America's 1st Freedom by Stephen P. Halbrook March 23, 2020
The media has recently made much ado about prosecutions being dismissed involving AR-15 lower receivers. The Gun Control Act (GCA) regulates “firearms,†which are defined to include a “frame or receiver,†not half a frame or receiver.
An Associated Press report quoted me on January 13 saying that “now the cat is out of the bag†because courts are awakening to the fact that a lower receiver doesn’t meet the legal definition of a “receiver.†The cat should have never been in the bag in the first place. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) defined the “frame or receiver†in 1968, when the GCA passed. Trouble is, the ATF didn’t follow its own definition and neither did federal prosecutors. Here’s how this happened.
The GCA defines “firearm†in part as something that “will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive†and as “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.†The ATF’s definition states: “Firearm frame or receiver. 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.†That definition couldn’t be clearer.
Finally, in a 2016 case called U.S. v. Jimenez, the federal public defender in Oakland, Calif., filed a motion to dismiss an indictment involving only a lower receiver, citing my Deskbook and quoting the ATF’s 1971 memo. U.S. District Judge James Donato agreed on the basis that a lower receiver by itself does not fit the definition of “frame or receiver.†Indeed, the application of that definition to a lower receiver would be unconstitutionally vague. “The parties agree that the AR-15 lower receiver houses the hammer and firing mechanism, and the upper receiver houses the bolt or breechblock and is threaded at its forward position to attach to the barrel.â€
The issue recurred in 2019 in a case from the Central District of California, U.S. v. Roh, which involved an indictment for manufacturing AR-15 lower receivers without a license. Judge James V. Selna issued a tentative order granting a motion for acquittal because the AR-15 lower receiver “does not contain a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel†as required by the regulation, and is thus not a “firearm.†The ATF has no authority to classify it contrary to the definition, and anyway the public has no way to know about its unpublished classifications. Roh was found guilty of a separate charge of manufacturing without a license because he manufactured and sold some complete rifles.
More:
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2020/3/23/what-makes-a-gun-a-gun/
