Lawyers for the Department of Justice submitted a memorandum Friday in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, in support of defendant’s motion to dismiss Lycurgan, Inc., dba Ares Armor vs. B. Todd Jones [successor name to be substituted], in his official capacity as Head of the San Diego Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The case involves Ares’ contention that ATF erred and overstepped its authority in declaring the firm’s EP80 polymer precursor receivers (“80 percent receiversâ€) to be complete receivers, and thus “firearms†as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
B. Todd Jones’ resignation is effective March 31. After that, Deputy Director Thomas Brandon will become acting director.
“I will truly miss leading and working side-by-side with these men and women in their pursuit of ATF’s unique law enforcement and regulatory mission,” Jones said in a statement Friday.
The director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is stepping down following controversy surrounding the agency’s proposal to ban certain types of ammunition.
Jones, who in July 2013 became the first ATF director to be confirmed by the Senate and led the agency after a scandal involving the agency’s infamously botched Operation Fast and Furious gun tracking initiative, is departing shortly after the agency dropped a controversial attempt to ban certain armor-piercing bullets used in AR-15 rifles.
In a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, ATF Director B. Todd Jones said all types of the 5.56 military-style ammo used by shooters pose a threat to police as more people buy the AR-15-style pistols.
“Any 5.56 round” is “a challenge for officer safety,” he said. Jones asked lawmakers to help in a review of a 1986 bill written to protect police from so-called “cop killer” rounds that largely exempted rifle ammo like the 5.56 because it has been used by target shooters, not criminals.
So the problem isn’t M855 but all 5.56 ammo? Sounds like they want to ban all ammunition.
Gun-rights supporters responded angrily. Right-wing media accused the Obama administration of an illegal move to restrict the Second Amendment. U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) wrote a letter co-signed by 236 members of Congress to express their “serious concern.” Fifty-two senators also expressed their displeasure with the ATF’s proposal.
But in a Twitter post on Tuesday, the agency acknowledged the intense opposition to the change and said it would shelve the proposal for now.
“You spoke, we listened,†the post said. “@ATFHQ plans more study on the proposed AP Ammo exemption framework.â€
A statement on the agency’s website said the agency had received more than 80,000 opinions even before the comment period for the proposed regulatory change was due to end next Monday. The agency said the “vast majority of the comments received to date are critical†of the proposal.
“Accordingly, A.T.F. will not at this time seek to issue a final framework,†the statement said. “After the close of the comment period, A.T.F. will process the comments received†and “further evaluate the issues raised.â€
“Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands, but this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,” said James Pasco, executive director of the Washington office of the Fraternal Order of Police, the world’s largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, with more than 325,000 members.
He told Secrets that the round used mostly for target practice “is not typically used against law enforcement.”
SS109/M855 is one of the two most common loadings for 5.56 NATO chambered AR-15 rifles, featuring a 62-grain bullet with a mild steel penetrator core. The cartridge was adopted by NATO in the late 1970s to give soldiers better long range performance, and reduce the possibility of fragmentation seen in the prior 55-grain M193 round cartridge that some viewed as “inhuman†and “devastating.†Civilian shooters like it because it is accurate, plentiful, and relatively economical to shoot.
But there’s more to the industry’s concerns than the fear that the punch bowl might soon disappear, if indeed sales haven’t already peaked. And in spite of the boost Obama’s given their sales, many would rather have a president who was less obviously hostile to their industry and their livelihoods. Johanna Reeves, executive director of the F.A.I.R. Trade Group – the Firearms Import/Export Roundtable – expressed it this way: The Obama administration, and the ATF in particular, are “pushing the envelope and testing the boundaries to see how far they can go.â€
The ATT and other U.N. programs play into this. As Reeves and a colleague put it in a recent piece on the treaty, their concern is that the “legitimate trade and industry will bear the brunt of ‘norms’ that will develop out of these instruments, norms that will further restrict the ability of U.S. firms to import and export firearms and ammunition.†Indeed, the worries stem fundamentally from the trade’s realization that the gun-control battle is moving from the national political level, where the Second Amendment has rarely looked healthier, to the international, national administrative, and state and local levels. In other words, the challenges are becoming more diffuse and harder to combat — or even, in the case of administrative restrictions, to follow.
The ruling, signed by ATF Director B. Todd Jones on Friday, also holds that the businesses must “identify (mark) any such firearm and maintain manufacturing records,†and that Gun Control Act requirements may not be avoided by allowing persons to perform processes on machinery, tools and equipment a business controls access to. Excluded from the ruling are weapons and devices regulated by the National Firearms Act.
The New York Times reports on the increasing use of undercover agents by the federal government:
Undercover work, inherently invasive and sometimes dangerous, was once largely the domain of the F.B.I. and a few other law enforcement agencies at the federal level. But outside public view, changes in policies and tactics over the last decade have resulted in undercover teams run by agencies in virtually every corner of the federal government, according to officials, former agents and documents.
Across the federal government, undercover work has become common enough that undercover agents sometimes find themselves investigating a supposed criminal who turns out to be someone from a different agency, law enforcement officials said. In a few situations, agents have even drawn their weapons on each other before realizing that both worked for the federal government.
The measure, sponsored by Reps. Diane Black (R-TN) and Ted Poe (R-Texas), would place a prohibition on the Federal government’s current practice to require race or ethnicity to be disclosed during the transfer of a firearm. This comes after an article in the Washington Times earlier this week brought attention to the practice, quietly implemented two years ago by the ATF, of mandating that patrons buying or receiving a gun select a series of questions on Form 4473 to better identify their race and whether or not they are Hispanic.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel first reported the congressman’s proposal which came months after that newspaper did a scathing expose of an ATF storefront sting operation in three states, including Wisconsin that used at least one developmentally disabled person.
Sensenbrenner’s office said the bill is still being crafted. He also suggested that ATF functions could be absorbed by other agencies such as the FBI and US Marshals or DEA.
So, ATF, trying to be cute and find a way to require NICS checks without Congressional action, declared trusts not to fit the definition of a “person†under the GCA. No big deal, especially for us in Pennsylvania, as Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) checks are already required for all NFA firearms, except silencers. But, not so quick…let’s look at Section 922(o) of the Gun Control Act…
Section 922(o) provides:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to–
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.