Gun store owner halts BATF raid

[CathyInBlue]

My understanding was that EP had their declaratory letter from the ATF and then the ATF changed its mind when they made up the fact out of whole clothe that the manufacturing process was actually to make the 100% lower and then cast in the filler material.

 

[serf]

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.

That's my guess. I would assume the parts are over molded. Would make the most sense.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

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.

Regarding the opinion on 'solid' equating to 'homogenous,' that's all that is: an opinion. Solid means solid, a solid state of matter. It may have other connotations, but that is the only plain actual meaning. If the ATF means 'homogenous' then they should have stated so plainly in the first case when the rule was put into effect. Given BATFE's retaliatory raid and end-run around a legal, lawfully-issued temporary restraining order, it is apparent - to me at least - that BATFE is simply in a spiteful rage that a manufacturer has found a way to be absolutely in compliance with the rules yet still make it simpler for everyone to produce their own 100% lowers, which technology has made fairly simple already in the recent past. Again, this is the death knell of the Beast with its final gnashing of its teeth and swipes of its claws. Anywhere there is a computer there is now the potentiality of a firearm. BATFE has lost. Gun Control Incorporated/the Brady Campaign has lost. Mikey Bloomberg has lost. Dannel P. Malloy has lost. Shannon Watts has lost. Piers Morgan has lost. Authoritarianism has lost. They just don't realize it yet. But they will. After the next few dozen raids of citizens, when they keep seeing these polymer lowers with no manufacturing information, when they see the polymer magazines with no manufacturing information, when they see the sales of AR lowers from every registered manufacturer decline, then they will know. And then it will be too late, as even right now it is too late.

Liberty has won. Liberty wins.

Game over.

 

[miamigunsinc]

This is very nice post and they don't sell completed guns or serial numbered receivers themselves otherwise it is loss the registration.

 

[RyanGSams]

[video=youtube;nkexneHJ3vY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkexneHJ3vY[/video]

New video interview with CEO of Ares Armor about raid.

 

[HoughMade]

OK, thanks to "the Bang Switch", there is some more info. out there today. I will link it, then I have a question:

EP Armory, 80% Lowers, and the ATF Update | The Bang Switch

Court Filings and Reference Materials Relating to ATF Investigations on Polymer Pre-cursor Receivers (aka 80% Lowers) : Michel and Associates, P.C.

Now, take a look at these letters between EP Armory attorneys and the ATF:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Letter-from-Jason-Davis-July-2013.pdf

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ATF-letter-to-Jason-Davis-February-2014.pdf

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Letter-from-Jason-Davis-March-20141.pdf

Now, I am fully aware that I have not seen everything AND that the ATF may very well be wrong about the manufacturing process.

My question is a simple one: Did EP Armory ever get a letter from the ATF stating that the "80%" polymer lower would be considered a "non-firearm"?

The July 20, 2013 letter asked for an opinion from the ATF about whether the "80%" lower would be considered a firearm. It is clear from that letter that EP Armory, at that point, had not gotten clearance from the ATF that the "80%" polymer lower was a "non-firearm".

Then we see letters in February of 2014 from the ATF and March of 2014 from EP Armory's attorney where this is apparently still the case. Was there any time when the ATF confirmed to EP Armory that it would consider the "80%" polymer lower a "non-firearm"? I don't know. If there is, that could be very important. Maybe I have missed something in the supplied documents or maybe I just didn't see it.

To be clear, I am not accusing EP Armory of anything. I am curious, nothing more.