The Gun Counter

SBR prosecution

Introducing unrelated
ATF FATD letters at trial will confuse the jury and place the jury in the position of deciphering
nuances of ATF opinion letters as opposed to focusing on the specific firearm at issue in this case.

I'm not sure if I should roll my eyes at that or laugh at that.

"Don't show the jury that we make up the rules as we go along."

Is it wrong that this makes me want to build one of my stripped lowers into a pistol, because reasons?

I have two questions who didn't see this coming, and for those who didn't, would you be interested in buying a lovely bridge that I happen to be trying to unload?

The only part that is unsurprising about it is ATF prosecuting somebody in defiance of their own rulings. Could have just as easily been over a method of permanently attaching a muzzle extension, or what constitutes a legal semi build of a former subgun, or them deciding (again) that their previously approved method of demilling is no longer OK. Or that wipes are now silencer parts, but now they are not, however now they are again... Oh, they did that, didn't they? At least they didn't prosecute anybody over that one.

Not only in Defiance of their own rulings, but gag orders at trial so the defense couldn't introduce it, and then further gag orders on what exactly was going on in the trial, to keep the public from finding out about it.

It may sound like tinfoilhattery, but it could have been the plan all along - let pistol braces exist, then go after the users, creating a pr victory. I mean, it sounds like something Lex Luthor would come up with, but this is BATFE we're talking about here..

Now everybody is going to be David Olofson.

HTRN wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:15 am Not only in Defiance of their own rulings, but gag orders at trial so the defense couldn't introduce it, and then further gag orders on what exactly was going on in the trial, to keep the public from finding out about it.

That's what gets me. They don't want their own rulings introduced as evidence in a trial.

I wonder if you could use their motion to suppress their rulings as evidence in a trial.

Supposedly the weapon in question. If bad taste were a felony he'd already be buried under the jail.

Most of the other braces, such as the SIG brace, have a specific approval, on the specific brace - from what a gleaned, via a quick scan from the vendor's website, their letter was not issued specifically for their brace, and they just relied on a general opinion

Netpackrat wrote: ↑Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:42 am

What the hell is that crap? /butthead