Tweet
Have we already been over this in New Yorkistan? Does NY have its own legal definition of what constitutes a firearm receiver that doesn't rely on referencing federal law?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/th...rious-trouble/
Seems like this would have a direct impact on Letitia James's attempt to bully "ghost gun" retailers into not shipping to New York. If a few retailers decided to take her to court using the defense that AR lowers aren't firearms at all.... with 80% lowers being even less so.... Ms. James's overreach could end up causing the feds some serious headaches.
As for “drawing publicity,†CNN has done a good job of that with their story. And, as Glover points out, Roh’s case wasn’t the first time a similar argument had been successfully used.
So they didn't want publicity...... and CNN broke the story. Did CNN just do gun owners a big favor, or is this going to turn into a fiasco that ends up working against gun owners?
Unfortunately the ATF had demonstrated that it will rewrite rules on its own without waiting for legislation.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/th...rious-trouble/
Nicolaysen argued that the definition of a receiver under the relevant federal code differed in various ways from the AR-15 component Roh was accused of manufacturing.
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.†(emphasis added)
The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.
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.†(emphasis added)
The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.
Sources familiar with the agreement said prosecutors wanted to strike a deal in order to prevent Selna’s order from becoming permanent, drawing publicity, and creating case law that could hamper ATF enforcement efforts.
They basically let Roh walk in order to preserve the current fiction under which the ATF regulates AR-15 sales.As for “drawing publicity,†CNN has done a good job of that with their story. And, as Glover points out, Roh’s case wasn’t the first time a similar argument had been successfully used.
Federal law enforcement officials — and members of Congress — have been on notice about a potential problem with the language in federal gun law as applied to AR-15s since at least 2016.
In July of that year, prosecutors in Northern California abandoned a case against a convicted felon named Alejandro Jimenez after a judge found that the AR-15 lower receiver he was accused of purchasing in an ATF undercover sting did not meet the definition of a receiver under the law.
In July of that year, prosecutors in Northern California abandoned a case against a convicted felon named Alejandro Jimenez after a judge found that the AR-15 lower receiver he was accused of purchasing in an ATF undercover sting did not meet the definition of a receiver under the law.
The only way to fix this is through new legislation. Congress alone can change federal law to define a frame or receiver in such a way that AR-15 rifles are covered. That’s why Attorney General Lynch wrote the letter she did back in 2016, suggesting a legislative fix. But Congress apparently shrugged that off.
Comment