AR-15 isn't a firearm?

[DadSmith]

 

[JAL]

The case he talks about unfortunately didn't survive review. Ultimately resolved in favor of ATF. His discussion near the end talks about the most recent ATF Rule regarding Frames and Receivers attempting to define blocks of aluminum as firearms and how problematic the current Gun Laws as passed by Congress are regarding ATF attempting to redefine everything.

See correction posting on this below . . . it was dismissed with prejudice by the Ohio District Court - the trial court - and nothing followed it in the Sixth Circuit.

 

[Mgderf]

My guns no longer identify as firearms.
They now self-identify as wireless hand- held peace keeping devices and you must address them as such or you are a racist bigot.

 

[Chewie]

My guns no longer identify as firearms.
They now self-identify as wireless hand- held peace keeping devices and you must address them as such or you are a racist bigot.

My firearms have been redefined as cordless hole punches! The t-shirt my son got me a couple of years ago clearly states that.
If the ATF can do that without legislation so can I!

 

[JAL]

The case he talks about unfortunately didn't survive review. Ultimately resolved in favor of ATF. His discussion near the end talks about the most recent ATF Rule regarding Frames and Receivers attempting to define blocks of aluminum as firearms and how problematic the current Gun Laws as passed by Congress are regarding ATF attempting to redefine everything.

I'm correcting some misunderstanding of the video. I've been unable to find any appeal of the District Court's decision that would reverse it which is mystifying. I would have thought the Government would have appealed it. Nothing showed up in the Sixth Circuit for it. However, I don't believe the decision there in Ohio gained any citation traction elsewhere. It's apparent Rowold and the other defendant walked free. However, I did find an older case which appears to be the same Rowold from 1993 in Indiana -- another firearm case -- and it looks like he was convicted in that one.

 

[JAL]

My guns no longer identify as firearms.
They now self-identify as wireless hand- held peace keeping devices and you must address them as such or you are a racist bigot.

Mine now identify as nail and tack drivers.

 

[KLB]

I'm correcting some misunderstanding of the video. I've been unable to find any appeal of the District Court's decision that would reverse it which is mystifying. I would have thought the Government would have appealed it. Nothing showed up in the Sixth Circuit for it. However, I don't believe the decision there in Ohio gained any citation traction elsewhere. It's apparent Rowold and the other defendant walked free. However, I did find an older case which appears to be the same Rowold from 1993 in Indiana -- another firearm case -- and it looks like he was convicted in that one.

If they appeal and lose the loss is greater than just letting it go.

I will be surprised if someone else doesn't use the defense in the future though somewhere else.

 

[Methane Herder]

Ironically, not a firearm. Not a destructive device. Great for clearing snow off your driveway.

MH

 

[Mgderf]

View attachment 326355
Ironically, not a firearm. Not a destructive device. Great for clearing snow off your driveway.

MH

Yeah, one would think that should be the epitome of a firearm.

 

[duanewade]

 

[JAL]

View attachment 326355
Ironically, not a firearm. Not a destructive device. Great for clearing snow off your driveway.

MH

Works well on concrete driveways, and takes care of any vegetation trying to grow up between the cracks. Your mileage may vary though on asphalt surfaced driveways if you don't pay attention to the amount of heat being applied.

 

[JAL]

If they appeal and lose the loss is greater than just letting it go.

I will be surprised if someone else doesn't use the defense in the future though somewhere else.

This just came to mind. In a criminal case at trial court level (Federal District Court) it generally wouldn't be considered precedential, only "as applied" to that specific criminal case and defendant. The risk at appellate level, however, is possibly setting a precedent in a "published" opinion that can be cited. That said, I've seen non-precedential cases (trial court and "unpublished" appellate opinions) cited before in oral argument and briefings for "persuasiveness". It behooves opposing counsel to point that out, arguing it cannot (shouldn't) be considered.

That said, some things can and do become important, such as what emerged regarding the "length of pull" ATF secretly used with pistol braces in an Ohio case where they argued it was an SBR, not a pistol, by virtue of the LOP being "too long". That's not the norm, however.