It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feds seek to keep assault rifle parts seized from Connecticut gun-maker - Stag Arms

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What you posted makes absolute sense--why waste the time and effort stamping out-of-tolerance parts? It also raises the question of part compliance per BATF in manufacturing procedures. Seizure appears to me as a prerequisite for fines to be levied or some other punitive measure.




posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
www.nbcconnecticut.com...#

Another source that says the reason they took the 100 or so is that these were at a separate site
So these parts had been manufactured and then transported with no serial numbers.

And that they even came back weeks later and still no SN.

Not so sure this is just olé poor stag an bad gubment going after them.

Seems more stag is violating federal law.


Well now, maybe it was nefarious on the companies part.

I'm sure you can't transport them off site with out being marked.

Good find



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Ya it is the post of mine before that.

And having the guy that makes you in compliance of a federal law just being on vacation is no excuse.

Can't have a guy replace him for the time being?

Or is ignorance an excuse?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: johnwick

no, I'm not an "anti-gun type"....would I have to be, to follow federal law?....there is obviously more to this story, maybe it would be the governments side that you would want to also read, to get a more balanced idea of what went on.



I was just jerking your chain man.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
www.nbcconnecticut.com...#

Another source that says the reason they took the 100 or so is that these were at a separate site
So these parts had been manufactured and then transported with no serial numbers.

And that they even came back weeks later and still no SN.

Not so sure this is just olé poor stag an bad gubment going after them.

Seems more stag is violating federal law.


They came back 1 week later.

And seems this is because of the law they passed just prior because of the Newtown shooting that keeps manufacturers from moving arms parts to a holding facility prior to being serialized. From your story, these had been there for years...likely before the law passed on this.

I am looking up the law changes they wrote about in the article to see if that is the case.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: johnwick

no, I'm not an "anti-gun type"....would I have to be, to follow federal law?....there is obviously more to this story, maybe it would be the governments side that you would want to also read, to get a more balanced idea of what went on.



I was just jerking your chain man.


no problem, I get a lot of that for being left of center on ATS and being vocal about it....at least you admit it



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
That is what is so odd to me about this though. There were 3000 parts they stated, yet they only are trying to keep roughly 100 of them.....sounds like they just wanted some really nice, free AR's to me.....


Exactly, the majority we most likely unsaleable.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
So they have to mark the scrap parts as well?


Not that I am aware of, they typically go to a quarantine area but Colt was so busy they had out of tolerance parts everywhere.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

I smith as a hobby/sideline, and have become familiar with some manufacturing procedures. It is my understanding marking metal parts is predicated on material composition, and cost-efficiency. Stamped is the norm with many gun parts, but form, depth and uniformity must be met per regs to be in compliance. With any government scrutiny, t's must be crossed and i's dotted.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So again, ignorance is bliss?

How long have they had to get in compliance.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vasa Croe

How long does it take to put the serial number on them after they get made?

I ask cause you make the situation where they didn't have enough time, so do you know how long it takes?

Oh the guy was on vacation... I guess that makes every thing a ok!

Maybe they have a manufacturing process that goes like this:
machine part, tumble parts for deburring, inspect part for proper tolerances/fit/finish,

QC-Okay then serialize it
QC-FAIL - to the destroy pile.

And perhaps while awaiting the final inspection, they could be in a holding bin.

I know I would not want to put a serial# on an item unless it was fit for use. Of course I can see the authorities wanting it on first so they can see the video of that serial being destroyed, if needed, for accountability's sake.

Either scheme would be fine to me but it seems odd that they would take them direct from a manufacturer before the manufacturer said they were "completed", especially if the serial doesn't need to be on them until they are proven worthy components.
It could be an effort to simply disrupt the supply line and frustrate those end customers who are awaiting their parts.

Something seems to be not right but I can't nail it down yet.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

The Atf is s big fan of these "letters". Much easier to "pass" then a law. Lol it doesn't hold even 0.0001% of the power of an actual law and actually doesn't restrict ANYTHING LEGALLY. Much like the sigbrace fiasco. Are they just hoping people scare into compliance?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So again, ignorance is bliss?

How long have they had to get in compliance.


It's not about getting into compliance with a new law--unless that law specifically states that they needed to do so.

Here's the paradox--if the law was passed, and they had already moved unstamped parts, transporting them back would be a violation of the law.

My assumption--and it's only an assumption--is that any parts that would have been moved to a holding facility or off the property of the main manufacturing plant would be grandfathered in to the law, as they usually do in changes to laws like this.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Possibly, I would bet this law didn't grandfather anything though.
And it would be on the company to get in compliance if that was the case.


Really the point is that there is more to this story then what the OP's source was claiming.

This isn't just the Fed's coming in watching the parts come off the line and then hitting them with the no SN law.

This was about the site they had been transported to with no SN.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Malkowski has been critical of state gun laws passed after the Newtown school shooting.

More to impart a lesson, I think. If they wanted to reduce firearms proliferation, they could have taken everything and revoked his license, but they just took some of his stuff. Not because he committed a crime or anything… and he'll probably get the receivers back.

The lesson being, don't question authority.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It seems more likely then not they did commit a crime...

What says they didn't?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

ATF-p-5320-8-chapter 7, specifically sections 7.2.2 and 7.4, with references to the ATF's Firearm Tech. Branch details definitions of manufacturing processes, embossing/stamping in particular. In researching this incident I believe you are correct in the assumption that Stag's transgression to place in the transport of unstamped parts, in direct violation of ATF regs. There are rules that deal with out-of-spec parts, markings and transport, and obviously Stag was found in violation.
It is still my belief that confiscation of said parts is in preparation of punitive actions for any transgressions on Stags part.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Vasa Croe

or....the Feds were just enforcing the law, but of course that couldn't be it, because that doesn't generate the fear needed, for gun owners and the NRA against our government.





You must not understand how Machining works so let me help you draw a mental picture. You have processes put in place machining is one of them and etching it is called is another. Etching will happen at the end of the process.


This is nothing more than a witch hunt and a flat out abuse of the law. This company is big and sells many many rifles.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

I still don't get it. Everyone keeps talking about parts. Stag makes a lot of AR, but is that what we are talking about? Am I still correct that only the lower receiver is serialed?

Also, I can see the industry being more tightly regulated as such, but for an individual, isn't the sale of the receiver what triggers the law?

Could not the owners son or something, just say yah, I was practicing or trying to make a few tweaks, these were never intended for sale thus negating the requirements?

I always have a hard time with laws like this, that make legal things illegal in certain circumstances, except when that circumstance is within the specific preview, like a firearm sale.

I can have a pre ban AK, that if I changed magazines, becomes illegal. I could build the same thing in basement and it's fine, as long as I don't sell it.

Like, it is illegal here to bypass a streetlight by going through a parking lot. How do they know. I was waiting at the light, then remembered I need gas. Then after I pulled in I remember I left my gas card. Pulled right back out. Nothing illegal unless you prove my intention.

Seems the same here, wouldn't they need to prove they were intended to sell?

Why isn't a receiver serialized on completion? It's just a milled or stamped piece of metal. I'd think it would be preferable to do so. If a problem occurs, or a die wears out, it would be much easier to isolate the affected recievers.

There are more questions than answers here for me. I just can't see this being about ARs.

If it were AR recievers, we would t be talking parts, we'd be talking guns. Because as far as the ATF is concerned an AR reciever IS a gun. Every other part cam be picked up off the shelf. Without a serial, IIRC.

I think we must be dealing with class 3 goods here.


I'm no expert, and more of an AK guy, so most of my experience is with 922r. Any insights from the AR crowd?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: intrptr

It seems more likely then not they did commit a crime...

What says they didn't?


That is the wrong route.

They don't have to prove they didn't.

The gov must prove they did.

what you think guilty until proven innocent is a good idea?




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join