm, and shouldn't require a background check.


Edit: Everyone who bought a lower receiver and had to pay for a background check got screwed by Uncle Sam and deserves a refund.

FX VETTE 01-13-2020 11:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill_daniels (Post 1716062)
Tl;DR: Since the ATF's definition of a firearm includes features in both the upper and lower receiver of an AR, then just the lower by itself doesn't actually meet the definition of a firearm, and shouldn't require a background check.

Thanks for the cliffs :seasix:

sublime1996525 01-13-2020 11:30pm

Man it’s good to live in Utah.

Mike Mercury 01-14-2020 10:26am

https://www.yellowbullet.com/cdn-cgi...s6s-jpg.51185/

Lipstic 01-14-2020 3:43pm

1 Attachment(s)
Attachment 37002

Cybercowboy 01-14-2020 4:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sublime1996525 (Post 1716076)
Man it’s good to live in Utah.

Your senators are Mitt Romney and Mike Lee ffs.

Bill 01-14-2020 6:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy (Post 1716436)
Your senators are Mitt Romney and Mike Lee ffs.

The really tragic part about that is, Trump ENDORSED Romney, and Romney STILL won't play ball. He's still as big a Trump hater as he can be. I don't understand why Trump endorsed him. Had Trump campaigned for another candidate and Romney still won, Romney would still be looking to screw Trump just the same as he is now.

You know Romney is one of the votes keeping Cocaine Mitch from just having a simple up or down vote on the impeachment nonsense. The three sisters, Romney, Murkowsky and Collins would be a block no vote, and I bet Sasse and a few others were ready with no votes just in case Collins had an attack of common sense.

And I hate to say I told you so, but I seem to remember being berated for not holding my nose to vote for Romney, McCain and Bush, and now that we finally have a Trump, we all have a baseline as to just how shitty those 3 actually are/were. When it was THEIR turn to be asked to hold their noses, they famously didn't vote Trump, their own party's candidate.

:bill_daniels:



Edit: Just saw on the news a very smug Romney saying he wants to hear from.....John Bolton. He doesn't want to hear from the whistleblower, from Adam Schiff, from Joe and Hunter.....none of that, just Bolton, who may have something embarrassing to say about Trump. Friggen' douchebag. :mad:

DJ_Critterus 01-15-2020 3:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill_daniels (Post 1716473)
The really tragic part about that is, Trump ENDORSED Romney, and Romney STILL won't play ball. He's still as big a Trump hater as he can be. I don't understand why Trump endorsed him. Had Trump campaigned for another candidate and Romney still won, Romney would still be looking to screw Trump just the same as he is now.

You know Romney is one of the votes keeping Cocaine Mitch from just having a simple up or down vote on the impeachment nonsense. The three sisters, Romney, Murkowsky and Collins would be a block no vote, and I bet Sasse and a few others were ready with no votes just in case Collins had an attack of common sense.

And I hate to say I told you so, but I seem to remember being berated for not holding my nose to vote for Romney, McCain and Bush, and now that we finally have a Trump, we all have a baseline as to just how shitty those 3 actually are/were. When it was THEIR turn to be asked to hold their noses, they famously didn't vote Trump, their own party's candidate.

:bill_daniels:



Edit: Just saw on the news a very smug Romney saying he wants to hear from.....John Bolton. He doesn't want to hear from the whistleblower, from Adam Schiff, from Joe and Hunter.....none of that, just Bolton, who may have something embarrassing to say about Trump. Friggen' douchebag. :mad:

I wonder why Bolton is now saying that he wants to testify?

DAB 01-15-2020 3:54pm

pretty good bet Trump knows what Bolton will say. pretty good bet no one else knows what Bolton will say.

Lawyering 101: do not ask a question of a witness when you don't know what they will say. :slap: :smash:

Rob 01-15-2020 5:08pm

1 Attachment(s)
Attachment 37073

And now for Virginia’s take on the situation

Bill 01-15-2020 7:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dixievet (Post 1716907)
Attachment 37073

And now for Virginia’s take on the situation


I wonder why he didn't ban Dodge Chargers? That would have been more appropriate.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:44pm.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 - 2024 The Vette Barn