Gun Control & RKBA

Eugene

(61,807 posts) Sat Oct 12, 2019, 09:59 AM Oct 2019

He sold illegal AR-15s. Feds agreed to let him go free to avoid hurting gun control efforts

Source: CNN

He sold illegal AR-15s. Feds agreed to let him go free to avoid hurting gun control efforts

By Scott Glover, CNN
Updated 2307 GMT (0707 HKT) October 11, 2019

(CNN) — For more than a year, Joseph Roh illegally manufactured AR-15-style rifles in a warehouse south of Los Angeles.

His customers, more than two dozen of whom were legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, could push a button, pull a lever, and walk away a short time later with a fully assembled, untraceable semi-automatic weapon for about $1,000, according to court records.

Roh continued his black-market operation despite being warned in person by agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that he was breaking the law.

But five years after raiding his business and indicting him, federal authorities quietly cut a deal with Roh earlier this year and agreed to drop the charges.

Why?

The judge in the case had issued a tentative order that, in the eyes of prosecutors, threatened to upend the decades-old Gun Control Act and "seriously undermine the ATF's ability to trace and regulate firearms nationwide."

-snip-

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

He sold illegal AR-15s. Feds agreed to let him go free to avoid hurting gun control efforts (Original Post) Eugene Oct 2019 OP

Trump judge? Federalist Society pro-billionaire judge? sharedvalues Oct 2019 #1

Bush II judge: James Selna sharedvalues Oct 2019 #2

So, what most guns have as a receiver is a combination of upper and lower flamin lib Oct 2019 #3

Your information is incorrect. Straw Man Oct 2019 #4

Since an AR-15 is a gun sarisataka Oct 2019 #5

In the AR's case it would make the most sense to define the bolt carrier group as the "gun" Recursion Oct 2019 #6

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)

1. Trump judge? Federalist Society pro-billionaire judge?

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 10:04 AM

Oct 2019

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)

2. Bush II judge: James Selna

Reply to sharedvalues (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 10:06 AM

Oct 2019

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)

3. So, what most guns have as a receiver is a combination of upper and lower

Reply to Eugene (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 11:44 AM

Oct 2019

receiver, ie together they meet the definition of a gun because the lower houses the trigger and the upper houses the bolt and is threaded to accept a barrel.

The lower is where the serial number is engraved, so thats the part regulated. It doesn't qualify as a gun because it doesn't hold the bolt or barrel. The upper does but isn't regulated because it isn't serialized.

Its fucking nuts.

Straw Man

(6,622 posts)

4. Your information is incorrect.

Reply to flamin lib (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 03:28 PM

Oct 2019

Legally, the serialized part is the gun. On most guns, it's the lower. On some, it's the upper. On others, it's a removable internal subframe.

Wherever the serial number is stamped, that part is legally the gun. Period.

sarisataka

(18,477 posts)

5. Since an AR-15 is a gun

Reply to flamin lib (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 03:58 PM

Oct 2019

(I don't think anyone disputes that) but hat interchangeable parts, something must change to account for that.

The ATF can re-define which part of the AR-15 is the 'gun's. If they do this, which part should it be?

Or the law changes to drop the language of the bolt and barrel to define a 'gun', instead the portion of the receiver which contains the firing mechanism is the 'gun'. This would match the current ATF interpretation.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

6. In the AR's case it would make the most sense to define the bolt carrier group as the "gun"