Topic: Gun criminal goes free...so future gun control issues don't arise - page 2. (Read 334 times)

I think if everyone want to learn on why we need gun or where do guns needed for it will be good. But it is impossible for us to know about it because everyone who have gun has a power. A power to kill a person no matter who is it. A gun can be a self defense tool but it can show us that a gun can cause some evil scenarios.

Do you want to sell or transfer anything without selling or transferring it? Put it into trust, with yourself as trustee. Make your buyer to be the successor trustee, the next trustee in line if something happens to you. Then resign. There was no sale or transfer since the trust still owns the property.


The Top U.S. States In Gun Sales

The biggest thing that people miss regarding the issue of Gun Control is that as of right now, we do have a lot of laws on the books relating to ensuring that people who are criminals don't obtain firearms. That's what the rules are for.

But the problem with a good deal of our current law is that local and state government dont provide the necessary information to the background check database to make it fully accurate. If states and local governments dont send mental health issues, criminal issues, and so on and so forth to the FBI then the FBI's system cant work.

I agree and understand what you are saying, but these examples are of regulatory classifications, not of how the firearm itself is defined as being a firearm or not being a firearm. That is a big difference. I totally agree about enforcing the existing laws, but that doesn't serve the purpose of pushing more gun control if they don't regularly have criminal gun use now does it? Also as far as I am concerned, as long as you aren't victimizing others, or contributing to the victimization of others, any "loophole" in gun control laws should be used to it its fullest, because the 2nd amendment is an inalienable right, not a permit bestowed upon us by the whim of the ATF. In this particular case, they can't just change the definition without infringing on the ability of people to manufacture firearms for their own personal use. Gun control advocates have been frothing at the mouth to take this right away, and this IMO will be the kind of situation they use to finally end that right.

ATF changes rules all the time.  Thats where this story ends up being almost comical. As someone who owns a lot of ATF governed toys, I laugh at their constant changes to definition on a whim.

I have solid core "green-tips".  Remember they were almost banned by the ATF.
I have several AR pistols. Remember all the nonsense from the ATF over braces and "shouldering" them.

I have an AR pistol with a binary trigger. The epitome of exploiting an ATF definitions loophole.

They change definitions all the time. Guess they couldn't change one in time here for this case.
Surprised they didn't try.

What I really want them to do, is enforce existing laws on those who break them, rather than constantly making it harder for those who abide by the law to continue to do so.

Do you really want the precedent set that the ATF can just redefine what is legal and not legal? I realize to a certain degree they already do, like for example with bump stocks, but that I think was a dictate via executive order if I remember correctly.

I read the article, and it says the person in question had the buyer press the button themselves which would engage the machine to mill the lower receiver. Under the law, that means they manufactured it, not the guy who owns the machine. They could have maybe charged him with some lesser crime of facilitating felons to manufacture firearms or something like that, but technically what he did was actually legal. They dropped the charges for 2 reasons. First of all they don't want people to realize that what he did was legal by pursuing the case and losing, and also as was already stated it would set a precedent legally, making it harder to bring these kinds of cases into court in the future and just hoping for a plea agreement. There is a lot of misdirection going on to distract from the fact that this is a loophole in federal law that could be abused. A lower receiver has always been a "firearm" according to the law and ATF. This exact scenario was predicted a long time ago when Defense Distributed released their "Ghost Gunner" lower receiver milling machine.

Anyways, I know you are a LEO, so I assume you probably want the 2nd amendment rights of US citizens protected, but also probably by default want to support law enforcement organizations, especially considering that you are probably one of the first people in line to get shot at in an enforcement action. I in general support law enforcement, I am not one of those people who think its trendy to hate police, but I also think they collectively have been getting out of control on a systemic level, and been lacking accountability to a large degree. The ATF itself has lots of dirty laundry. I wouldn't want a federal bureaucracy redefining firearms laws. I am interested to hear your analysis of this.

Yes. But that's not something that can be done while a court is convening on the subject matter. Law / regulatory concerns would have to be  addressed after the fact, and that's something that's most likely going to be done.

Get it?

Or... ATF could change a definition, and correct both issues.

Here's the reason they stopped the prosection of him:


So yeah. Let one guy go free who isn't going to cause much more harm because he now knows that he is under constant surveillance -- instead of letting tons of people acquire parts who are convicts.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html


Very lengthy story, so I will not add the text. 

But long story short..... dude was selling home-made AR's without serial number (which is illegal)
Building your own AR without a serial number is legal, but you cannot sell or transfer.

Defense brings into question the ATF definition of firearm, which currently includes the AR15 lower receiver.  According to ATF definition, they realize the AR15 lower receiver does not technically meet the ATF definition of receiver or firearm. Judge rules as such. He's right.

ATF backs off the prosecution, fearing a decision would create a precedence declassifying AR15 lowers as firearms.

Such a long article, I don't know if he was selling the entire rifle or just the 80% lower after completion.