Declaration of Dimitrios Karras, CEO Ares Armor

In regards to the events surrounding Ares Armor’s interaction with EP Armory’s products and the threats made towards Ares Armor by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE.) The following declarations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

I, Dimitrios Karras, state:

1. During a meeting with the BATFE around the end of 2012 that was unrelated to EP Armory’s product, the Agent that was present very strongly requested that I turn over Ares Armor’s customer list. He intimidated me with the possibility of criminal charges if he was not satisfied. This was the first attempt the BATFE made to intimidate Ares Armor into turning over private customer information.

2. An 80% lower is an industry term for an unfinished receiver that is not considered to be a firearm.

3. EP Armory manufactures an 80% lower receiver made from polymer.

4. Ares Armor purchases and then resells many products one of which is the 80% Polymer Lowers that are made by EP Armory.

5. In the regular course of business I have seen many different 80% AR-15 receivers.

6. EP Armory’s product is no different than standard 80% receivers that are sold openly and that the BATFE has consistently determined to not be a firearm. EP Armory’s product is in compliance with previous BATFE Determinations and is not a firearm.

7. The BATFE has Raided EP Armory based on incorrect information about EP Armory’s manufacturing process. The determination letter written by the BATFE incorrectly classified the EP Armory product as a firearm based on faulty information. The BATFE was under the impression that EP Armory was making a firearm and then reverting back to the 80% stage by filling in the fire-control cavity. At no point during the manufacturing process by EP Armory is a weapon made and then reverted. The solid fire-control cavity is built first and the rest of the 80% casting is made around this “core” specifically so that their product at no time could be considered to be a firearm.

a. As can be seen in Exhibit 1-3. The BATFE has consistently determined that the machining operations that cannot be performed in order to not be considered a firearm are as follows:

1. Milling out of fire-control cavity.

2. Selector-lever hole drilled.

3. Cutting of trigger slot.

4. Drilling of trigger pin hole.

5. Drilling of hammer pin hole.

b. EP Armory’s product is consistent with the BATFE’s many previous determinations.
c. At no time during EP Armory’s manufacturing process are any of the aforementioned 5 operations in a state that could cause a reasonable person to believe that EP Armory’s product would be considered a firearm.
8. The BATFE has been appropriately informed of their mistake. However, even though they have no determination that is based on fact, they are knowingly using their fiction based determination to intimidate Ares Armor with threats in order to inappropriately gain access to information that is private and should be protected.

9. I received communication on or about 3/10/2014 from our legal counsel (Jason Davis) that the BATFE was in the process of obtaining a warrant against Ares Armor based on their incorrect determination of EP Armory’s Product. I was advised that the BATFE had offered to forego obtaining a warrant if Ares Armor was willing to:

a. Hand over all of EP Armory’s 80% Lowers.
b. Turn over Ares Armor customer’s private information to the BATFE.
In exchange for turning over our customer’s private information the BATFE said that they would not “raid” Ares Armor’s facilities and would not pursue “criminal” charges. This made me feel as if I was being extorted. I agreed to their terms in order to delay an impending and unjust raid against Ares Armor long enough to obtain legal protection under the law.

10. I have been unjustly threatened with raids and criminal charges in an attempt by the BATFE to obtain information that is private and protected. The BATFE has expressed interest in obtaining Ares Armor’s customer list in the past and is now attempting to strong-arm us with undue threats based on information they know to be incorrect.

11. I am now in constant fear for the safety of my employees, my customers and

Executed March 10, 2014 Oceanside, CA

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dimitrios Karras

 cincydooley wrote:
I read about this yesterday, and it infuriated me, particularly because a California judge upheld the restraining order and the ATF basically said, "naw, feth you, we're coming anyway. We got our own judge to overturn it."

Gross abuse of power that really highlights why many gun owners are hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list like many people have suggested we do (and which, in uncorrupted principle, I'm not that opposed to).

I'm sure the NRA (with whom I just renewed my membership) will have something to say by the end of the week.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Nothing illegal about serial number free 80% lowers either. That's ATF regulations right there. How can we trust them if they can't even read their own rules?

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, many gun owners are "hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list" because so many of you so utterly are convinced by the NRA that the government is gonna come and take your guns.

 Kanluwen wrote:

No, many gun owners are "hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list" because so many of you so utterly are convinced by the NRA that the government is gonna come and take your guns.

The NRA is just as bad as the ATF. They're both organizations with an agenda to push and simpletons wrapped around their fingers.

Peregrine wrote:See, you just have this backwards. The rules don't exist to tell you what you're allowed to do, they tell you some of the things that you can be thrown in prison for. Nobody ever promised you that your 80% part was going to be legal forever, they just told you that you will go to prison for doing the other 20% without all the paperwork.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

No, many gun owners are "hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list" because so many of you so utterly are convinced by the NRA that the government is gonna come and take your guns.

Please don't presume to speak for "many gun owners" or me. There's precedence that the government wants to outlaw firearms. It's not like these are baseless concerns.

The NRA is just as bad as the ATF. They're both organizations with an agenda to push and simpletons wrapped around their fingers.

Please, show me some instances of the NRA infringing upon the rights or other people and circumventing the courts to obtain sales records for legal purchases.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The fact that the NRA has been instrumental in defeating almost every attempted firearms control measure within the past 30 years begs to differ.

.

The 1997 study said its analysis “failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds.” But that’s not the same as saying the ban had “no impact.” The authors noted that the study was “constrained” to findings of short-term effects, “which are not necessarily a reliable guide to long-term effects.”

And most fundamentally, the authors wrote, “because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data.” The two later major studies of the ban included more years of analysis and concluded with an “updated assessment” that was published in 2004.

“If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,”

 whembly wrote:

So... conservatives and libertarian are now lying liars. Got it.

 SickSix wrote:

I see you have studied Liberal Arguments 101: Ignore substance and attack the author.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, many gun owners are "hesitant to put their names on a 'gun registration' list" because so many of you so utterly are convinced by the NRA that the government is gonna come and take your guns.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... conservatives and libertarian are now lying liars. Got it.

How's that internship at Fox News going for you? You clearly have the misquoting and leaping to assumptions down pat.

"Conservative and libertarian legal scholarship" is not the same thing as Conservatives and Libertarians. Nor is it unheard of for academics to have political agendas.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The basis is that they are no different than the people on the Democrat side who cite things like Sandy Hook as being the reason for banning all the guns. Both sides have an agenda and there are scholars who present findings that can be used one way or the other.

So kindly knock off the assumption that I'm simply "attacking the author".

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not a peer review journal that this research was published in, it was a student run publication.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Want some tin foil to go with your 'Murica?

 Ouze wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
There is no "paperwork" to be done. In the US you are legally allowed to manufacture your own firearms for personal use without any further registration, documentation or even a serial number.

Details, details. If you don't have the paperwork enjoy your ATF raid.

This "argument" is fundamentally nonsense. It's akin to arguing that the IRS should raid you if you don't save the receipt from a leash you bought at petco.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The only people who think it's "going on currently" are the people who panic buy tons of ammo.

 cincydooley wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Heh... well, at least gun ownership is a Civil Right in the US. We can keep fighting it (legally that is).

Well, can we?

Ares tried to do that. Won. And This is still happening....

People have gotten a up in arms – metaphorically speaking, so far – over the situation with Ares Armor, and on the surface the agitation seems justified. The ATF busts into a business that sells legal 80% lowers in violation of a court issued restraining order? Consider the internet’s jimmies sufficiently rustled. But with some new documents that have been released by the Department of Justice, it’s starting to look like the investigation of Ares Armor is about something more than just selling hunks of metal. And if the documents are right, someone is about to be in a world of hurt . . .


An 80% lower is, in a legal sense, just a hunk of metal. It’s not a complete firearm, so it isn’t treated like one. It’s no more a firearm than a block of marble is a work of art by Michelangelo. But it has enough of the rough dimensions of an AR-15 lower receiver that finishing the project and turning it into a functional gun is almost trivial — drill a couple of holes, mill a few locations, and presto, you have yourself a gun.

Manufacturing 80% lower receivers isn’t illegal. You can even ship them anywhere you want to whomever you want, since, again, it’s just a hunk of metal and not technically a gun. But manufacturing firearms for sale to the public without a license is a HUGE no-no. And if the affadavit for the search warrant is accurate, then that’s exactly what some people in California were doing.

To be clear, the following describes activities of people who are NOT Ares Armor. Specifically, the following details the business practices of LCG AR Part and Custom Accessories in California. But it gives some insight into what the ATF thinks was going down in Ares Armor’s back room.

On March 19, 2013, an undercover law enforcement officer (“UC#1”) visited LCG AR Parts and Custom Accessories (“LCG”) [ED: NOT Ares Armor], located at 8524 Florin Road, Sacramento (Attachment A-1). LCG is a small gun parts store located within a larger commercial plaster retail store. At LCG, UC#1 was met by MICHAEL TURNER. UC#1 asked TURNER about firearms. TURNER informed UC#1 that UC#1 could purchase an AR-15 blank at LCG and “mill it out” in the back of the shop the same day – essentially creating a firearm from scratch.

[...]

On April 3, 2013, UC#1 met TURNER at LCG. UC#1 removed an AR-15-style pistol off the display wall of LCG and explained that he wanted to model the pistol after the one on display. TURNER handed UC#1 an AR-15 blank that was made of aluminum. UC#1 asked how long it takes to make the AR-15 blank into a firearm. TURNER informed UC#1 that such a firearm could be made in about two hours. TURNER informed UC#1 that UC#1 would drill five holes and then “Jimmy” would “clean it up.” TURNER is pictured below in a screenshot from the video recorded by UC#1.

TURNER identified “Jimmy” (individual later identified as EMILIANO CORTEZ) and indicated UC#1 should follow EMILIANO CORTEZ. EMILIANO CORTEZ and TURNER guided UC#1 out of the firearm shop (located within the plastering business) towards the back of the business. Upon arriving at the rear of the business, TURNER told UC#1 that EMILIANO CORTEZ was going to set the AR-15 blank into a “jig.”

TURNER informed UC#1 that UC#1 would have to drill five holes in the AR-15 blank, and then EMILIANO CORTEZ would mill the remainder to complete the receiver. UC#1 was directed to use a drill press and instructed how to operate the drill press – in essence, UC#1 was operating the drill press as a surrogate for EMILIANO CORTEZ – EMILIANO CORTEZ directed each and every move made by UC#1. EMILIANO CORTEZ would motion to the UC#1 when to stop and reposition the AR-15 blank. Subsequently, TURNER took UC#1 back to the front of LCG and informed UC#1 that EMILIANO CORTEZ would finish the receiver within the next hour and a half.

[...]

According to the Department of Homeland Security, EMILIANO CORTEZ is a Mexican national who has previously been deported and is illegally present within the United States. Further, EMILIANO CORTEZ is a convicted felon. In 2010, in Nevada County, California, EMILIANO CORTEZ was convicted of possession of an assault weapon and sentenced to sixteen months in prison.

[...]

Several minutes later, CI#1 departed from LCG in possession of an AR-15 pistol, two boxes of ammunition, and a large-capacity magazine. At no point was CI#1 required to fill out a background check form or complete any paperwork that is required by ATF prior to the purchase of a firearm.

I’m gonna be honest — this doesn’t sound good for those involved.

So from the documents, it looks like these guys (LCG AR Parts and Custom Accessories, or “LCG”) employed an illegal Mexican immigrant who’s also a felon to assist customers in manufacturing firearms on the business’s premises. The employee in question allegedly would set the blank up in the drill press, instruct the customer in drilling out the holes, then then take it from there.

Around the time of the investigation, the ATF issued a response to Ares Armor’s request for clarification about the same practice — “assisting” others in milling out their 80% lower receivers. And according to the ATF, a federal firearms license is required for “a business premises at which, for a fee, it makes available a computer numeric control (CNC) machine, tools, equipment, and instructions to persons who bring in castings or raw materials for the purpose of creating firearms.” In short, what was happening in the back of LCG’s shop was, according to the ATF, illegal.

After the clarification was issued, LGS seems to have had an “OH gak” moment and tried to clean up its act. Tried.

On April 25, 2013, CI#1 visited LCG and purchased two AR-15 blanks from LUIS CORTEZ. CI#1 inquired about converting the AR-15 blanks into firearms. TURNER advised CI#1 that they [LCG] were no longer going to machine and drill AR-15 blanks into completed lower receivers and that CI#1 was going to have to do it. TURNER continued that this change was because of a “DOJ” announcement stating that it was illegal for them to show customers how to do the machining and drilling and be paid for it.

[...]

When CI#1 approached LUIS CORTEZ about the information provided by TURNER, LUIS CORTEZ advised that his brother (EMILIANO CORTEZ) was afraid to touch “the machine” (referring to the machine used to mill the AR-15 blanks). LUIS CORTEZ informed CI#1 that numerous customers had been calling and LUIS CORTEZ had informed them that he no longer did “it” anymore (referring to the machining and drilling of AR-15 blanks).

I’ll spare you the gory details, but after the letter came out it looks like LCG started putting people in touch with third parties who performed the same service that had previously been done on-site. People whom the adjective “sketchy” doesn’t begin to describe.

DOCUMENT: Indictment

DOCUMENT: Search Warrant Affadavit

While Ares Armor isn’t specifically mentioned in these documents as having taken part in any felonious shenanigans, it’s obvious that the ATF thinks that they might have been up to the same tricks as LCG. Especially since Ares Armor asked the ATF about this specific practice, connecting the dots in the feds’ line of thinking isn’t too hard. Ares had even started advertising for a possible “build party” for people to finish their 80% lowers, which would have been in direct violation of the clarification the ATF provided about needing an FFL to assist in 80% builds.

At this time there’s no hard and fast evidence that Ares Armor has done anything wrong. There’s not a shred of doubt that some California gun owners are about to head to the federal slammer for their roles in this debacle, but barring any surprise discoveries it looks like Ares Armor might be in the clear. Then again, that could all change based on what the ATF unearths in the records they confiscated over the weekend.

Stay tuned — we’ll be watching as the situation unfolds.

 Desubot wrote:
Wait so AA is in trouble because it asked about this practice to ATF?

Thats enough for a reasonable search??

Damn better never talk to a government agency

Ares had even started advertising for a possible “build party” for people to finish their 80% lowers, which would have been in direct violation of the clarification the ATF provided about needing an FFL to assist in 80% builds.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, they weren't trespassing because they DID have a warrant. So far as saying nothing until counsel is available, that's good advice that everyone should follow regardless of the situation.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Just to reemphasize this line from the above article:

Ares had even started advertising for a possible “build party” for people to finish their 80% lowers, which would have been in direct violation of the clarification the ATF provided about needing an FFL to assist in 80% builds.

So, no, Ares is not being investigated "just because" they asked about the practice or "just because" they sold to a third party, but because they may have been about to do the same thing themselves.

 d-usa wrote:
-they sold supplies to people that participated in illegal activities.

 d-usa wrote:
-It seems likely that this was a pattern with people that purchased from them.

 d-usa wrote:
-They may have even been working on doing stuff like that themselves.

 d-usa wrote:
-Their sales lists would be useful evidence in the cases against those other parties, so even if they didn't do anything wrong themselves the law had a valid interest in it.

 d-usa wrote:
-They talked to them about it and asked for corporation, they didn't get any.

 d-usa wrote:
-They got a warrant and served it.

 d-usa wrote:
-Was the raid warranted? Most likely, because the people served knew exactly what they were looking for. If you did the polite knock and chit-chat they would already know what you are there for and it would be easy to "get lost in a boating accident". Since they knew exactly what they are here for you minimize the opportunity to launch a boat.

dreadclaw69 wrote:Did Aries have prior knowledge of these activities?

dreadclaw69 wrote:Which is a no no. However that can easily be remedied by a warning letter/legal notice, or by having agents stop in to talk with the owner.

dreadclaw69 wrote:why seize the 80% receivers? In fact why carry out the raid at all?

dreadclaw69 wrote:I believe that the raid was heavy handed and unnecessary.

Spoiler:

 Ahtman wrote:
Sounds like something one would need to investigate, or get a warrant to probe further.

 Ahtman wrote:
It is also just as likely they would lie about not doing it or lie about stopping it. Sounds like something one would need to investigate, or get a warrant to probe further.

 Ahtman wrote:
Why not wait for all the facts of the case to come out? Why jump to conclusions either way?

 Ahtman wrote:
Which of course means feth all since we don't have enough information to go on at this point.

Spoiler:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why did they show up with automatic weapons?

Which specific automatic weapons did they use?

There were women and children inside our retail establishment when the (ATF) agents came in with guns drawn,” Karras told the station. "They came into our firearms manufacturing facility saying, ‘Arms up!’ like they were invading Iraq.”

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why did they show up with automatic weapons?

Why does it matter how the police arm themselves?

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think it's imprudent for the police, when lawfully raiding a place that is literally chock full of shooting irons, to take reasonable means to defend themselves if things go sideways. I think context matters. This does not extend to previous ATF adventures with armored personnel carriers so lets not build a stawman here, I beg.

 Ouze wrote:
The last unsubstantiated rumors I read were that the issue the ATF has is with their process. They make polymer lowers, and it looks like they maybe build a 100% lower and then plug it with a different polymer to make it into an 80%, or possibly vice versa.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
As you may note they do not sell "high capacity, powerful firearms". They sell parts and accessories. The only items which they sell that may be considered a weapon (bar the 80% receivers being used as a club) are knives.

And as you may note, I didn't say that they did: re-read my post. I said that "In the previous raid that this was connected to".

Ex-parte is bs, no argument there.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
This is the same ATF that seized a shipment of plastic BB guns claiming that they could be easily converted into working firearms.

 Frazzled wrote:
*There was no arrest warrant being served.

 Ouze wrote:
There is more to that story, of course.

While ATF sources and documents cannot point to one incident where an airsoft receiver was used in a crime, documents received from KING 5’s public records requests do list a half-dozen cases in which criminals paid top dollar for untraceable firearm receivers.
At Wade’s Gunshop, we asked the gunsmith to try to fire live rounds from our airsoft. Gaughran said he believes the average person couldn’t do it.
"What we were trying to do is find out how easy it would be for a kid with a drill or a criminal with some common tools and that wasn't the case,” said Gaughran, explaining that his gunsmith could not make the weapon fire with a minimal amount of tinkering.

It's what inside that Gaughran found most disturbing.
"This actually looks like an auto sear out of a machine gun," he said. He found internal parts that could allow someone to make a fully functioning lower receiver, the only part of the gun that requires a background check to buy.
"In all firearms, the receiver is the registered or controlled part," said Gaughran. “We could set in the trigger parts with very little alteration and you would get a weapon that would fire."

In its labs, ATF said it did fire rounds from several converted airsoft guns including one of the Tacoma guns.
“If the ATF was able to make this fire, I wouldn't dispute that," said Gaughran.

 Ouze wrote:
Come on, now.

It's what inside that Gaughran found most disturbing.
"This actually looks like an auto sear out of a machine gun," he said. He found internal parts that could allow someone to make a fully functioning lower receiver, the only part of the gun that requires a background check to buy.
"In all firearms, the receiver is the registered or controlled part," said Gaughran. “We could set in the trigger parts with very little alteration and you would get a weapon that would fire."

In its labs, ATF said it did fire rounds from several converted airsoft guns including one of the Tacoma guns.
“If the ATF was able to make this fire, I wouldn't dispute that," said Gaughran.

Breaking News: Between the time I began composing today’s Gun Rights Examiner column and finishing it, Mike Vanderboegh reported ATF has rescinded their ruling declaring selected Airsoft-type guns as firearms. What in the world is going on, and how is the bureau so out of control they can issue top level directives under the signature of their acting head guy, and then pull it back with no detailed explanation?

Per Vanderboegh:
"The ATF Pressroom admitted to me by phone this morning that ATF Ruling 2010-4…has been rescinded!
I’ve decided to go ahead and present what I wrote before this news broke as an object lesson in the Bureau’s unchecked machinations—and the impact they can have on the lives, property and liberty of Americans who are simply enjoying their freedom and minding their own business."

Here’s what I wrote earlier this morning:
"A ruling from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives classifying certain replica M-16 airgun lower receivers as “firearms” was quietly introduced on November 5. Even more quietly, it was—if not withdrawn—at least removed from public Internet access."

Why?

The ruling first came to my attention via this post on Mike Vanderboegh’s Sipsey Street Irregulars blog, prompting an entry at my War on Guns journal, and I have since found original commentary at John Richardson’s No Lawyers-Only Guns and Money.

Here’s one of the questions I asked at WoG:
"Why can't the original page be found? What's with a cached version only? Perhaps it's just an innocuous glitch, but where BATFU is concerned, I make no assumptions.
Indeed. ATF Rule 2010-4 is not even listed on their online ATF Rulings index. You can still access it at the cached link, and to preserve it, I’ve also included snapshots in the sidebar slideshow, and am pasting the text at the bottom of this column to facilitate wider analysis."

Here are some other questions that come to mind:

Did someone show their hand too soon? Online or not, is this ruling in effect?

What happened to the initial claims "justifying" seizure of airguns by SA Kelven Crenshaw? He’s the guy who tried to insert a magazine backwards while on camera, and offered this professional judgment:

Special Agent Kelvin Crenshaw said the toys can be easily retro-fitted into dangerous weapons.

"With minimal work it could be converted to a machine gun," Crenshaw said.

"In its present state, our firearms technology branch classified this as a machine gun," said Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms special agent Kelvin Crenshaw.
I ask because, according to the text of the rule, after futzing around with the lower receivers and custom drilling and removing and adding parts and assemblies, neither sample resulted in automatic fire.

And there are some additional questions I asked in a follow-up column, including:

If, in fact, these toy guns pose a legal and real danger, is everyone in possession of such a lower receiver now in possession of an illegal firearm?

Will there be a recall? Will BATFE issue a circular to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers...and local law enforcement?

Importantly, will anyone who has one now be in danger of being classified a felon if it can be proven they know about this, making their possession or transfer of their airgun "willful," and thus subject to criminal prosecution?

Do we now have a new crop of criminals? Hundreds or thousands of them? How could that not be the case?
Plenty more questions come to mind, for instance:

This was only a test of two samples based on specific variants? Does that apply to all brands? If the Firearms Technology Branch goes about milling and drilling and adding and subtracting, what other models will they be able to add to their now-you-see-it-now you-don’t list?

Think about all the ways a person could find themselves in trouble over this:

Are importers and airgun dealers now vulnerable to being charged with dealing in firearms without a license? How are they to know, particularly folks who don’t have a brick and mortar business or who work the swapmeet circuit?

Does your teenager have one of the newly-designated “firearms” and is now in illegtal possession? Is it “safely stored”? Is it being legally transported in the car, just like a real gun? Are you in a ‘gun free zone”? Note your rules may vary based on where you live.

What was Yul Brynner’s line in “The King and I”?

Et cetera, et cetera…
And how has this even been determined a problem? With the price of a real AR-15, particularly a second-hand one, being not that different from that of a high-end airgun…

This is where I was when Vanderboegh’s notice that the ruling has been rescinded came into my inbox. As he notes:

It would seem that I was right when I speculated that somebody maneuvered Deputy Director Kenneth Melson into signing something he did not understand would blow up in his face. He is beginning to look like Charlie Brown and the football. This is not by accident. The Chief Counsel's Office has run ATF for years as temporary directors came and went and they are not interested in any competition. Nor are they interested in cleaning up their act.
The fact remains—ATF has the testing conclusions to execute this aborted ruling if and when they wish to—in fact, if their analysis about what constitutes a United States Code-defined “firearm” is "correct"—and if they don’t know, who does?—this could be a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of airgun dealers and owners that could be dropped at any time.

We all realize that a piece of wood, a length of pipe, some rubber bands and a nail could be "easily modified" to construct a working"firearm," that meets the criteria?

That’s no way to run a railroad—or an agency that has the power to destroy people’s lives with its rulings. This debacle—along with so many others—demands investigations and hearings—something I’ve been advocating with no real success for some time.

Perhaps the newly-shaped Congress will be more receptive to this than the previous gaggle of corrupt stonewallers were.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Still standing by your statement that Ares sells firearms Ouze?

I'm not standing by a statement I never made.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think it's imprudent for the police, when lawfully raiding a place that is literally chock full of shooting irons, to take reasonable means to defend themselves if things go sideways. I think context matters. This does not extend to previous ATF adventures with armored personnel carriers so lets not build a stawman here, I beg.

The last unsubstantiated rumors I read were that the issue the ATF has is with their process. They make polymer lowers, and it looks like they maybe build a 100% lower and then plug it with a different polymer to make it into an 80%, or possibly vice versa.

 Frazzled wrote:
For the record, if they are intentionally skirting the law to make untrceable receivers I'm ok with investigation of the subject. I am not ok with seizing customer lists, especially when there was an injunction against them already (they were clearly judge shopping to get a warrant) and I am not ok with going in like Spetznatz to do it.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No that activates the claymores.

I hope you mean the sword

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No that activates the claymores.

I hope you mean the sword

I believe he has Claymores that shoot Claymores.

Ah yes, the ClaymoreMoreClaymore

The ATF’s jackbooted and illegal raid on Ares Armor has made headlines for days, but it doesn’t seem to have intimidated the National City, CA manufacturer one bit. Instead of bowing and scraping to the ATFE’s scofflaws with badges, they’re using the ATFE’s notoriety to help them move some of their (remaining) inventory.


Stock lower parts kits (LPKs) for AR rifles are as common as Ford F-150 trucks, but Ares is banking on the infamous raid to make their plane-Jane LPKs just a little more desirable.

Since the ATFE turned the Ares Armor offices upside down and ‘inspected’ everything in their illegal search for, well, something worth searching for, Ares is marketing these LPKs as ‘BATFE Inspected.’ And since Ares is being careful not to use the BATFE logo in their advertisements, there’s not a damned thing the jackbooted thugs can do about it. Which is awesome.

These LPKs might be more desirable for those who want to help Ares thumb give the BATFE the big FU, but they’re not more expensive. At $69.96 each, they’re the same price as any generic lower parts kit on the market.

If you want one, however, you might want to pay in person and in cash. You can bet the BATFE will be trying to keep track of Ares’ new customers, now that it probably knows who all the prior customers were.

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's an interesting case, putting technology between law as written and law as intented and making it a gray area to interpret.

Sounds like the initial thought was that hey build a complete lower and then fill it in to revert it back to 80%, which would be against the law from what I understand. The work-around the law seems to be the process they developed of building the fill-in first and then building the lower around that and the argument that there was never a lower without the filled in pieces so it was never past 80%.

Now the legal question seems to be if that is actually the case or if there can be a valid argument made that the company is building two separate components: a 100% completed lower and a separate "plug" that the complete lower is build around. And if that is the case does disabling a 100% lower by building it around a second component make it a 80% lower?

I'm no expert there like some of you, but it seems like that is the core of the issue for the agents.

umm are you serious...

80% lowers are generally milled out of a solid aluminium block...blah blah blah

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Any one with any knowledge of basic resin manufacturing can tell you the answer to that though. If the plug is inserted after the fact then the ATF is totally in the right, but if it's part of the build process... well then the receiver did not in fact every physically exist without the plug, it's forming the core of the cast.

Karras literally laughed at this. According to him, the lowers are “impossible” to assemble in the manner the ATF describes. He says that the “plug” is manufactured first (the part that needs to be milled out by the end user), with a series of ridges that lock it into the rest of the lower receiver as it is molded around the plug. That way, at no point is a complete firearm manufactured and the 80% status is preserved.

Call it intimidation or a witch hunt by the ATF. As an engineer with significant plastics expertise, identifying the order in which this paperweight is made should be easy to resolve. Reviewing the mold that makes the main body of the paperweight would tell you everything you need to know. There would be significant document history as well – CAD of the tool design, drawings, CNC programs for cutting the tool cavities and components etc. etc…

A plastic part molding process such as this can be referred to as “insert molding”, “two shot molding” or “over molding”, and is very, very common.

If the mold is designed to have the white insert in it when shooting the black, it will have no feature in the tool to make that cavity that is otherwise take up by the white piece. If you were to mold the paperweight without the white insert piece present, that void area will be filled with plastic (and being a thick area would shrink/warp so badly the paperweight would never be good for more than that).

You “could” mold the part as the ATF claims, but since the trigger/hammer pocket is an internal cavity, and has associated through holes, the tooling for molding a finished receiver would be that much more “elaborate”…as in moving parts…not something you could just remove when the suits show up without leaving evidence or having a functioning tool.

FWIW, Given the complexity of molding all the other features present in that part, it’s a work of art…at least from an engineering perspective.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
See how I took the ridges is, the plug has a series of ridges, in, or out, that material from the receiver casting flows into, forming one piece.

[information]

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Not really defending ATF... it's a harsh tactic to take. If they really need those customer list, take 'em to court for it instead of conducting a raid. Or, just ask NSA to go get it.

The problem there is, that would require more than one 3 letter agency to cooperate with another one...And we all know that just cant happen.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Nobody overturned the restraining order though. The restraining order was, and still is, valid as far as I understand.

The problem, or not problem, is that a restraining order cannot be used to stop a valid lawful investigation or valid law enforcement action. That's why prostitutes cannot file a restraining order against a police department to prevent getting arrested.

The ATF agents could not violate the restraining order except during the time that they were lawfully serving a warrant.

Yeah... that's my read too.

Not really defending ATF... it's a harsh tactic to take. If they really need those customer list, take 'em to court for it instead of conducting a raid.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Anyone who thinks its paranoia in regards to firearms ownership and encroachments by the government on those rights, just hasnt been keeping up with current events.