An atty has successfully challenged the ATF’s definition of "firearm’ and claim/definition that makes the AR lower a “firearm”.
A very good read.
The way I see this working out eventually is that the ATF will have to reclassify the lowers, change the definition, or perhaps start serializing uppers.
This decision though could very well lead to a whole lot of convictions being overturned.
That’s a pretty big oooops that’s been going on for decades. One has to wonder how this definition slipped between the cracks for so long?
A little more common sense and a little less technical jargon could go a long way towards preventing this kind of gaffe in the future. Phrases like “Made for the use of” and “Specifically designed for” could be a couple of examples.
“Sources familiar with the agreement said prosecutors wanted to strike a deal in order to prevent Selna’s order from becoming permanent, drawing publicity, and creating case law that could hamper ATF enforcement efforts.”
Presiding over the case was The Honorable James V. Selna, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2003.
Thanks, Dubya! lol
It’s in the product literature in the box.
The ATF needs to be disbanded.
1 Like
(Adam) Winkler, the UCLA law professor, offered a similar assessment.
When he was first informed of the judge’s tentative order by a CNN reporter, Winkler said, “I thought the logic was crazy.”
But after reviewing the order and several filings in the case at the request of CNN, he said Selna’s rationale appeared legally sound.
“It does seem like there is problem,” Winkler said.
This guy had to change his mind on the 2nd after Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm got through with him.
I wonder just how many future appeals are currently in the works?
It needs to be in the legislation. 
No, it doesn’t.
Firearms are nothing like alcohol or tobacco.
They are also not illegal.
Common sense? Yeah, it does.
Why? What purpose does it serve?
It needs to be in the legislation.
[/quote]
No, it doesn’t.
[/quote]
Common sense? Yeah, it does.
[/quote]
Why? What purpose does it serve?
[/quote]
To provide clarity. You don’t need hundreds of pages to define what constitutes a gun for example. Look at our constitution, it is MUCH shorter than most others yet, in my opinion at least and many others I have no doubt, is far superior.
I must be confused. Let’s start over, what needs to be in the legislation?
I hope they eventually rule the whole pistol/SBR/rifle designation irrelevant.
Because it is irrelevant.
Suppressors.
Those too.
I’d like a tax refund for the ones I own.
