ATF prosecution for pistol as SBR

[Defender]

Im not in a hurry to get tagged for jury duty, but if i do, i hope its a case involving some of this crap, lol.

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, Defender said:

Im not in a hurry to get tagged for jury duty, but if i do, i hope its a case involving some of this crap, lol.

The jury box is the box for defending liberty most often ignored yet also the one that can have the most immediate impact. Before judging guilt or innocence, one should judge the law first.

[A.J. Holst]

4 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

The cheek weld was also modified to extend and I don't think there is any letter about that.  And most well educated NFA people believe that specific modification is what caused this case.  

Thanks for the clarification! 

Sin occurs when one has desire and opportunity.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Gotthegoods

[Chucktshoes]

Ok, TTAG wrote up an article covering this case and included some very vital information that was left out of the Prince Law article. 

 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/11/daniel-zimmerman/atf-suffers-rare-court-loss-in-ohio-short-barrel-rifle-prosecution/

 

Here are some key points:

Toledo police responded to a domestic disturbance call in March at the home of Kelland and Christina Wright. Mr. Wright, a Marine veteran, allegedly threw a cell phone at his wife and was arrested. As a part of an arrest for a domestic violence complaint, police confiscated all firearms in the home, including an AR pistol equipped with the Maxim cheek rest.

When the gun was subsequently examined by the ATF, they deemed it an unregistered short barrel rifle (SBR). That determination was based on the fact that, according to the ATF’s measurements, the Maxim cheek rest — which had been altered with the addition of a rubber “cane tip” on the end — resulted in a length of pull that’s greater than the 13.5-inch limit the ATF says is the maximum for any similar AR pistol accessory.

Wright had apparently added the cane tip to keep the gun upright when stored in his safe. Prosecutors argued that was an illegal alteration to the gun.

As a result, Wright was charged with possession of an unregistered short barrel rifle, a felony.

There were a couple of problems with the caseagainst Wright, however. First, the ATF has never issued an official public opinion letter stating that AR pistols with such accessories— cheek rests, pistol braces, etc. — must have a length of pull of no more than 13.5 inches to avoid being considered an SBR.

The ATF had communicated that fact to various manufacturers in private opinion letters concerning their specific products over the years (and some of those companies have chosen to make those letters public), but nothing has ever been communicated to the general gun-buying public by the agency.

As a result, the defense argued that Wright had no reasonable way of knowing about the 13.5-inch length of pull limit. There’s a Supreme Court precedent in Staples v. United States that found a gun owner has to knowthat his firearm has characteristics that bring it under NFA regulation to be guilty of a crime.

Regarding the ATF asking to seal documents:

The Prince post also mentioned that the ATF asked for and was granted an order sealing a number of documents used in the case. As a part of their defense, Wright’s attorneys used a selection of those opinion letters the ATF had issued to manufacturers in connection with specific products under consideration. The ATF argued against releasing those for use by the defense in the trial, but lost that fight.

The ATF then, reasonably enough, sought to have those letters sealed and not included in the public record of the trial because they contained potentially sensitive competitive information concerning the companies involved…not because they were trying to hide any internal ATF decision-making from the public. Those documents were never intended for public disclosure unless the companies themselves decided to release them.

And for the final coup de grace, the defendant was represented by a public defender. So he didn’t owe a dime for his defense. 

I just want to repeat, the ATF had their asses handed to them by a PD.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Chucktshoes

[Capbyrd]

How can a pistol have a length of pull?

[Erik88]

26 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

And for the final coup de grace, the defendant was represented by a public defender. So he didn’t owe a dime for his defense. 

I just want to repeat, the ATF had their asses handed to them by a PD.

I wonder if he was still convicted of domestic violence and how that impacted his ability to get his guns back. 

[Chucktshoes]

5 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I wonder if he was still convicted of domestic violence and how that impacted his ability to get his guns back. 

My understanding is that case was dropped. 

[Chucktshoes]

7 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

How can a pistol have a length of pull?

The wonders of gun laws know no ends. 

[GlockSpock]

Really, this seems like a good case for gun owners overall. Bad example of a defendant, maybe.

[GlockSpock]

But the way I read it, we could do away with the NFA entirely simply by never educating the next generation about it. They couldn't be convinced the first time if they didn't know it was illegal.

That is...an interesting precedent.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, GlockSpock said:

Really, this seems like a good case for gun owners overall. Bad example of a defendant, maybe.

Maybe, but it could give some a false sense of security. Best I can tell that jury decision has zero impact on anyone except that defendant.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, GlockSpock said:

But the way I read it, we could do away with the NFA entirely simply by never educating the next generation about it. They couldn't be convinced the first time if they didn't know it was illegal.

That is...an interesting precedent.

The SCOTUS decision doesn’t mean they get off if they don’t know the law. It just means the government needs to prove they knew the weapon had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a machinegun.

Like the guy that loaned his AR that would fire full auto. He told the guy it loaned it to it would fire full auto; he went to prison.

Edited November 2, 2018 by DaveTN

[Omega]

24 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

The SCOTUS decision doesn’t mean they get off if they don’t know the law. It just means the government needs to prove they knew the weapon had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a machinegun.

Like the guy that loaned his AR that would fire full auto. He told the guy it loaned it to it would fire full auto; he went to prison.

This poor SOB: https://www.wnd.com/2011/04/289181/

The ATF needs their ass handed to them more often IMO.

[DaveTN]

14 minutes ago, Omega said:

The ATF needs their ass handed to them more often IMO.

True, but the ATF never gets their ass handed to them. They take their arrests to court and win, lose or draw; they go home at the end of the day having lost nothing. They leave victims in bankruptcy or jail in their wake.

Sorry, but I contend that the ATF does not have, or should not have, the authority to okay things like braces and bumpstocks that are clear violations of the law. If short barreled rifles with or without stocks are legal; then do away with the law outlawing them. If devices that make a rifle fully automatic are okay; then do away with the ban on full auto weapons. Anything else is inviting people that believe what the BATF says to head for prison or bankruptcy.

[Capbyrd]

21 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

True, but the ATF never gets their ass handed to them. They take their arrests to court and win, lose or draw; they go home at the end of the day having lost nothing. They leave victims in bankruptcy or jail in their wake.

Sorry, but I contend that the ATF does not have, or should not have, the authority to okay things like braces and bumpstocks that are clear violations of the law. If short barreled rifles with or without stocks are legal; then do away with the law outlawing them. If devices that make a rifle fully automatic are okay; then do away with the ban on full auto weapons. Anything else is inviting people that believe what the BATF says to head for prison or bankruptcy.

Bump stocks don’t make guns “fully automatic.”

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, Capbyrd said:

Bump stocks don’t make guns “fully automatic.”

No more than a belt loop or a shoestring.