ATF Prosecutes Ohio Man for AR Pistol with Brace

Johnny

Johnny

Larping Misanthropist
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 19, 2016
Messages
20,852
Location
Pender County
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Nice try, crooked commie scumbags.

Legal accessories added to an AR pistol landed an Ohio man in hot water with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

The Prince Law Firm’s blog recently brought attention to the case of U.S. v. Wright (3:18-CR-16), in which the northern Ohio man is charged with a series of violations regarding the accessories he added to a Sharps Bros. AR-15 pistol known as The Jack. The ATF alleges that the added parts created a Short Barreled-Rifle, which the defendant did not register as required by the National Firearms Act.

According to the evidence list for the upcoming trail, the equipment that brought about the alleged infraction included a Maxim CQB Pistol AR 15 PDW brace, Stark Express angled foregrip, and a flash suppressor that added about two inches to the 7.75-inch barrel. These items were all previously approved by the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division, the arm of the ATF charged with responding to technical inquiries and testing and classifying products submitted to them for review, as well as providing technical services to the firearms industry and other members of the public.

Luckily there was a happy ending to the saga, with the jury returning a not guilty verdict after a short deliberation. The most alarming part of this indictment is that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio even sought to prosecute the case. The [Prince Law Offices blog] (https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/...made-up-out-of-whole-cloth-you-might-be-next/) went as to far as saying the U.S. Attorney’s Office invented the charges ‘out of whole cloth,’ completely fabricating the entire basis for the case.


The U.S. Attorney’s Office even went as far as trying to bar the approval letters from the ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division from being used in court. The trial pitted ATF Firearms Enforcement Officer Eve E. Eisenbise as an expert witness for the government against the defendant’s expert Richard Vasquez, a former employee of the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division. Eisenbise held that the Maxim Defense extension was a shoulder stock, while Vasquez, and the jury, contended it was not.
Click to expand...

https://www.range365.com/atf-prosecutes-ohio-man-for-ar-pistol-with-brace
 
Last edited:
Pink_Vapor said:
I thought a forward grip on a pistol was a no-no.
Click to expand...

The FTB has opined 3 separate times that AFGs are not considered forward vertical pistol grips. Therefore, installation of an AFG on a pistol would not create an AOW.
 
27 CFR 479.11 - Meaning of terms

"Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)."






I would make the argument that the addition of a foregrip, angled or vertical, does not change the original design and a pistol is still simply a pistol.

ATF can get bent
 
I would guess they were after this guy for something else, couldn't get him on whatever that was, and charged him with this, expecting him to plea out of this charge instead of going to trial. He went to trial and they got caught with their pants down.
 
Wow, if nothing else this should make it very clear that the left wing anti's with a little bit of power will pull all the stops to push their agenda, even knowing full well they have no case....
 
Instead of going after him on the spurious illegal SBR charge, what they should have done is charge him with 1 count of extremely poor taste. I would have voted to convict!

wrightcomp.jpg
 
Read about this in another thread. The ATF was proposing that since the defendant added a rubber "cane tip" to the Maxim brace, it caused the length of pull to be over 13.5". Failed because of two reasons:

1) The ATF measured the length of pull diagonally instead of from the plane of the trigger to the plane of the end of the brace and tip, and

2) The ATF has never issued a public opinion letter about the pistols with a LOP greater than 13.5" being considered a SBR and that the Supreme Court precedent in Staples v. United States found a gun owner has to know that his firearm has characteristics that bring it under NFA regulation to be guilty of a crime.
 
NKD said:
Wow. Holy smokes. If his intent was to build the stupidest gun ever, he’s a genius.
If not, I support his right to make horribly bad gun decisions.
Click to expand...
Right down to the skull lookin thing atbthe magazine well. I respect people freedom to do what they want.......but thats a strange one. I had to look at it for bit...........and all i could think is...naw....aint no way somebody would build that.....but apparently they did!
 
Where ya'll seein the pic of the gun?
 
At least he got the BLACKBEARD lettering on crooked.
 
BowWow said:
Right down to the skull lookin thing atbthe magazine well. I respect people freedom to do what they want.......but thats a strange one. I had to look at it for bit...........and all i could think is...naw....aint no way somebody would build that.....but apparently they did!
Click to expand...

You too can own your own! Or apprently make a Spartan!
EA741ED7-2086-462C-9336-910191F190F5.jpeg
 
Lots of stuff going on with that pistol, the grip looks like it's in the way. I would love to own one of those Sharp's Rifle Company lowers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom