TexasCHLforum.com

Man building and selling AR-15's without serial numbers get's out of jail because it takes both an upper and a lower receiver to be a 'firearm'.



https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2 ... al-ar-15s/

Roh appears to have gotten off the hook by way of one of the oddest technicalities in recent memory. Because of some obscure codicils in the Gun Control Act, the judge was responding to claims from the defense in a way that might have declared what Roh was doing to be at least mostly legal...

The problem with AR-15 style rifles is that the receiver comes in two pieces. Each, by itself, isn’t sufficient to meet the federal definition of a receiver. Roh was selling pieces that a felon could assemble into a functional weapon with relative ease, but none of the pieces he was dishing out technically qualified as a firearm...

I understand the felon not having guns if* it was a violent offense imo, as far as the uppers go im glad that you can still buy and sell them without a FFL.

Not enough specific information, but sounds like the Judge was correct even if BATFE doesn't like it.

And AR 'recievers' do NOT come in two pieces, the basic forged receiver is one piece and would require a serial number. You would have to add all the other components to it (including a Bolt Carrier Group) to make it functional. The receiver (serialized) is THE part considered the firearm. But in the report they don't say what parts he was selling or manufacturing.

flintknapper wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:15 pm Not enough specific information, but sounds like the Judge was correct even if BATFE doesn't like it.

And AR 'recievers' do NOT come in two pieces, the basic forged receiver is one piece and would require a serial number. You would have to add all the other components to it (including a Bolt Carrier Group) to make it functional. The receiver (serialized) is THE part considered the firearm. But in the report they don't say what parts he was selling or manufacturing.

He was completing 80% lowers. Actually, he had 80% build parties where people came to his shop and completed their own 80% lowers. An AR15 lower, according to this judge and another, do not meet the legal definition of a receiver.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-a ... s-trouble/

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.

To be clear Only the AR15 lower has the serial number on it. I have yet to see a receiver or upper with a serial number on it.

I wonder if this could reverse other charges for people in the same situation??

TreyHouston wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:11 pmI wonder if this could reverse other charges for people in the same situation??

It would have to wouldn't it? Maybe not nation wide but in the 9th circuit, no?

I thought that if you built an AR for your own use it didn't have to have a serial number. I also thought that you could not sell it. Now you can sell the partially built lower and let the buyer complete and not need a serial number and that would be legal. People sell partially built lowers all the time, even those epoxy jobs. I am definitely not an expert though as I have never built my own. Please correct me if I am wrong.

warnmar10 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:44 pm

TreyHouston wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:11 pmI wonder if this could reverse other charges for people in the same situation??

It would have to wouldn't it? Maybe not nation wide but in the 9th circuit, no?

No, because the prosecution & defendant cut a deal, which ended the trial before it would have established precedent.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

More to the story, thought:

The judge

... did find that Roh was guilty of selling completed firearms without a license, subjecting him to a possible prison sentence.

. Seems he was charging $1,000 for complete AR's, using 80% lowers, to quite a diverse 'customer' base.

His customers, according to records seized in the search, included 19 convicted felons, six domestic abusers, and one person prohibited from possessing guns "due to mental health unfitness." One customer, who had a felony conviction for making terrorist threats, later admitted to buying guns and gun parts from Roh that he then trafficked in Mexico, according to court records.

And, the ATF had already warned him more than once that he needed to cease operations, unless he obtained a FFL for manufacturing.

Now he's selling industrial vacuums .

gtolbert09 wrote: Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:34 pm To be clear Only the AR15 lower has the serial number on it. I have yet to see a receiver or upper with a serial number on it.

Some manufacturers actruly put a serial number on the upper but its for warranty work not by law in which im sure you were talking about.

It's not illegal (in TX) to sell an unserialized firearm that you made as long as you are not in the business of selling firearms. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Definitely an interesting development, though, if the classification of an AR lower as a firearm is modified. If that takes hold, we will see new legislation very quickly. There's no way, given the current climate, that we'll end up with 100% complete, unserialized AR lowers (and everything else) available by mail w/o FFL.

Odiferous wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:09 am It's not illegal (in TX) to sell an unserialized firearm that you made as long as you are not in the business of selling firearms. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Definitely an interesting development, though, if the classification of an AR lower as a firearm is modified. If that takes hold, we will see new legislation very quickly. There's no way, given the current climate, that we'll end up with 100% complete, unserialized AR lowers (and everything else) available by mail w/o FFL.

That is the part of it that has always given me some concern. What exactly constitutes being in the business of selling firearms? Back when Odumbell first got elected and AK's, AR's and any other rifle of this type became hard to get, I started selling many of my extra.s to take advantage of double, triple and some times 8 fold profits. I never really found anything stating at what point the ATF considers one to "be in the business of selling firearms". Heck, I am still not sure what it takes.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:38 am

Odiferous wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:09 am It's not illegal (in TX) to sell an unserialized firearm that you made as long as you are not in the business of selling firearms. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Definitely an interesting development, though, if the classification of an AR lower as a firearm is modified. If that takes hold, we will see new legislation very quickly. There's no way, given the current climate, that we'll end up with 100% complete, unserialized AR lowers (and everything else) available by mail w/o FFL.

That is the part of it that has always given me some concern. What exactly constitutes being in the business of selling firearms? Back when Odumbell first got elected and AK's, AR's and any other rifle of this type became hard to get, I started selling many of my extra.s to take advantage of double, triple and some times 8 fold profits. I never really found anything stating at what point the ATF considers one to "be in the business of selling firearms". Heck, I am still not sure what it takes.

It's what the ATF decides on a case by case basis. They don't have a set standard.

Jago668 wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:52 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:38 am

Odiferous wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:09 am It's not illegal (in TX) to sell an unserialized firearm that you made as long as you are not in the business of selling firearms. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Definitely an interesting development, though, if the classification of an AR lower as a firearm is modified. If that takes hold, we will see new legislation very quickly. There's no way, given the current climate, that we'll end up with 100% complete, unserialized AR lowers (and everything else) available by mail w/o FFL.

That is the part of it that has always given me some concern. What exactly constitutes being in the business of selling firearms? Back when Odumbell first got elected and AK's, AR's and any other rifle of this type became hard to get, I started selling many of my extra.s to take advantage of double, triple and some times 8 fold profits. I never really found anything stating at what point the ATF considers one to "be in the business of selling firearms". Heck, I am still not sure what it takes.

It's what the ATF decides on a case by case basis. They don't have a set standard.

That was how I interpreted it as well. Which leaves one at the mercy of the ATF I suppose.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:54 am

Jago668 wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:52 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:38 am

Odiferous wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:09 am It's not illegal (in TX) to sell an unserialized firearm that you made as long as you are not in the business of selling firearms. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Definitely an interesting development, though, if the classification of an AR lower as a firearm is modified. If that takes hold, we will see new legislation very quickly. There's no way, given the current climate, that we'll end up with 100% complete, unserialized AR lowers (and everything else) available by mail w/o FFL.

That is the part of it that has always given me some concern. What exactly constitutes being in the business of selling firearms? Back when Odumbell first got elected and AK's, AR's and any other rifle of this type became hard to get, I started selling many of my extra.s to take advantage of double, triple and some times 8 fold profits. I never really found anything stating at what point the ATF considers one to "be in the business of selling firearms". Heck, I am still not sure what it takes.

It's what the ATF decides on a case by case basis. They don't have a set standard.

That was how I interpreted it as well. Which leaves one at the mercy of the ATF I suppose.

That's a scary thought, you gave me a twitch just thinking about it.