Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
If you'll remember, despite a restraining order to prevent it, the ATF executed a search warrant on San Diego gun parts retailer Ares Armor in March during which their computers and sales records were seized. What chapped the ATF's hide was Ares sales of 80% polymer lowers that the regulators reckoned were illegal and they wanted to know who had purchased them.
Since then owner Dimitrios Karras has been fighting the battle in the courts and according to their web site, they've won round one by getting their hands on the affidavit on which the ATF based their request for a search warrant. Ares' statement on the matter after the jump . . .
Our first confrontation with the ATF in the court room has come to a close with us standing victorious. We are now in possession of the Affidavit used to obtain a search warrant against our company.
We now have the proof we so desperately needed that the ATF intentionally deceived a Magistrate Judge with insidious intent. We will be filing our next suit against the ATF soon. Our aim is to recover our damages and most importantly to get a Federal Court order that forces the ATF to destroy all stolen information from our computer systems!
We have been literally putting every penny we make into this legal fight. I AM COMMITTED TO THIS FIGHT TILL THE END! I have cut my own salary to less than minimum wage to help pay our legal bills. If you need anything from our store, we could really use the support!
My heart goes out to the Magistrate who was deceived by the ATF. To be the victim of trickery is a terrible feeling that I think all of us can relate to.
Allow me to point your attention to just a couple of their deceptions that we have found in our initial review of the document. There are most likely many more. To make this easier to read, quotes from the ATF's affidavit will be in RED and quotes from outside sources will be in BLUE.
DECEPTIVE STATEMENT #1 READILY CONVERTED APPLIES TO FRAME OR RECEIVER
III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION, Page 3, Item 9
Definition of a "Firearm"
9. A "firearm" is "any weapon…Which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive." 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A). This definition includes "the frame or receiver of any such weapon," 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B)…
The above is a clear cut case of leaving a small little portion out to mislead the reader. The ATF's goal in this first example of deception is to lead the Judge into believing that the term "may readily be converted" applies to "frame or receiver." The ATF knows full well that the readily converted clause does not apply to a frame or receiver. Take careful note of the … after the term any weapon. The law has (including a starter gun) in that gap. This is an important inclusion as that demonstrates exactly why that language was placed into the law.
In Jason Davis' Letter to the ATF Dated July 20, 2013 this is fully explained:
As noted, the term "firearm" means a "weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile," and also "the frame or receiver of any such weapon." (18 U.S.C. §921 (a)(3).) Both the "designed" definition and the "may readily be converted" definition apply to a weapon that expels a projectile, not to a frame or receiver. A frame or receiver is not a "weapon," will not and is not designed to expel a projectile, and may not readily be converted to expel a projectile.
DECEPTIVE STATEMENT #2 80% RECEIVERS CAN BE "READILY ASSEMBLED"
III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION, Page 3, Item 9
Definition of a "Firearm"
…"any combination of parts either designed or intended" from which a firearm can be "readily assembled." 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4)(C). A "receiver under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B) includes a "lower receiver."
This time the ATF misleads the Judge into believing that "readily assembled" applies to "lower receiver." Yet again, this is a slick attempt to change definitions in the law.
Again in Jason Davis' Letter to the ATF Dated July 20, 2013 this is also fully explained:
The Gun Control Act recognizes the distinction between "Assembly and "fabrication." (Compare 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(29) (defining "handgun" in part as "any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled") with §921 (a)(24) (referring to "any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler" (emphasis added.).) The term "assemble" means "to fit or join together (the parts of something, such as a machine): to assemble the parts of a kit."…The term "fabricate" is broader, as it also synonymous with manufacture: "to make, build, or construct." … Thus, drilling, milling, and other machining would constitute fabrication, but assembly more narrowly means putting together parts already fabricated.
DECEPTIVE STATEMENT #3 IMPLIES THAT FINISHING AN 80% IS UNLAWFUL!
III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION, Page 7, Item 16 and 17
16. In the case of this investigation, manufacturers are creating Kevlar reinforced polymer variant lower receiver with certain cavities filled by different colored polymer…These variant lower receivers are made functional through the use of specialized tools…These are fairly simple and affordable hand tools…are readily available at most hardware/home improvement stores.
17. Using either a drill press or a hand drill, the equipment operator drills, cuts, or mills cavities in specific locations on the AR-15 variant lower receiver. Compare the AR-15 variant receiver depicted below left with the AR-15 lower depicted below right.
In this false statement the Judge is shown how a "variant" receiver is not a firearm prior to milling. However, he is not informed that milling the receiver is in fact a lawful thing to do. As a matter of fact, the ATF intentionally leaves out that important detail in the entirety of the Affidavit. Additionally, please take note of the image which shows the milled 80% Receiver to be now classified as a firearm. This will be important in DECEPTIVE STATEMENT NUMBER #8 where they say that ALL receivers legally must be serialized.
DECEPTIVE STATEMENT #4 VARIANT RECEIVER AND PLUG ARE NOT STUCK TOGETHER
III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION, Page 9, Page 10, Item 19
…the receiver and plug being [SIC] are formed in such a way that they are not adhered to each other. As such, the plug can be removed and the firearm can readily be placed into a firing condition.
Firstly, the above grammar mistake demonstrates the speed and sloppy work that was put in their document. Secondly, this statement is a flat out lie. The ATF was at the time in possession of THOUSANDS of "variant receivers" from EP Armory and could have verified the incorrectness of this statement with ease. The plastic melts together during production and becomes scientifically one piece.
In my Letter to B. Todd Jones Dated April 8th, 2014 this is fully explained:
As he has explained to me, he uses the same polymer compound for both the "biscuit" and for the outer portion of his product. This causes the polymers to bond to one another and form a "single piece of material." This means that the fire-control cavity, although differently colored, is in fact integral to the item. Therefore; the fire-control "cavity" has NOT been created.
What is also interesting about this statement is that it leads the reader to believe that the plug is not stuck to the variant lower and could be readily placed into a firing condition. For these receivers to be placed into a firing condition it would require not just ASSEMBLY but in addition, require FABRICATION. This statement nudges at the idea that the plug could be removed by hand and that the firearm ONLY requires ASSEMBLY, which is again false.
DECEPTIVE STATEMENT #5 INDEXING MARKS MAGICALLY TURN BLOCK OF MATERIAL INTO A FIREARM
III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION, Page 10, Item 19
ATF has consistently held that the indexing of the fire-control-cavity [SIC] of the AR-type receiver (or any of the mounting pin holes of the fire-control-components [SIC]) is the same as if it were formed, and thus, constitutes the making of a firearm frame or receiver as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A).
Not only is this deception in conflict with previous statements from the FTB but I would like to direct your attention to the UNITED STATES v. PRINCE. The ATF has already lost the "indexing marks" argument in Federal Court. Please read the following:
"The court finds that the metal flat shipped to Prince is not a firearm. The court carefully considered the expert testimony of Agent Adam Galbraith, and reviewed the material submitted by the government concerning ATF opinions. However, the court simply does not believe that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and holes constitutes a "receiver," i.e., a "firearm." Rather, the flat piece of metal is somewhat akin to a piece of paper with lines drawn on it as a guide to make a paper airplane. Although making the paper airplane might be the intended use, it is not an airplane until it is properly folded. Until that time, it is a patterned piece of paper. Simply put, this court has no evidentiary or legal basis for holding that a flat piece of metal with laser perforations and some holes constitutes, ultimately, a "firearm.""
For more information on this case click here!
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/daniel-zimmerman/ares-armor/