Printable View
I actually disagree. They just kicked the ATF right in the balls by posting that. The ATF has raided an FFL, tried to goad them into a secret deal, but hasn't even approached the manufacturer of the product that supposedly started all of this? That indicates to me that this raid is about something else entirely (enter Bert's thread). Area Arms should be throwing a fit right now and contacting every attorney they can find.Quote:
Originally Posted by cofi
Any thoughts if this is related to the latest push against scary polymer guns that are undetectable?
If it has no metal embedded in it, they could say it's designed to create an undetectable firearm.
(not saying that I would agree, just thinking of the evil "assault" feature du jour)
I do not think so, i think the ATF are just freaking out because someone figure out how to follow their rules but allow someone to finish a lower with limited knowledge and hand tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
Polymer80 was just another start up during the panic, a lot of those start up's never gained traction and have already bowed out of the game. We have not heard of any other polymer lower being targeted, only these ones molded around the insert. I think Polymer80 made a genius move and bowed out of the game but left the door open to start back up if another panic happens.
The other thing I noticed they are doing differently than other 80% lowers that have an ATF determination letter is marking the position of the selector and hammer and trigger pins... to your point, this makes it too easy- you don't need knowledge or a jig to complete it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabid
Just pointing out things that are different than the EP Lowers vs other 80% lowers I've seen.
Moral of the story- get a determination letter before selling.
I don't remember seeing a "difficulty" requirement. Suggesting the ATF is expecting that an 80% completion to be difficult to reduce the likelihood that a citizen would bother doing it is projecting. That may be exactly what the ATF hopes, but it is not a requirement of a product.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
The manufacturer can put all kinds of directions all over the 80%er and still be within the requirements. The holes are not drilled.
It's within the ATF's administrative purview to determine what is and is not a firearm. They have classified as firearms metal "80%" receivers which had the FCG and other holes indicated but not drilled through, and the EP 80s do indeed indicate the FCG well holes - trigger, hammer and selector axes.Quote:
Originally Posted by clodhopper
I just seem to remember a previous denial of "determination" letter by someone based on having the pin locations marked- that's all...Quote:
Originally Posted by clodhopper
I agree it's not entirely about "making it easy", but it's about at what point is enough complete that the ATF considers it a firearm... 80% is a marketing term- it's not a percentage of actual completion.
Remember when the 80% lowers required cutting/tapping the threads for the buffer tube, and broach/mill out the magwell?
Allowing ATF to "consider" anything is the primary problem.
Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain.
Found a reference to the documentation: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=317669
Specifically: Attachment 42487
and "Again, note that no dimples may be present for any of the three FCG holes."
Just for the record, I'm not defending the ATF's "right to exist", just providing history and just where this may have gone afoul of previous rulings...
So why wouldn't the ATF have raided the manufacturer, or even approached them?