Gun criminal goes free...so future gun control issues don't arise

[PopoJeff]

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.

[squatz1]

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

Federal authorities preferred to let Roh go free rather than have the ruling become final and potentially create case law that could have a crippling effect on the enforcement of gun laws.

Under US District Court Judge James V. Selna's interpretation of the law, convicted felons and other people prohibited from possessing firearms would be allowed to legally acquire all the parts necessary to assemble an AR-15-style rifle and other weapons

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.

[PopoJeff]

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

Federal authorities preferred to let Roh go free rather than have the ruling become final and potentially create case law that could have a crippling effect on the enforcement of gun laws.

Under US District Court Judge James V. Selna's interpretation of the law, convicted felons and other people prohibited from possessing firearms would be allowed to legally acquire all the parts necessary to assemble an AR-15-style rifle and other weapons

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.

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

[squatz1]

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

Federal authorities preferred to let Roh go free rather than have the ruling become final and potentially create case law that could have a crippling effect on the enforcement of gun laws.

Under US District Court Judge James V. Selna's interpretation of the law, convicted felons and other people prohibited from possessing firearms would be allowed to legally acquire all the parts necessary to assemble an AR-15-style rifle and other weapons

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.

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

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?

[TECSHARE]

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

Federal authorities preferred to let Roh go free rather than have the ruling become final and potentially create case law that could have a crippling effect on the enforcement of gun laws.

Under US District Court Judge James V. Selna's interpretation of the law, convicted felons and other people prohibited from possessing firearms would be allowed to legally acquire all the parts necessary to assemble an AR-15-style rifle and other weapons

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.

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

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.

[PopoJeff]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

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.

[squatz1]

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.

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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

But, as Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, a new analysis entitled "Gun Country" from website security.org used information contained in the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System and an industry-accepted formula to estimate the number of gun sales in a given year.

The research found that 972,860 guns were sold in Texas in 2018, making it the state with the highest total.

When it comes to sales per 1,000 inhabitants, however, things look different with Texas only coming 34th with 46.5 guns sold.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Montana comes first with 141.9 firearms sold per 1,000 of its inhabitants, followed by Alaska (140.1) and South Dakota (129.9).

It's notable that some of the states with the highest population-adjusted rates of gun purchases (Montana, South Dakota and others) are among the states where guns are used the least in violent crimes.

[kuyaJ]

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.

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.

[coolcoinz]

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.

Ok fine, but doesn't any person, armed or not, have the power to kill another person? It's literally hard to find something in the house that could not be used to kill someone. You can kill a person with a corkscrew, a chainsaw, a nail gun, a glass, a screwdriver, a fork, a frying pan, a string, a baseball bat, and so on. Most of these things are close combat but it's easy to get close to someone when they're standing in a line at a store, or watching a movie in a cinema. It's the intent to kill that counts. If I wanted to I could murder my whole family while they sleep with a kitchen knife, but I don't because I'm not mentally ill. You won't change the fact that some people have murderous intent by denying everyone the right to own a firearm and statistics prove it.

[franky1]

they should just change the definition of one thing.
'the right to bare arms'
to become
'the right to wear sleeveless shirts'

then the gun problems are solved... and also some office workers are not forced to wear long sleeve shirts and suits in warm summer weather

[n0ne]

However things were changed the human mind changes in no time. People and governments keep on discussing, but there arises no conclusion. Yesterday on the Halloween celebration too this has gone out of control killing the life of four and so many injured. It is the mind fluctuation that takes a decision, and if that second is crossed such incidents won't occur.

[BADecker]

they should just change the definition of one thing.
'the right to bare arms'
to become
'the right to wear sleeveless shirts'

then the gun problems are solved... and also some office workers are not forced to wear long sleeve shirts and suits in warm summer weather

That would take a Constitutional Convention. Until then, people need to understand the meaning as the original writers meant it, as best they can.

But it wouldn't solve the problem. The Amendments are directed towards government, simply to make it easy for the people to hold government at bay. Private property is not annulled simply because the amendments are repealed.

[franky1]

But it wouldn't solve the problem. The Amendments are directed towards government, simply to make it easy for the people to hold government at bay. Private property is not annulled simply because the amendments are repealed.

comparing your stance in this topic to your driving licence topic where you dont recognise a government as a human being.. who is the bullet suppose to kill if there is no human government in your eyes

oh and playful use of words. 'hold the government' not shoot the government.
hold=in someone arms(shoulders biceps,elbows, wrists)
hold=at arms(shoulders biceps,elbows, wrists) distance

oh and it doesnt require a constitutional convention
the words are the words "bare arms".. the written words dont need to change.
so no amendment needed

now please go to a doctor and ask him while holding a gun to X-ray your arm.. i guarantee you that he aint going to scan the machine gun

[BADecker]

But it wouldn't solve the problem. The Amendments are directed towards government, simply to make it easy for the people to hold government at bay. Private property is not annulled simply because the amendments are repealed.

comparing your stance in this topic to your driving licence topic where you dont recognise a government as a human being.. who is the bullet suppose to kill if there is no human government in your eyes

oh and playful use of words. 'hold the government' not shoot the government.
hold=in someone arms(shoulders biceps,elbows, wrists)
hold=at arms(shoulders biceps,elbows, wrists) distance

oh and it doesnt require a constitutional convention
the words are the words "bare arms".. the written words dont need to change.
so no amendment needed

now please go to a doctor and ask him while holding a gun to X-ray your arm.. i guarantee you that he aint going to scan the machine gun

That's one of the reasons why they are trying to make AI to be really alive. Then they can treat government like a human.

The point isn't whether or not I think the government is human. The point is that when an accused man stands present (unrepresented) in court, his accuser has to be a man. Why? Because he has the right to face his accuser, cross-examine him on the stand... not the accuser's attorney, not the accuser's representative... the accuser himself. It's standard law. If it is the government accusing him, get government on the stand so he can cross-examine government. And let government answer in like manner, "viva voce," just like the accused questions his accuser.

Government can't do it, because government is paperwork.

You absolutely need a ConCon to change the Amendments.

Go to the psychiatrist and ask him to examine you any way that he wants. You need it. Of course, we'll miss you in the forum.

[franky1]

oh badecker, your a great comedian. but your law research is too much from freemans youtube videos and not enough independant research away from the freeman community.

goodluck in life. but do yourself a favour
if you ever do find yourself in court. which is obvious you have never been in one due to your lack of knowledge personally. do not in any way be trying to use freeman/karl lentz as your law expert sources.

again you dont ned to amend anything to rewrite the word
right to bare arms
to become
right to bare arms

no rewrite needed.
and nowhere does it say right to own AR15
so using your very own opinion. how is bearing an AR15 a right
your going to need a concon to make it your right to own an AR15

all i see is the right to wear sleeveless shirts when i see the word
right to bare arms

[Subbir]

It should control the most important role a government of a country can control it well if the government wants it, but more difficult laws can be used for its use. Independent use can be banned so that it increases security Thinking about human safety, something new can be created.

[BADecker]

oh badecker, your a great comedian. but your law research is too much from freemans youtube videos and not enough independant research away from the freeman community.

goodluck in life. but do yourself a favour
if you ever do find yourself in court. which is obvious you have never been in one due to your lack of knowledge personally. do not in any way be trying to use freeman/karl lentz as your law expert sources.

again you dont ned to amend anything to rewrite the word
right to bare arms
to become
right to bare arms

no rewrite needed.
and nowhere does it say right to own AR15
so using your very own opinion. how is bearing an AR15 a right
your going to need a concon to make it your right to own an AR15

all i see is the right to wear sleeveless shirts when i see the word
right to bare arms

Then obey, and wear sleeveless shirts. But let those men and women who understand it to mean to carry loaded AR15s around, do what they believe. After all, that's what the 2nd Amendment essentially means... the right to bear arms... whatever you think "arms" is.

If you want to accept the meaning that some judge places on the word "arms," you have that right. It might take a court case for you to show that what you believe is what counts for you.

If they want to change the 2nd Amendment, the definitely need a ConCon.

[franky1]

...

no where in the 2nd amendment does it say AR15. nor a loaded AR15
absolutely no where
i can turn up to court and in a sleaveless shirt say 'i stand here using my 2nd amendment right to bare arms'
but you cannot turn up to court with an AR15 say 'i stand here using my 2nd amendment right to bare AR15'