The ATF’s Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a ‘Firearm’ Is In Serious Trouble

[GURPS]

Joseph Roh was smart enough to hire a good attorney, Gregory Nicolaysen. Nicolaysen did his homework and actually read the federal statute that lays out what constitutes — legally speaking — a firearm. As CNN reports, when Roh’s case came to trial in 2018 . . .

Nicolaysen argued that the definition of a receiver under the relevant federal code differed in various ways from the AR-15 component Roh was accused of manufacturing.
Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” (emphasis added)
The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/t...-15-lower-as-a-firearm-is-in-serious-trouble/

 

[Yooper]

Joseph Roh was smart enough to hire a good attorney, Gregory Nicolaysen. Nicolaysen did his homework and actually read the federal statute that lays out what constitutes — legally speaking — a firearm. As CNN reports, when Roh’s case came to trial in 2018 . . .

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/t...-15-lower-as-a-firearm-is-in-serious-trouble/

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Unfortunately, almost certainly the law will be re-written to "fix" the "problem."

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Gilligan]

The ATF is really wrapping itself around the axle with some of their misguided and contorted rulings. Recently they declared that some "uppers" made for AR-15 "lowers" were firearms and not just parts. So, in effect, there are now firearms out there that are "two firearms in one weapon".