ATF drops case over manufacture of "80% receivers"

[wingnut]

Of concern for those in the USA. It has big affects for other than for the AR-15 family. See the comments also:

Story here.

Here is the ruling. Its format suggests that the judge issues tentative rulings, so counsel can prepare their oral argument in light of what he is inclined to do. I can see why ATF chose to abandon the case. He was prepared to rule that (1) the legal "receiver" of an AR-15 is NOT its lower receiver (ATF's longtime position) since it doesn't meet the definition used in ATF's regulations; (2) ATF's practice of declaring or classifying receivers doesn't comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (and by implication, a lot of ATF procedures do not) and (3) ATF's position here would make the statute (!!!) and its regulation void for vagueness.

UPDATE: the practical significance of this is (at the very least):

1. The legal "receiver" of an AR-15, the firearm under GCA, is (interpreting the ATF reg) the upper receiver rather than the lower. Needless to say, the required markings on every AR-15, tens of millions of firearms, is on the lower and not on the upper.

2. Any past conviction for anything regarding a lower receiver (manufacturing them or selling them without an FFL) is called into doubt.

3. ATF should (and I've said this for years) specify by regulation, for any multi-part receiver, which part is the legal "receiver." It's one of many areas where ATF relies on internal interpretations and "if you ask us, we will tell you." All that is supposed to be published in regulations so that (1) the public is on notice as to what they must do and (2) they can't be changed without a public process.

https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2019 ... _case_.php

[GunnyGene]

Sorry, but I don't see a link to the official ruling in your post or in the link to some other website. I want to see the Court Transcript in full not what somebody else says it says.

[wingnut]

Sorry, but I don't see a link to the official ruling in your post or in the link to some other website. I want to see the Court Transcript in full not what somebody else says it says.

Go to the link at the bottom of my post, see the red highlighted words and all shall the revealed. Short cut:

https://armsandthelaw.com/Roh%2C%20Ruli ... eivers.pdf

[GunnyGene]

Thank you for posting the URL. My old eyes have trouble distinguishing faintly highlited (to me) words unless they're bolded, italicized, or distinguished in some other way besides color from surrounding text. I just finished reading it.

Seems to me that Mr. Roh is going to jail, or getting a big fine, and will be out of business anyway. As for the ATF, it looks like they will either have to revise the current regulation(s) somehow, or convince Congress to pass a bill to revise the pertinent USC, or both. Neither one is going to be easy to do, and will take a year or more. This is a rather full can of worms. We haven't heard the last of it, I think.

In MS, we passed a law a couple years ago that prohibits State enforcement of Federal Agency interpretations such as this one, and I believe a few other States have done the same in the last few years.

https://advance.lexis.com/documentpage/ ... 92d552bb56

Current through the 2019 Regular Session.

Mississippi Code 1972 AnnotatedTitle 11. Civil Practice and Procedure (Chs. 1 — 69)Chapter 65. Enforcement of Federal Laws, Orders, Rules (§ 11-65-1)


§ 11-65-1. Enforcement of certain federal laws, orders, or rules prohibited.
No federal executive order, agency order, law not enrolled by the United States Congress and signed by the President of the United States, rule, regulation or administrative interpretation of a law or statute issued, enacted or promulgated after July 1, 2016, that violates the United States Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 shall be enforced or ordered to be enforced by any official, agent or employee of this state or a political subdivision thereof.

[Cofisher]

And...this is why I bought an 80% lower. None of their damned business!

[Mags]

.
According to the one year 'diversion' agreement, Mr Roh won't be going to jail. Supposedly he has also left behind the gun business and currently manufactures industrial vacuums.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15 ... 1570907032

...
Seems to me that Mr. Roh is going to jail, or getting a big fine, and will be out of business anyway. As for the ATF, it looks like they will either have to revise the current regulation(s) somehow, or convince Congress to pass a bill to revise the pertinent USC, or both. Neither one is going to be easy to do, and will take a year or more. This is a rather full can of worms. We haven't heard the last of it, I think.
...