Gun store owner halts BATF raid

[ScouT6a]

There are things that are "legal" that are in a gray area but I don't know if putting up a huge sign over your business advertising that is what you do is the right answer.
To me, it would be like a defense attorney putting a fire engine red 20 foot by 40 foot billboard on the roof of his office stating, "You can be guilty as hell and I'll get you off on a technicality"
Does it happen, sure it does. Do we all know it? Sure we do. Do they advertise it. No.
The only thing I want to see a business advertising (pushing) as "legal" would be legal advice. Maybe that's just me

 

[wsenefeld]

I see the stink being that they are milling them PAST 80% and then filling it back in with an off colored resin to make it easier for the end user to see what they need to mill out.

Once Ares armor takes it past 80% and intends to sell to the public, I'm thinking that legally, they should be serialized.

 

[Sgtusmc]

I see the stink being that they are milling them PAST 80% and then filling it back in with an off colored resin to make it easier for the end user to see what they need to mill out.

Once Ares armor takes it past 80% and intends to sell to the public, I'm thinking that legally, they should be serialized.

I don't believe the product is made by Ares Armor. They're just selling it.

80% Lower Receivers - 80 Percent Lower

 

[dagibson1507]

I see the stink being that they are milling them PAST 80% and then filling it back in with an off colored resin to make it easier for the end user to see what they need to mill out.

Once Ares armor takes it past 80% and intends to sell to the public, I'm thinking that legally, they should be serialized.

The part that needs milled out is formed first then the rest of the polymer lower is formed around it. They don't mill it out and fill it back in, it's a very clear distinction. Ares also doesn't complete the lowers and sell them without the serial. They sell you the blank and have the equipment there to finish it yourself. You must do all the work yourself.

 

[Sgtusmc]

Plus, the EP 80% lowers are accompanied by other manufacturers selling the same kind of product. Polymer80, JMT and probably more. Plus they sell the lower with a handy jig to do the machining fairly trouble free. I don't think it's an issue with EP's lower. It's the local politics.

 

[ScouT6a]

Sounds like they are going to have a fun court case. I wonder if they'll find it was worth it for the $20 customer savings per receiver over an 80% alloy receiver.
Sounds to me like this could be a very slippery slope. What if the EPA said well at some point during the manufacturing process Ford has a functioning car without the required emissions system. Far fetched? Maybe not after this court case......

 

[DarkRose]

This has me concerned... I just got one of their 80% aluminum AR-10 lowers... (killer sale!)...

From what I gather, most of the focus is on the polymer lowers they were selling... But now they also have a full customer list...

 

[HoughMade]

Plus, the EP 80% lowers are accompanied by other manufacturers selling the same kind of product. Polymer80, JMT and probably more. Plus they sell the lower with a handy jig to do the machining fairly trouble free. I don't think it's an issue with EP's lower. It's the local politics.

You may want to tell EP Armory that so they can relax...and Ares since they believe it's the EP Lower

EP Armory Raided by the ATF | The Bang Switch

Temporary Restraining Order Against BATFE - Ares Armor

 

[Wild Deuce]

*

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Looks to me like the BATFE is going hard after the EP Armory 80% lowers which makes me wonder if there are other retailers besides this one the BATFE has gone after, and if so, how did they deal with it? Turned over their records? Fight it? What?

I don't know the answer to your specific question. EP Armory too has recently gotten the kabosh, not sure whether they have ratted me out to the ATF as on file as having bought a paperweight or not, but I assert that in the end it won't matter: there are 3D files for making polymer AR lowers that are 100% floating around online. Anyone with a few to several hundred dollars can buy a printer, resin/plastic, download a couple software programs, download a couple files, and churn out several 100% AR lowers per week. Technology is making gun control impossible, and this is just the Feds doing their level best to control a situation that cannot truly be controlled long-term. It is the death knell of the Beast. I don't agree 100% with Cody Wilson's ideology, but I do agree with him in that the very near future will hold that anywhere there is a computer, there is the promise - the possibility - of a firearm, and that tickles me pink. Robert Heinlein's concept of the polite society come to fruition.

 

[87iroc]

... and that, sir, is the ultimate goal!

You know they won't be able to keep track of that list. They couldn't figure out who they gave guns to in Mexico...so surely they'll lose this list as well.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Nice little timeline Ares Armor dispute with the ATF

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

That website is hard to read.

 

[JettaKnight]

That website is hard to read.

Yup. And the video is a little boring.

So a hypothetical: ATF comes after me a buyer of an EP 80% lower. I assumed this was a true 80% and claim I did nothing wrong - Ares never informed me that there was any question of compliance. Let's same I get fined $5K for a violation. So, do I sue Ares and EP for that $5K? They sold me a product that was in violation of USC (as ruled in a court of law).

 

[HoughMade]

Yup. And the video is a little boring.

So a hypothetical: ATF comes after me a buyer of an EP 80% lower. I assumed this was a true 80% and claim I did nothing wrong - Ares never informed me that there was any question of compliance. Let's same I get fined $5K for a violation. So, do I sue Ares and EP for that $5K? They sold me a product that was in violation of USC (as ruled in a court of law).

Well, first, hopefully your buying in good faith will go a long way towards not getting the fine.

Second, I think that there could be a cause of action back against the retailer and manufacturer.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Sorry about the link, it is a FB link but here is what Tactical Machining, LLC is saying about the lowers. They didnt have anything on their webpage.
https://www.facebook.com/tacticalmachining

 

[HoughMade]

Sorry about the link, it is a FB link but here is what Tactical Machining, LLC is saying about the lowers. They didnt have anything on their webpage.
https://www.facebook.com/tacticalmachining

In regards to the 80% fiasco at Ares Armor, the legality of 80% receivers, and how you can avoid the ATF knocking on your door for buying an "80% receiver" instead of an 80% receiver.

It's not an 80% lower fiasco, it's a we we're selling a product that was clearly not an 80% fiasco. ATF considers any dimpling or marking of either the FCG or the hammer / trigger / safety selector as a 100% receiver. The ATF details this in the determination letter they provide you after they have approved your product. Also, the ATF considers the 3D printed lowers EP produced as once a firearm and converted to an "80%" which is a no-no because ATF has proper decommissioning standards. They print the 100% lower then print the FCG section into the 100% lower. A technicality but still "wrong" in the eyes the ATF. This ENTIRE fiasco could have been avoided by the manufacturer receiving a determination letter from the ATF saying that the item isn't a firearm.

The approved standards for 80% receivers are pretty clear cut but manufacturers are constantly looking for easier ways for customers to complete it into a firearm. Without ATF approval you could be purchasing what the ATF considers a firearm. In the past when the ATF has changed its standards on 80% receivers it notifies all manufacturers with approval determinations and gives them the opportunity to modify their product to remain compliant. They also allow manufacturers to finish selling whatever receivers are in stock that are becoming non-compliant as long as they were manufactured prior to the determination change. The ATF is very cooperative with product determinations but if you do not receive one and manufacture products that are considered firearms they will stop the manufacturer and try to determine how many firearms were sold as non-firearms. This ATF raid was not due to an ATF crackdown on 80% receivers but a crackdown on non-compliant 80% receiver manufacturers.

Tactical Machining has a determination from the ATF stating that our 80% receivers are not firearms. Make sure the manufacturer of your 80% lower has a determination from the ATF or you could end up in the same boat.

Assuming this is accurate, and I would have to make that assumption, as I have no idea of the accuracy of these statements, it is the best explanation of what is going on that I have seen.

 

[Bunnykid68]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Assuming this is accurate, and I would have to make that assumption, as I have no idea of the accuracy of these statements, it is the best explanation of what is going on that I have seen.

Yep, that is my problem too. Is what they are saying accurate or is it just common misinformation being spewed for the sake of spewing

 

[JettaKnight]

Yep, that is my problem too. Is what they are saying accurate or is it just common misinformation being spewed for the sake of spewing

Well it's more believable than all the FUD revolving around it.


ATF says, "You're doing wrong."
EP says, "We're doing it right."
It's something for a court to work out.

 

[HoughMade]

Well, that's about right, but I'm starting to believe that EP Armory tried (probably with the best of intentions) to make things a little easy and push the "non-firearm" definition as far as they could. Don't know, but that's just what it look like to me.

I’ve been doing a little looking about where the dividing line between “non-firearm” and “firearm” is when it comes to partially finished lowers. I have not found any definitive answer, but the best way for a manufacturer to avoid problems is to submit the part and get a ruling from the ATF. Did EP Armory do this? I don’t know.

What I have found is a letter from the ATF to another manufacturer which lays out some of the rules and explains why their proposed “80% lower” is a firearm, not a “non-firearm”.

http://www.quentindefense.com/downloads/ATF Letter Non Gun.pdf

The most important thing is that the “hammer/trigger recess” must be solid. It does not say filled in or molded first or any such thing. It says “solid”. It must be “completely solid and unmachined in the trigger/hammer recess area.” Does something that is not made of the same material, fills the cativity, and can be pulled out after some drilling make for a “solid” receiver? In my mind (the only one I have) “solid” means that the “trigger/hammer recess area” has to be a homogeneous material, not a different material (I mean "different" as in molded at a different time such that it is not homogeneous). I know that there has been talk about what was molded first, inner or outer, but if the standard is “solid”, that would not seem to matter. It may address one issue, avoiding the lower being manufactured as a firearm then “converted”, but it does not address the other issue, the lower not being truly “solid”.

Listen to what he says at the beginning of the video, and then at about the 6:05 mark and on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fSEodxoQ5Y

On this one, go to 5:00 and watch. That’s from a “solid” “trigger/hammer recess area”?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDmFUz-ceVM

Also, in the letter linked above, it specifically rejects the design because the selector hole was present. Once again, the letter said the area had to be “solid”. The EP Armory lowers have guidance “dimples” for the selector switch and fire control group. Is that solid? Maybe, maybe not, but the ATF seemed pretty clear in the letter that they didn’t want holes in those area for a “non-firearm”. I don’t even know if that’s the issue. I would think the “solid” thing was more of a concern.