Man prosecuted for having SBR. It's actually an AR Pistol + Brace.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    ATF Unhinged: Prosecutions Made Up Out of Whole Cloth – You Might Be Next…

    The Government is contending that an extension piece that is designed as a cheek rest is actually a stock or if not, Mr. Wright had a vertical foregrip on his pistol. (We call this roping a heifer, where the Government attempts to contend that no matter how you classify the situation, you have violated some law). Now, some of you are probably saying, hold on, ATF previously issued determinations – such as in relation to the Thorsden determination request letter and ATF’s response – that cheek rests and other devices, which were not designed to be shouldered, are not stocks. (For more discussion on cheek weld determinations, see our blog article Ringing In the New Year ATF Style). And they have issued numerous determinations – such as the one regarding the Magpul Angled Fore-Grip – that angled foregrips are not vertical pistol grips. Yep, but that didn’t stop the ATF and the U.S Attorney’s Office from prosecuting Mr. Wright and seeking to preclude the jurors from seeing or hearing of the determination letters, even though, the Government never once contended that Mr. Wright actually shouldered the cheek weld extension or utilized the angled foregrip
     

    MCgrease08

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Mar 14, 2013
    14,373
    149
    Earth
    The good news is that he was found not guilty, but I'm sure it cost him big bucks to fight the charges.

    Thankfully, after only deliberating for a very short time over lunch, the jurors came back with a verdict of not guilty. However, Mr. Wright has likely incurred tens of thousands of dollars of attorney fees and costs fighting for his freedom – all because ATF decided that it would invent a new interpretation of the law and it did so without notifying the Industry or the public. Let that sink in for a couple minutes…

    Eta: based on courts documents, it appears he was using an adjustable Maxim CQB pistol brace.

    https://www.maximdefense.com/product-category/arm-braces/ar-15/

    And a Stark Equipment angled foregrip. (The court docs did not specific part number, but this is the only angled foregrip I could find from Stark).

    opplanet-stark-se-5-express-forward-grip-od-green.jpg
     
    Last edited:

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    'Oly crap.

    Dude was acquitted - which bodes against future prosecutions on this, which is a good thing.

    That REALLY needs to see greater distribution in the firearms community.

    It doesn't rise to the level of binding precedent elsewhere, but provides a template for how the federales will prosecute this kind of thing.

    (Quick sidenote: this entire federal prosecution occurred under the current federal administration.)
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    The bigger issue here is taking these agencies to the supreme court (im betting it would go that high) and rope in these agencies overly broad power. Returning power only to Congress where it belongs.
    Congress has delegated all of its job to agencies so that it gets to sit on its ass and point the finger of blame at everyone but itself. The republic is suffering because of this intentional and illegal bypass.
     
    Last edited:

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    How did they come across him to prosecute for this? Did he post a picture of the firearm online or was he arrested for some other initial offense and they added this on? Were they trying to set a new precedent and make him the fall guy, the first of many? Or were they just trying to throw anything at this guy and make it stick?
    This isnt how government is supposed to work. Government isnt suposed to go after its citizens its suposed to uphold the law. Government having unlimited resources to bully its citizens when they know they didnt break any law isnt right
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    The bigger issue here is taking these agencies to the supreme court (im betting it would go that high) and rope in these agencies overly broad power. Returning power only to Congress where it belongs.
    Congress has delegated all of its hob to agencies so that it gets to sit on its ass and point the finger of blame at everyone but itself. The republic is suffering because of this intentional and illegal bypass.

    IMHO, getting all of the information in front of a jury, and trusting them to get the right answer, is the best scenario.

    The .gov side of the calculation considers whether a prosecution will result in a conviction. Now they have an actual case they can point to for the proposition that a conviction won't happen - at least not right now.

    I would love it if the feds took an appeal on the procedural issue of the motions in limine or admission of evidence. I SERIOUSLY doubt they will, though. They'll want to avoid making this a precedential decision.
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    IMHO, getting all of the information in front of a jury, and trusting them to get the right answer, is the best scenario.

    The .gov side of the calculation considers whether a prosecution will result in a conviction. Now they have an actual case they can point to for the proposition that a conviction won't happen - at least not right now.

    I would love it if the feds took an appeal on the procedural issue of the motions in limine or admission of evidence. I SERIOUSLY doubt they will, though. They'll want to avoid making this a precedential decision.
    Dragging a citizen in front of a jury when there was no law broken is the best scenario?
    How about government not bullying its citizens by taking them to court in the first place when they didnt harm anyone? ( no law broken?). When government starts prosecuting retired upstanding citizens for things like attempting to not to kill their neighbors dog and thereby not harming anyone not even a beast, that's being a bully. That's not good government, That's a tyrant.

    Not wasting tax dollars or a jury's time in the first place is the best outcome in my humble non lawyer regular guy opinion
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Dragging a citizen in front of a jury when there was no law broken is the best scenario?

    Juries figure out IF a law has been broken.

    In this case, the federales thought it had been. The jury disagreed.

    How about government not bullying its citizens by taking them to court in the first place when they didnt harm anyone? ( no law broken?). When government starts prosecuting retired upstanding citizens for things like attempting to not to kill their neighbors dog and thereby not harming anyone not even a beast, that's being a bully. That's not good government, That's a tyrant.

    bwhahahahahah

    That's a crazy attempt at equivocation. More than happy to re-hash any of the aspects of dog-herding-by-live-fire-in-a-neighborhood, but let's maybe keep this thread on-topic. The OP is a very important event that we should at least try to avoid de-railing. ;)
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    But the prosecution knew by their own agencies previous assessments (firearms division letters) that no laws were broken and they intentionaly had those withheld from the jury so that the jury didnt have all of the facts based on why the man took the actions he took. Your average firearms guy isnt going to intentionaly break the law. We are a very law abiding type of people that prefers NOT to have the government periscope up our ass. So when the government itself tells us yeah you can legaly do that, we take that as gospel.
    Now I'm wondering one if the government even knows what the hellit's doing, or 2 if its intentionally trying to entrap gun owners?

    They were trying to use a jury and a court to basicly legislate a new law. If they would have won they would be plastering the verdict everywhere. But since they lost and didnt get the legislation from the jury box that they wanted they will hide it.

    You have always seen the dog case as different but I've always seen it as the perfect example of governments abuse of power and use of endless resources at the expense of its citizens. The very example of what our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves over
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    But the prosecution knew by their own agencies previous assessments (firearms division letters) that no laws were broken and they intentionaly had those withheld from the jury so that the jury didnt have all of the facts based on why the man took the actions he took.

    Ok, couple of things there.

    First, those agency advisory letters DO NOT have the force of law. That would be terrible if they did. Rather, they are agency interpretations of the existing laws. Really, the only way we have to test them is by going to court (or getting taken to court and fighting it). Which leads to...

    Second, I'm confidant the government lost the motion in limine. It appears that there was evidence presented about the agency's interpretations of the laws, and that is partially what helped get the acquittal. Trying to keep that information out is "zealous advocacy." (Although, IMHO that was a hopeless exercise from the start.)

    It appears to me that the jury DID have all the facts necessary. And if they didn't, and still reached acquittal, that's actually better to remove motivation for future prosecutions. :) That would mean that they rigged the deck and STILL lost.

    Your average firearms guy isnt going to intentionaly break the law. We are a very law abiding type of people that prefers NOT to have the government periscope up our ass. So when the government itself tells us yeah you can legaly do that, we take that as gospel.

    Ok, couple more things. Google "prosecutions for short barreled rifle" and you get a pretty good idea that there are people who intentionally break the law.

    And, anyone who takes those agency determinations as "gospel" isn't paying attention.

    They were trying to use a jury and a court to basicly legislate a new law. If they would have won they would be plastering the verdict everywhere. But since they lost and didnt get the legislation from the jury box that they wanted they will hide it.

    No, they really weren't. Not in this case. They were trying to enforce legislation that existed.

    Look at it this way, the common-firearms sense answer to "Is an AR-15 a rifle?" is "Yes, yes it is." It is BECAUSE of the NFA's messed up definitions that it is possible to have an AR pistol. The entire legislation was used to get an acquittal in this case. That's the way it is supposed to work.

    All of us should pitch in to reimburse this guy's legal fees.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,085
    113
    Texas
    (Quick sidenote: this entire federal prosecution occurred under the current federal administration.)

    One of Trump's failures is he did not clean house at the DOJ his first day in office.

    And yes, the government's attempt to suppress determination letters as evidence may be legal, but it is not ethical, and it is not justice.
     

    femurphy77

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 5, 2009
    20,268
    113
    S.E. of disorder
    The good news is that he was found not guilty, but I'm sure it cost him big bucks to fight the charges.



    Eta: based on courts documents, it appears he was using an adjustable Maxim CQB pistol brace.

    https://www.maximdefense.com/product-category/arm-braces/ar-15/

    And a Stark Equipment angled foregrip. (The court docs did not specific part number, but this is the only angled foregrip I could find from Stark).

    opplanet-stark-se-5-express-forward-grip-od-green.jpg

    Not seeing one mounted on the weapon I assume it goes into the butt of the AR where the buffer tube is and they you stick your hand thru it to grasp the pistol grip?

    Desperate aren't they? Thank goodness HRC wasn't elected, I imagine this type of thing would rapidly become the norm.
     

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    38,987
    113
    Uranus
    ......You have always seen the dog case as different but I've always seen it as the perfect example of governments abuse of power and use of endless resources at the expense of its citizens. The very example of what our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves over


    QFT

    Definitely a dick move.
    Not that the person prosecuting was/is a dick.... just the very action via government force was dickish and lacks common sense.
    "I was only following orders" only goes so far.
     

    gglass

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Dec 2, 2008
    2,313
    63
    ELKHART
    I just bought the lower for my first AR pistol build... Now I'm not so sure that I want to, regardless of how this case was adjudicated.

    Who knows when the ATF will try again?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    I just bought the lower for my first AR pistol build... Now I'm not so sure that I want to, regardless of how this case was adjudicated.

    Who knows when the ATF will try again?
    This is not legal advice to you or anyone else, but I would absolutely not let this case change a build I was going to do. I have a lower that I first built into a pistol (with photographic evidence), but now sits in a rifle configuration.

    More pertinent to the case in the OP, the only way you get close to the line is if you use a "brace" that gets REALLY close to looking like a stock and/or combine that with an angled foregrip.

    A straight buffer tube arrangement and non-vertical foregrip should avoid whatever gor this guy in trouble. But, even then, there is now a template for how to get acquitted.

    The whole brace-not-a-stock market is built on a potentially shifting foundation.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,581
    113
    Mitchell
    Dragging a citizen in front of a jury when there was no law broken is the best scenario?
    How about government not bullying its citizens by taking them to court in the first place when they didnt harm anyone? ( no law broken?). When government starts prosecuting retired upstanding citizens for things like attempting to not to kill their neighbors dog and thereby not harming anyone not even a beast, that's being a bully. That's not good government, That's a tyrant.

    Not wasting tax dollars or a jury's time in the first place is the best outcome in my humble non lawyer regular guy opinion

    Even when they lose, you still lose.
     
    Top Bottom