Posts

Freedom

BAFTE: Infringing on our rights again?

/in , /by

In this article published at Cold Dead Hands by Patrick James, he explains how the ATF is overstepping its authority and what he believes people should do about it:

Is our federal government at it again or better said; are they still trying to find new and interesting ways to take away our rights. In specific, is the ATF currently looking at reasons to ban M855/SS109 ammunition in regards to protecting LEOs. Is said ammunition, that can penetrate level 2A body armor when fired from a pistol so completely evil that they want to take it away from us or… are they creating a NEW supply and demand for money? I completely agree that LEOs should be protected, but being an LEO is inherently dangerous and just comes with the job. Are they trying to further restrict and infringe on our rights? I have no doubt that is a definite possibility, but I’m more likely to believe that they are creating a “money” scheme here. So let me explain this little scenario.

Many of you (hunters) in particular might be saying; “what’s this got to do with me? I have absolutely no need for “armor piercing” ammunition.” Well let me say this about that. They are postulating that with the advent of handguns that can fire rifle caliber ammunition such as the FN Five-seven and other hand-held AR-15 pistol/stock configurations that they now need to limit “our” access to this dangerous level 2A body armor piercing ammunition. Now I know most hunters could care less about handguns that can fire “armor piercing” rounds, but understand this; it’s not about what you DON’T need, it’s about what they CAN take away from you. What’s next? 30-30, 30.06? Remington or Thompson competition or hunting handguns? What about ALL those hunting rifles you are carrying whose ammunition can penetrate level 2A body armor?

Let’s have a quick history lesson and I’ll explain (in my opinion) what’s truly going on. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44 prohibits the import, manufacture, and distribution of “armor piercing ammunition” as defined by the statute, but there is an exemption that allows the Attorney General to determine if that specific ammunition is primarily intended for sporting purposes as it has been for a very long time, until now. Originally the provisions defining and governing these so-called “cop killer” rounds were enacted within the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 (LEOPA), but when LEOPA was finally passed by Congress in 1986, the final bill focused on two specific definitions; composition of the ammunition and whether it can be fired from a handgun, and size, jacket weight as well as design and intent. This created a huge loophole in the original intent of LEOPA, by expanding the definition of armor piercing ammunition to include any ammunition containing a specified metal content and that it can be fired from a handgun. Viola. Eric Holder defers his responsibilities to define and rule as Attorney General as was always intended, to the BATFE Director and now they can propose the change, rule on the change and completely ban this ammunition without Congress’ approval.

So now we have the HOW they can do it, but some might still be unclear as to the why? It’s coming, but bear with me a bit longer as I wade through a few more defining actions and reasons I believe make this scenario a money making scheme.

The FN Five-Seven has been on the civilian market for over 10 years, and all of those years the Brady Campaign has been working to ban it. U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY of course) even wrote three separate bills that were introduced to the Senate and all three times the bill failed to proceed to a vote. They could NOT find reason to even entertain the thought of why it should be even voted on, let alone banned. Then add in all the new AR pistols to hit the market recently and we have the “gun control” nuts freaking out, using LEOPA as a battle flag and doing it without even realizing what they are creating. If we add to that everything we know about Level 2A body armor, and that there hasn’t been any significant studies to prove that deaths occur more frequently from penetration versus blunt force trauma. Yes, blunt force trauma is a much more common injury to occur when shot while wearing body armor. And we also know that almost every modern sporting rifle will penetrate even level 3 body armor. So who exactly does the government intend to protect by banning this evil, malicious cop killing ammunition? I’m interested in that answer, but I know what the politicians would say and it stinks like a fresh cow pie.

So again I ask this perplexing question; Why is the BATFE trying to ban M855/SS109 based ammunition when many other types of ammunition are just as dangerous with similar penetration qualities? Again I will say; money making scheme. Now, do I believe they are concerned with the lives of
LEOs, of course. Does our government want a chance to infringe on our rights? Again, of course they do, and we can see just how destructive this current administration has been toward our 2nd Amendment rights simply by looking at how many times the BATFE (ATF) has ruled and restricted our firearms regulations throughout the years. Here are a few facts that kind of lay out what this administration has accomplished. From 1969 to current the BATFE has had 52 rulings entered into the books in regards to firearms restrictions. Now that doesn’t seem like a whole lot in 37 years (although in my book, any restriction is too many) but here’s the kicker, 21 of those rulings have been since 2008. You read that right. There were 31 rulings in the first 37 years, and 21 rulings in the last 7 years. Do you think Obama is doing a good job trying to destroy the 2nd?

So what about this “smoke & mirrors” money scheme I was talking about? Well, if we do the research and math, we know that the government is going to be holding a very large stockpile of “armor piercing” ammunition very soon (conflicts abroad are winding down and we all know that) and no corporation would “ban” a product that you are holding a large amount of, that just wouldn’t make good fiscal sense (if you noticed the word “corporation” then good for you, because yes, our government is nothing more than exactly that). What better way to leverage that product and drive prices higher, than to release information that implies an impending shortage? Then once everyone and their brother has “run” and wiped out every store shelf in town, because they’re worried it’ll be gone tomorrow, who’s left with the biggest supply? You guessed it… Big Brother Army/Navy surplus. Now trust me, I’m not telling you to NOT run out and buy more ammunition, God knows there’s no such thing as too much ammunition. And I am certainly not telling you to NOT be concerned, we can see just how much the Obama Administration has done in regards to our 2nd Amendment rights. What I am saying is; “Don’t be surprised if this little scare doesn’t just “go away” in a few weeks/months and the prices “skyrocket” to absurd heights.

So what can we do about it all? It’s just like everything else that happens within our governmental “dog and pony” show, if you don’t stand up and question them, they will assume you don’t care and rule without your consent. So let’s all get involved and bombard them with questions regarding this injustice. Below is all the contact information you need to make an impactive statement. Write it up in your own words being as professional as possible (remember, although we all might be mad and frustrated for all this asinine bullsh*t, you will still attract more bees with honey). Give them logical talking points, use facts and make concise statements. And it doesn’t hurt to let them know that WE the PEOPLE are watching their every move. So let’s “blow it up” (their phone lines that is) and let them know that NO matter what reasons they are even contemplating this action, We are not happy.

Email: [email protected]
Fax: (202) 648-9741
Mail:
Denise Brown
Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE,
Washington, DC 20226
Attn: AP Ammo Comments

Telephone: (202) 648-7070

Patrick James

Patrick James is the creator and founder of Cold Dead Hands and CDH, Inc. He is an author, gun enthusiast and avid outdoorsman who can be found chasing his passions 24/7’s. “I’d rather enjoy my life and skid sideways into the grave, worn out and beat up screaming that was a “helluva” ride than to never take chances and risk it all just to arrive in one pretty piece. Passion in all things is the key to a successful life.” ~ Patrick James

Having worked as a firefighter/EMT for several services throughout the years, he has also worked as a custom metal fabricator, certified personal trainer and chef. Growing up in the rural suburbs of Detroit, it was during his frequent trips to Northern Michigan where he learned of his love for hunting and fishing. Spending several of his adult years in upstate South Carolina, his love of extreme sports took root in the foothills of the Great Smokey Mountains as he learned to rock climb and kayak.

“Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and vanish into air.” ~ John Quincy Adams

You can find his published work A Frail New World: Digital Conspiracy at: http://goo.gl/XNaDMe

You can also find more information regarding Mr. James at:

https://www.facebook.com/colddeadhands

https://www.facebook.com/patrickjames2a

https://www.facebook.com/patrickjamesphotog

https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickjames2a

Paskalos

ATF: You can have it but you can’t use it “That way” What?

/in /by

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.”

These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control.

However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45 (Note: unofficial excerpt of ruling found here), Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that
The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously “muscle” this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol’s handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed —to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand— the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.

Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at [email protected] or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division

*This letter can also be found on http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry under the “News” tab.

Freedom

Ares Armor Writes Hilarious Letter to ATF in Crayon

/in /by

In an open letter to the BATFE, Dimitrios Karras of Ares Armor wrote a letter thanking them for defining what a weapon is, what a receiver is, and excoriates them on mistakes they made in their recently published 2015-01 ruling. The entire letter is published below along with the crayon version that is sure to be a big hit in the pro liberty community.

 

The Honorable B. Todd Jones
Director Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20226

Dear Director Jones,

I have read ATF Rul. 2015-1 which was intended to clarify your position on several issues. I would like to thank you for your indirect admission that a firearm receiver is not a “receiver”, as defined by the GCA of 1968, until it can house all of the necessary parts that it is intended to house. I know this was not your intent. However, your words are very clear.

PART 1. Statements and Admissions

  1. ) A “frame or receiver” and a “weapon”, are separately and uniquely defined in the GCA of 1968.

You correctly state on page 2 the following,

Section 921(a)(3), defines a “firearm,” in relevant part, as both a “weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” (921(a)(3)(A)), and the “frame or receiver of any such weapon”

You correctly observe that both a “weapon” and the “frame or receiver” of a weapon are defined separately in the GCA. Thank you for this admission!

  1. ) The “may readily be converted” phrase only applies to “weapon” and not to “receiver”.

As can be seen by your admission, these are defined separately. Therefore, you are also admitting that “may readily be converted” applies only to “weapon” and not to “frame or receiver”. Thank you for this admission!

  1. ) The meaning of the word “manufacture” is “to make into a product suitable for use.”

On page 3 you correctly quote the Broughman Case,

See Broughman at 675 (“[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘manufacture’ is ‘to make into a product suitable for use.’” (quoting Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2010))…

You love to quote court cases that agree with you and ignore ones that don’t agree. However, thank you for this admission!

  1. ) An object that is NOT suitable for use as a “receiver” is NOT classified as a “receiver”.

On page 2 and 3 you state the following,

“…it generally requires substantial additional machining before it can accommodate fire control components such as a trigger, hammer, or sear…”

“…incapable of being assembled into a weapon…”

And my personal favorite quote on page 3,

“ATF Ruling 2010-10 assumes that a licensed dealer-gunsmiths would perform certain activities on articles ALREADY classified as frames or receivers (i.e., no machining or other processes required to allow it to be used to assemble a weapon)… *emphasis added

Here, you have very clearly stated that an item that requires “machining or other processes” before it is suitable for use in assembling a weapon would not ALREADY be classified as a frame or receiver. THANK YOU FOR THIS GIGANTIC ADMISSION!

  1. ) Indexing marks DO NOT make a random object into a “receiver”.

On page 3, you incorrectly and in pompous contempt of the Court make the following statement,

Although such an article may be classified as a “receiver” when it is indexed…

As you are fully aware, this is direct conflict with UNITED STATES v. PRINCE. The ATF has already lost this argument in Federal Court. I have mentioned this case in previous communication with you. It is fully on record that you are aware of this case and its implications. Your choice to ignore this case is despicable at best.

“The court finds that the metal flat shipped to Prince is not a firearm. The court carefully considered the expert testimony of Agent Adam Galbraith, and reviewed the material submitted by the government concerning ATF opinions. However, the court simply does not believe that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and holes constitutes a “receiver,” i.e., a “firearm.” Rather, the flat piece of metal is somewhat akin to a piece of paper with lines drawn on it as a guide to make a paper airplane. Although making the paper airplane might be the intended use, it is not an airplane until it is properly folded. Until that time, it is a patterned piece of paper. Simply put, this court has no evidentiary or legal basis for holding that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and some holes constitutes, ultimately, a “firearm.””
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1506044.html
PART 2. The Lunacy Of Your Conclusions
On pages 4 and 5 you state the following,

However, when a licensed gunsmith takes in a frame or receiver to perform machining or other manufacturing process, that gunsmith “distributes” a firearm to the customer upon return because that manufacturing activity results in the making of a different “frame or receiver” and also a “weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile” –both defined separately as a “firearm” under the GCA.

You somehow confusingly conclude that even though both terms are defined separately, a “receiver” is a “weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile”

Let me ask one simple question… If a “receiver” is a “weapon”, why are they defined separately and uniquely in the GCA as firearms?

A “receiver” by itself cannot be “readily converted to expel a projectile” as the receiver by itself lacks the necessary parts. I would love to hand you a receiver and ask you to readily convert it into a weapon. Perhaps you would do that hand waiving Jedi-Mind trick thing you did to Congress when you were asked about why you raided my business!

A receiver is PART of a weapon. A receiver is NOT a weapon by itself, as it is clearly defined separately and uniquely in the GCA per your own admission.

Riddle me this one Batman… If a “receiver” is a “weapon” then it must have an individual part of itself that is a “receiver”, which would be classified separately from it as a “firearm”… So where exactly is it that I can buy this mysterious “receiver, of a receiver, of a receiver, of a receiver” that you refer to?
PART 3. The Common Sense Conclusion Based On Your Statements.

  1. ) A “frame or receiver” and a “weapon”, are separately and uniquely defined in the GCA of 1968.
  2. ) The “may readily be converted” phrase only applies to “weapon” and not to “receiver”.
  3. ) The meaning of the word “manufacture” is “to make into a product suitable for use.”
  4. ) An object that is NOT suitable for use as a “receiver” is NOT classified as a “receiver”.
  5. ) Indexing marks DO NOT make a random object into a “receiver”.

I conclude, based off of your statements, that one cannot be charged with a crime of “manufacturing” (make into a product suitable for use) an AR “receiver” ( “[t]hat 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.”) if that “receiver” does not provide housing for any of the intended mechanisms.

I would like to thank you for your clarification that NOT drilling the through holes for the fire-control group (safety selector, trigger pin, and hammer pin) would be sufficient to have NOT manufactured a “receiver”.

Just to sink your own words in one more time, I will provide you with your quote from page 3 again,

“ATF Ruling 2010-10 assumes that a licensed dealer-gunsmiths would perform certain activities on articles ALREADY classified as frames or receivers (i.e., no machining or other processes required to allow it to be used to assemble a weapon)… *emphasis added

I expect that you will issue a letter in response to this stating that one can manufacture a 99% receiver (missing only the 3 holes for the fire control group) and not be charged with “manufacturing a ‘firearm’”.

I salute you on your efforts of making the hobby of building firearms at home easier!

To make things easier for you and your agents to understand, I have commissioned these concepts to be drawn in crayon. I have attached this drawing to this letter. You are welcome.

You block, you stone, you worse than senseless thing,

Dimitrios Karras
One of Your Restless Villagers
Semper Fi!

View the ‘Crayon Version’

 

 

Freedom

Another lawsuit filed challenging federal ban on new machine guns

/in /by

In a law suit supported by Freedom Fighters Foundation, a complaint for declarative and injunctive relief was filed Friday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Ryan S. Watson, acting individually and as trustee of the Watson Family Gun Trust, is suing Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.”

Attorney David R. Scott is joined in the lawsuit by Stephen D. Stamboulieh, the Mississippi attorney who filed a similar action in Texas on October 30 in the case of Hollis v. Holder. This latest action differs from the first in that Watson is subject to an actual taking resulting from actions performed under authorization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for which approval was later revoked.

Following an ATF Firearms Industry Programs Branch determination that “unincorporated trusts do not fall within the definition of ‘person,’” Watson, acting as an authorized official of the Watson Family Gun Trust, electronically submitted an ATF Form 1, “Application to Make and Register a Firearm” in May. In August, he received ATF approval along with its stamp evidencing payment of the tax affixed to the form, and based on that authorization, he manufactured a machine gun.

Watson had also submitted an earlier Form 1 in April in paper form, and while that one was later returned disapproved, the signature box, date box and approval box had been “whited out” by ATF. In both cases ATF processed and retained the $200 “tax.”

As for the approved machine gun, ATF reneged after the fact and advised Watson it had erroneously approved his application, despite, per Stamboulieh, the agency having no statutory authority to revoke an approval. ATF’s Philadelphia Field Division ordered Watson to surrender the manufactured machine gun, reminding him that “possession of this unregistered machine gun is a Federal felony.”

The complaint asks for judgment along several grounds, including that existing statutes barring private ownership of machine guns exceed the authority of Congress and violate the Second Amendment. It additionally seeks declarations that such statutes cannot be applied individually or against trustees, that the defendants are enjoined from enforcement and that they have no authority to revoke tax stamps. Alternatively, the complaint asks that “unincorporated trusts are not prohibited from manufacturing or possessing machine guns.” It also seeks to recover costs of the suit and attorney fees, as well as “any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.”

(Via: Examiner.com)