Article from CNN about ATF, 80% lowers, and build parties.

[DenverGP]

Linked to an Archived version to avoid giving CNN more traffic:

http://archive.fo/QVKFo


(http://archive.fo/QVKFo)Some interesting stuff about the judge ruling ATF's classification of an AR lower as a firearm is invalid:



Though the trial lasted less than a week, Selna deliberated for more than year. In April, he issued a tentative order in which he determined that the ATF had improperly classified the AR-15 lower receivers in Roh's case as firearms.

He rejected the prosecution's argument that the ATF's interpretation of the regulation describing a receiver could reasonably be applied to the device at issue in Roh's case.
"There is a disconnect," the judge wrote.

Selna added that the combination of the federal law and regulation governing the manufacturing of receivers is "unconstitutionally vague" as applied in the case against Roh.
"No reasonable person would understand that a part constitutes a receiver where it lacks the components specified in the regulation," Selna wrote.
Therefore, the judge determined, "Roh did not violate the law by manufacturing receivers."

[Irving]

Was reading that this morning. Seemed like a weird play.

[Eric P]

So build parties are back? Or renting mills to finish?

Is this a good or bad ruling. A bit confused, but mostly drunk to completely understand.

[DenverGP]

well, the guy had to agree to a plea deal, and as part of the plea deal, the ATF dropped the case to avoid the case being used as a precedent.

I'm sure the ATF is going to work on fixing whatever regulations the judge had issues with, and I'm sure they'll still try to come after anyone doing something similar.

[Will1776]

So when can we buy complete receivers with no 4473? [Coffee]

[theGinsue]

So when can we buy complete receivers with no 4473? [Coffee]

You can get all of the upper receivers you desire without the 4473. As for the lower receivers, well... let's just say that I'm too pretty for prison.

[O2HeN2]

Sounds like there should be a new market - 50% lowers and 50% uppers (both far less than the current 80% threshold). Put 'em together and voila!

....in my dreams...

O2

[SideShow Bob]

well... let's just say that I'm too pretty for prison.

[LOL][LOL][LOL][LOL]



https://youtu.be/nLEL-Gewt6E

[spqrzilla]

The judge's ruling is not binding precedent for any other court. As a result of the plea agreement, it will not be appealed and is not going to become precedent.

[DenverGP]

But it gave a working argument to anyone else charged with illegally manufacturing AR lowers... I assume ATF will need to fix the regs to prevent another judge from reaching the same conclusion.

[UncleDave]

The whole point of the legal argument is that the ATF cannot rule on this, as they already have. The NFA would have to be amended by Congress to fix the loophole in the language.

[powerstroke79]

well... let's just say that I'm too pretty for prison.

LOL , I think you would be safe...

[DenverGP]

Another case possibly being affected by this case....

https://www.theunion.com/news/crime/new-case-law-derails-sentencing-of-nevada-county-man-in-federal-weapons-case/

[spqrzilla]

The Roh case is not "case law". Sheesh.

[FoxtArt]

The Roh case is not "case law". Sheesh.

People need to understand that even if it was, wouldn't have any bearing. Progressive judges aren't going to cite pro 2A caselaw, and the inverse is absolutely true too. Judges will continue to rule however the hell they want to, and then cherry pick cites after the fact, same as they always have for decades upon decades.

If it reached the Supreme Court and they rendered a ruling, more jurists (judges) would cite to it, but an anti-firearm progressive is still going to try to approach from an un-addressed angle and still rule however the hell they want, SCOTUS be damned. That's our real legal system, folks.

[MrAK]

People need to understand that even if it was, wouldn't have any bearing. Progressive judges aren't going to cite pro 2A caselaw, and the inverse is absolutely true too. Judges will continue to rule however the hell they want to, and then cherry pick cites after the fact, same as they always have for decades upon decades.

If it reached the Supreme Court and they rendered a ruling, more jurists (judges) would cite to it, but an anti-firearm progressive is still going to try to approach from an un-addressed angle and still rule however the hell they want, SCOTUS be damned. That's our real legal system, folks.

I always enjoy reading your legal centric posts Ox, I appreciate the way you approach and break things down.

[iego]

But that is not the way it is supposed to be. Judges, are supposed to rule on the law. Period. (punto y aparte! for those studying Spanish.)

-John

[iego]

Once they start playing games, they are no longer Judges, are they?

-John

[Rucker61]

People need to understand that even if it was, wouldn't have any bearing. Progressive judges aren't going to cite pro 2A caselaw, and the inverse is absolutely true too. Judges will continue to rule however the hell they want to, and then cherry pick cites after the fact, same as they always have for decades upon decades.

If it reached the Supreme Court and they rendered a ruling, more jurists (judges) would cite to it, but an anti-firearm progressive is still going to try to approach from an un-addressed angle and still rule however the hell they want, SCOTUS be damned. That's our real legal system, folks.

It certainly explains how Kolbe v Hogan was able to ignore Heller and Caetano.

[iego]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice

[spqrzilla]

Nonetheless, the case is not precedent for anyone. The prosecution offered a deal that made the judge's ruling moot. And not being an appellate case, its simply not controlling precedent anywhere.