ATF ignores restraining order against business and raids Ares Armor

[Dreaming100Straight]

Was there a reason, in addition to the manner in which the fire control cavity was formed, that ATF determined the lower to be a "firearm"; the excess material indicating where to drill holes for the selector, hammer, and trigger pins? If so, the letter from ATF certainly didn't make it clear that such was a reason for determining the lower to be a firearm.

Still, whether or not the letter was botched, the lower would be nevertheless be a firearm, but the raid on EP Armory would seem to be overly zealous, at best.

[44 AMP]

I may be mistaken, but what I got out of reading the letter was that since it has the mag well formed, forming the fire control cavity (locations for holes seemed irrelevant) at that point, it was finished enough for them to decide it was a firearm receiver.

And, once finished to that point, it is forever a firearm, and all laws apply. Filling or blocking the cavities afterwards changes nothing legally.

And that was the ATF's position, that the receiver was made (formed) to the point it was legally a firearm, and then the FCG cavity was filled. Essentially, you cannot backfill a completed firearm receiver (their judgment on what that is) back down to an unregulated 80% receiver.

The makers says no, the cavity is never formed, the receiver is molded around a plug, so no cavity until the end user removes the material.

And that's why its in court. Slight difference of opinion, eh what?

[Dreaming100Straight]

Perhaps, 44AMP. If so, the letter was poorly worded, but I think it may have meant that there were two independent reasons that the lower was considered so complete that it was a firearm. Not just the manner in which the cavity was formed, but also the fact that places to drill were marked.

[FrankenMauser]

Not just the manner in which the cavity was formed, but also the fact that places to drill were marked.

The letter does have some language that indicates that that may be the case. However, it's a hard argument to make, since other "firearm precursor" products have been sold in very similar condition by various "80%", "90%", and "95%" outfits. (In the case of an older "95%" ASA offering, they actually had more work done already, than the EPA "80%" lowers.) The only real difference is that they were aluminum.

Then again, we are talking about the ATF, here....

[44 AMP]

I agree the letter is not entirely clear in that regard, and I really don't want to play devil's advocate for the Feds, but I do know of other "proto-receivers" that were marked, but not cut that they didn't like, but did allow.

BUT, those might be a case of "that was then, this is now", which appears to be part of the SOP for the BATF in the last few decades.

The way I read it, they said (essentially) that if the mag well and the FCG cavity were opened up it would be a firearm (receiver) at that point. My interpretation was that if the mag well were open and it was marked where to drill for the FCG (but the cavity wasn't formed) is would not be. And likewise, if the FCG cavity existed (marked or unmarked) but the mag well was solid material, then it wouldn't be a firearm.

HOWEVER, I can easily see how you could get something else from the letter, so, I guess we'll have to see what the court decides. IF they do.

[Dreaming100Straight]

See the recent ATF letter providing that the manufacture of the fire control cavity with a biscuit was not the sole reason for its original determination of the lower to be a firearm. The "indexing" of where to drill holes for the selector, trigger, and hammer pins was an independent reason for finding it to be a firearm.

Back at Post 101 I wrote:

Was there a reason, in addition to the manner in which the fire control cavity was formed, that ATF determined the lower to be a "firearm"; the excess material indicating where to drill holes for the selector, hammer, and trigger pins? If so, the letter from ATF certainly didn't make it clear that such was a reason for determining the lower to be a firearm.

[Armorer-at-Law]

So, "indexing" by indicating where to drill or cut in any way is not OK by the ATF.

[44 AMP]

The "indexing" of where to drill holes for ...

SO, an uncut piece of pipe with a Sten gun template on it would be a firearm?

I did hear of a case from many years ago where a fellow had the pipe (sten gun receiver blank), with no cuts made in it, and a book with the info on where to cut & drill together in his car trunk.

BATF charged him with "constructive possession". I never did hear how it turned out....

[Armorer-at-Law]

SO, an uncut piece of pipe with a Sten gun template on it would be a firearm?

Possible. If you were making and selling these (with the template on it), it could be unlawful manufacture of firearms. Selling them separately,...?

I did hear of a case from many years ago where a fellow had the pipe (sten gun receiver blank), with no cuts made in it, and a book with the info on where to cut & drill together in his car trunk.

BATF charged him with "constructive possession". I never did hear how it turned out....

Seems like a stretch if he didn't have any of the other parts, and unless he was a prohibited person.

[FrankenMauser]

When it comes to 'firearm precursor products', the ATF sometimes takes the stance that "designating its use" is enough to make it a firearm.
For AR-15 lower receivers, they have frequently argued that drilling hammer pin, trigger pin, and selector holes "designates its use."

So, my guess is that they're trying to extend the 'designating' argument from drilling to 'indexing'. (Which doesn't actually work, since the holes are in the wrong place; but I guess that doesn't matter.)

Seems like a stretch if he didn't have any of the other parts, and unless he was a prohibited person.

It does. But, at the same time, they have already set precedents that put every M1 owner in constructive possession of a machinegun, just by owning shoelaces and keyrings; or Slide-Fire owners in constructive possession, just by owning a spring.
They're things the ATF chooses not to pursue, apparently.

[Dreaming100Straight]

So, "indexing" by indicating where to drill or cut in any way is not OK by the ATF.

Nobody said that. Indexing those holes is a factor in determining how much work is needed to take a lower to the point that it is considered to be readily completed. In the recent determination letter, ATF found that not only places for drilling the sear, hammer, and trigger pin holes had been indexed, but that the boundaries of the fire control cavity were indexed by use of the polymer biscuit.

[Tininjun]

BATF charged him with "constructive possession". I never did hear how it turned out....

]

So if I have a Book of matches and a map of Yellowstone National Park, I'm potentially an Arsonist?

BTW, "indexing" like your index finger which you point with, points you to a location. the index location is not of finished size, and would need to be drilled and reamed to complete. Common hand tools might get it done but it will never be done "right" and a major concern for reliability is a factor.... it may go "bang" once, the FCG is finicky in "hand made" applications. Complete lowers come in at .001"-.003" (+/-) in this area on items I'v worked on, you just cant get that accuracy in a drill-press and vice.

AK's on the other hand I can do in a bench vice and all hand tools with less concern for reliability. (I don't do them like that anymore LOL)

[FrankenMauser]

In the recent determination letter, ATF found that not only places for drilling the sear, hammer, and trigger pin holes had been indexed, but that the boundaries of the fire control cavity were indexed by use of the polymer biscuit.

I didn't see the fire control cavity argument, other than the ATF assuming it was formed before being filled.

Even so.... the "boundaries" are not 'indexed' by the biscuit. It is significantly undersized and still requires material removal to reach full dimension - for width, length, depth, and shape.


You won't find a sear in an AR lower, unless it's a machinegun or running a self-contained after-market trigger group. I'm assuming you meant "selector"?

[Dreaming100Straight]

I don't why I typed "sear" instead of selector, but I meant the selector pin hole. I used indexing because that is the term used by ATF. I suppose that even if the hole still has to be further machined, ATF will take the position that indexing still makes a blank more readily completed.

As for what I wrote about the biscuit indexing the boundaries of the fire control cavity, you said that you didn't see any discussion of that. Did you read the determination letter in response to EP's request for reconsideration of ATF's earlier determination? Would you care to be more specific as to additional machining required to complete the fire control cavity upon removal of the biscuit?

[Armorer-at-Law]

Nobody said that. Indexing those holes is a factor in determining how much work is needed to take a lower to the point that it is considered to be readily completed. In the recent determination letter, ATF found that not only places for drilling the sear, hammer, and trigger pin holes had been indexed, but that the boundaries of the fire control cavity were indexed by use of the polymer biscuit.

The letter states:

In addition to the formation of the fire-control cavity in the manufacturing process, your manufacturing process results in "excess material extending past the exterior walls of the casting, indicating the approximate locations of the holes to be drilled for the selector, hammer, and trigger pins"
* * *
However, based upon your explanation of the manufacturing process, this excess material indexing the location for the holes to be drilled is, by itself, sufficient to classify the sample as a firearm receiver. See photo 6, below.

(Emphasis added)

Even so.... the "boundaries" are not 'indexed' by the biscuit. It is significantly undersized and still requires material removal to reach full dimension - for width, length, depth, and shape.

Right or wrong, the ATF disagrees. See p. 5 of the letter.

[Dreaming100Straight]

Some confusion stems from the posting of BATFE's response to EP's former attorney's reconsideration letter, without the reconsideration letter being posted by EP's current attorney. I believe to a large extent BATFE 's determination is based on information supplied in the applican't's letter.

[FrankenMauser]

Thanks, A-a-T. I must have missed that, or forgotten about it.

Would you care to be more specific as to additional machining required to complete the fire control cavity upon removal of the biscuit?

Well, you can't just "remove" the biscuit. It has to be machined out (or attacked with an unregistered dremel, as suggested by EP Armory, if you want an ugly pile of unusable crap).
Once the block/biscuit is gone, you have to open it up by:
(based on my EP lowers - others may differ)
FCG pocket width @ trigger/hammer - approximately 0.2" (from about 0.5" to 0.690")
FCG pocket width @ selector - approximately 0.060" (from about .375" to 0.438")
FCG pocket length - approximately 0.350" (from about 2.200" to 2.560")
FCG pocket depth - approximately 0.150" (from about 1.1" to 1.249")*
Trigger hole in floor of FCG pocket - approximately 0.130" x 0.490" (needs to be 0.312" x 0.680" - starts at about 0.188" x 0.188", off center)

It has no real bearing on the current legality discussion. But as I've mentioned before, the trigger, hammer, and selector holes will be in the wrong places if you use the "indexes" (drill guides) to drill your holes. To end up with a functional receiver, you need to remove the guides and layout the hole positions yourself. (I knocked them off with a chisel.)



*(Because of the poor design, engineering, and wrong dimensions all over the receiver, milling to full depth greatly weakens the receiver, because the floor ends up quite thin. ...But your FCG and selector won't function without doing it - even if you layout the holes in the correct positions.... )

[44 AMP]

Just curious, but would the way to "pin" down the ATF on this be to (registering it as a firearm, and following all laws) complete the plastic lower, drilling where the guides are, and then completing the rifle, which will not fire?

(assuming you are correct, that if you drill the holes where they put the guides, the rifle won't work) Then the non-functioning rifle could be used as evidence that the "indexing marks" are actually spurious, and using them will not result in a functional firearm, therefore, the ATF using them as criteria is an error.

One would have to be certain that the rifle would not fire, even once, though. AND it would have to fail to fire (even once) no matter what physical manipulation the ATF put it through, otherwise, you would be validating their position.

[FrankenMauser]

Just curious, but would the way to "pin" down the ATF on this be to (registering it as a firearm, and following all laws) complete the plastic lower, drilling where the guides are, and then completing the rifle, which will not fire?

I don't think so. With additional material removal and/or hammer and trigger modification, you can get the hammer and trigger to function, albeit poorly. But... the situation is likely to be seen as "readily converted to a firearm" by the ATF (assuming they didn't already declare it a firearm).

I don't know why I never considered this before, but... No one says you even have to use an AR-15 hammer and trigger, either. The fact that there are any hammer and trigger pin holes is enough for the ATF. It doesn't have to be an AR-15. It just has to be something that can be readily converted to expel a projectile by explosive force.

Hammer. Trigger. Mounting points for barrel. -Firearm.
So, perhaps my "it still has to be milled" argument really doesn't matter, either.
Trying to make sense of the inconsistent methods used by the ATF to define firearms is so much fun.

[Dreaming100Straight]

I do not believe BATFE's position is that the lower is a firearm because the FCC is completed by removal of the biscuit, but that the intersection of the walls of the biscuit and the lower indicates how much and where to remove material, even though some additional machining needs to be done to complete the lower (Don't you have to reduce the ribs to the point that they are even with the walls of the FCC?).

Any problem with the positioning of markings indicating where to drill trigger, hammer, or selector pin holes would be a manufacturing defect which you might look tot he seller or manufacturer to remedy. Technical considers the configuration of submitted prototypes and how easily they taken to the point that they expel a projectile. It is not necessary that the AR function in semi automatic, but that it expels a single bullet for its lower to be classified as a receiver and, hence, a firearm.

[FrankenMauser]

Don't you have to reduce the ribs to the point that they are even with the walls of the FCC?

On older versions of the EP lowers, that seemed to be the case. However, mine (from late January) required additional milling beyond just removing the ribs. Once I took the ribs down to flush, the FCG pocket wass still too narrow, too short, and not deep enough for hammer and trigger installation. (And even if it was wide enough and deep enough to get the parts in, the hammer would have hung up on the front wall, before it ever struck the firing pin in a 'standard' AR upper receiver assembly.)

[Dreaming100Straight]

Who knows? From what you say EP changed the specs for the lower from when it first requested a determination letter. I do not believe they advised ATF of any when EP requested reconsideration.