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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

I stumbled upon complete list of parts required to certify ARs by accident months ago while chasing other info, specifically on gas blocks. I read it on a whim, but understood the significance as part of the total package.
I emailed a smith I know, who gained much knowledge while employed by Olympic Arms. According to him(I'd need to vet his info, but trust his word), it is verboten for serial-numbered required gun parts to leave the manufacturers property without being stamped/embossed/etched. The only parts not falling under this protocol are R&D specified, and they are subject to different regs.
IMHO, the excuse of the stamper being on vacation is lame at best. That market is competitive--cut throat at best, reputation can be marred by mistakes. If Stag erred, own up to it and move on. Then again, publicity drives sales.




posted on May, 19 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: ISawItFirst

I stumbled upon complete list of parts required to certify ARs by accident months ago while chasing other info, specifically on gas blocks. I read it on a whim, but understood the significance as part of the total package.
I emailed a smith I know, who gained much knowledge while employed by Olympic Arms. According to him(I'd need to vet his info, but trust his word), it is verboten for serial-numbered required gun parts to leave the manufacturers property without being stamped/embossed/etched. The only parts not falling under this protocol are R&D specified, and they are subject to different regs.
IMHO, the excuse of the stamper being on vacation is lame at best. That market is competitive--cut throat at best, reputation can be marred by mistakes. If Stag erred, own up to it and move on. Then again, publicity drives sales.



I'm not a source nazzy, I can believe everything you said. It is clearly verboten as you say, but it does not appear they ever left the companies property.

Some 136 were moved from one building to another 0.3 miles away on the same road.

It seems this is the lynch pin they are hanging this on, as they are considering that a transfer.

However, having never cited stag for a crime, how can they confiscate anything?

Isn't due process still required?

I'm gonna check the law as well. I know barrels are often marked with info, but rarely serials. Not on long guns anyways I know some of the pistols I've shot had them on barrels, back straps, mags, and frames, although many times they are not the full number. Just last few digits.

Thanks for the info, this is an interesting case.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Your questions are great. But, this is politics.

There are a lot of moving parts to this story, so I'm not going to offer a definitive opinion.

Stag Arms is a great company. They're on the verge of breaking-in to a position as Prime Distributor in Government sales. This has the existing 'big names' on that list trying to leverage the BATF to pull the rug out from under them and the State ain't helping.

The firearms Stag produces are of the highest quality. They outperformed everyone in a test conducted last year, and if memory serves, were the only company with a product that passed a round quantity evaluation. IOW, their product fired more rounds without a stoppage than any other manufacturer's. The military just threw the test out and stayed with their current supplier, but it was a wake-up call in the industry ... as a certain standard was set and that can lead to future protests (which the Government hates).

The DoD ain't too happy with 5.56 these days. They're looking hard at the 6.8 SPC as a replacement. 'When' this goes through, it's very unlikely Stag will lose in the bidding process and that may well put Colt out of business.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Many that rotated back from ME tours lodged the same complaint about 5.56x45--lacking in knock down power. I remember reading an article about Springfield Armory tasked with refurbishing M-14s and returning them into service, using old NATO 7.62x51. That they reacted and recirculated the old cartridge bears credence to their plaints.
Some wildcat rounds have since gained SAAMI acceptance to bridge the void tween 5.56 and 7.62--6.5 Creedmore, 6.5 Grendel, and 6.8SPC(my fav of the bunch).
I know procurement is hesitant to change, but there is value to alternative calibers that will ultimately give combat troops better tools on the battlefield. Most of these rounds, like the 300BLK, are sized up from similar 5.56 brass, and retrofitting production to manufacture uppers, lowers and barrels would not be a major hurdle. Most companies would factor in change-over costs in bids submitted if the 6.8spc was selected.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Vasa,

Actually for guns bound for the civilian market there is ONE and only one part that is serialized according to federal firearms law. In the case of the AR15 it's the lower receiver. By federal law the serialized part IS the "gun". Now there's also stuff pertaining to very stupid export control BS and or supplying to military, law enforcement, and government agencies which I cannot speak to... However this is sounding very much to me like the odd suppressors for specops case awhile back...
edit on 19-5-2015 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I wonder how many of these no serial numbered parts the Feds confiscated ends up in the hands of the ISIS(L). similar to the work truck from a Texas plumbers company. Mark 1 Plumbing



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

I think NATO's use of 5.56 will extend beyond the few years I've got left to me. It will always be a favored round of door kickers due to its armor piercing velocity and what happens to the round when it encounters drywall.
I have virtually no experience with the 6.8, but that's soon to change.


Will be placing another order with Stag PDQ.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Stag enjoys a great rep in the industry, and though I don't own that platform, I have shot a Stag AR15. I prefer Spike's or LMT, 1 in 7" twist. I built a 6.8spc last fall for a buddy, and came to research the ballistics of that caliber. The flatness of the shooting profile, bullet weights utilized, foot lbs. and velocities generated are very respectable. I am not familiar with sub-sonic loading capabilities of 6.8(similar to the 300BLK/Whisper?), but that data would be a factor if procurement entertains the idea of the 6.8spc.
My buddy speaks well of that round, and used the rifle I built to bag 2 Whitetails last fall. Hope you'll be as happy as he is with that platform.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80


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

What says they didn't?

The quote I posted from the link that stated the owner protested his states stricter gun controls in the wake of Sandy Hook massacre.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Over the years any enforcement action pursued by the ATF merits scrutiny and suspicion,to wit:



www.nationalreview.com...



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Stag-Arms screwed the pooch big time on this.

ATF rules require all controlled items, like AR lowers, to be serialized within 7 days of construction. Stag-Arms gave excuses like "The engraver was out on vacation". 3000 lowers have been confiscated.

They are the only reason they lost those lowers.

Now, with that said, the rules governing this are obviously moronic. The BATF needs to be disbanded.
The rules set forth are interpreted 10 different ways by 5 different people at different days of the week. The BATF allows their agents to enforce not only firearm laws, but state, local and city laws, Tax codes, Corporation laws, EPA laws and a vast many other laws.

And with scandals involving the BATF, Fast and Furious, who are we left to believe that this is actually a case where the BATF is telling the truth.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

7 days after it is considered to be a "firearm". Now, good luck in getting a straight answer as to what qualifies something as a firearm.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Actually it is 7 days after it is machined and considered a firearm.

An AR lower, 100% is considered a firearm.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

If it is a 100% completed ART lower then yes. The FFL is required to destroy it and mark it as destroyed in the FFL log book.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

The parts can be moved, so long as they stay within the ownership/custody of the manufacturer. The location needs to be owned or leased by the manufacturer. And the controlled parts need to be serialized within 7 days.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ISawItFirst

The parts can be moved, so long as they stay within the ownership/custody of the manufacturer. The location needs to be owned or leased by the manufacturer. And the controlled parts need to be serialized within 7 days.


I was just going off on article that said the transfer was the main issue. How can they prove the recievers were the same from 7 days prior.

We scrapped them and made new ones yesterday.

It is all politics. Snarl is right. Thanks for the compliment btw.

Thanks for all the good info Bosco.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I'm a firearm manufacturer...

ATF conducts random inspections of firearm manufacturers and dealers to ensure compliance.

I'm willing to bet that Stag has been violating the 7-day serial number deadline for awhile now and they just happened to get inspected by ATF at the wrong time.

The only part of an AR-15 that is considered a firearm is the lower receiver. Stag can't get in trouble for any other part.

Here's the usual process for completing an AR-15 lower and I don't know how much Stag does in-house because a lot of manufacturers sub out their anodizing work and such to other companies.

1- Obtain forging (or raw aluminum if creating a billet lower)
2- Perform various machining operations to convert the forging into a completed receiver (at this point, the ATF considers it a firearm and the manufacturer now has 7 days to serialize the lower and register it with the ATF on a Form 2)
3- If machine-engraving wasn't done during process #2, now the lower is engraved/stamped with the appropriate information. (some shops sub out this part of the process because laser engravers that can cut to ATF specifications are expensive)
4- Anodize the lower. (this is the part that most manufacturers sub out)

The "guy on vacation" excuse sounds like total BS so I'm going to guess that Stag was using a sub contractor to engrave some overflow work and the sub couldn't keep up with the 7-day requirement or Stag simply got complacent and let a bunch of lowers pile up without engraving them. This could have been going on for a very long time and it was just now discovered.

Regardless what most people think about the federal law enforcement agencies, the feds don't typically pounce on a manufacturer so hard on the first screw-up so I'm going to guess that Stag has been warned about this in prior inspections and they didn't fix the problem.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ISawItFirst

The parts can be moved, so long as they stay within the ownership/custody of the manufacturer. The location needs to be owned or leased by the manufacturer. And the controlled parts need to be serialized within 7 days.


This isn't totally correct. As long as the manufacturer and a subcontractor with the required licensing have the approved paperwork from ATF, manufacturers can send their receivers to a subcontractor for work.


7.4.4.2 Variances for manufacturers’ contractors. As pointed out in Section 7.2.2, some
manufacturers contract with other entities to perform certain work on their firearms prior to their
ultimate sale. In those instances the contractors are also “manufacturers” who must be licensed
as a Type 07 Manufacturer or as a Type 10 Manufacturer of Destructive Devices in order to
perform any manufacturing function on the firearm. Additionally, the regulations require that
the secondary manufacturer mark the firearm with their identifying information to include name,
city and State. A qualified, secondary manufacturer may request a variance to adopt the
markings of the initial manufacturer. If a manufacturer is working with a secondary
manufacturer, either the manufacturer or the secondary manufacturer can submit a letter of
request to FTB for a marking variance.


Now, where this changes is with Machineguns and refinishing. Stag manufactures machineguns for LE so if they were shipping the full-auto lowers to a different location for anodizing or engraving, they definitely would have run afoul of the law.


A machinegun cannot be transferred to a secondary manufacturer
such as a bluer, Parkerizer, heat treater etc. In order to have a machinegun receiver blued,
Parkerized or heat treated, etc., the possessor of the machinegun must transport the machinegun
and remain in possession of the machinegun while it is being blued, Parkerized or heated treated
by the secondary manufacturer.

edit on 5/20/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
There's also this, which shows that the ATF gives some leeway in these situations but if Stag wasn't able to provide an adequate explanation for the lapse in marking... they may be screwed.


Nonetheless, ATF recognizes that a manufacturer may require more than seven days to
finish the manufacturing process from beginning to end with the required markings,
depending on the nature of the process involved. Some firearms may take more time due
to differences in the type and capability of the firearm, availability of materials and
components, and complexity of the assembly and finishing processes. ATF also
recognizes that the equipment necessary to identify the firearms must be available and in
working order. However, once the entire manufacturing process has ended, manufacturers
must ensure that the firearms have been marked in the manner required by section 478.92.
To facilitate inspection and ensure that ATF can determine that a licensed manufacturer
has not unreasonably held completed firearms (to include finished frames and receivers to
be sold, shipped, or disposed of separately) after seven (7) days from the date of
completion without their required markings, licensees may take the following steps:
(1) maintain a copy of the current, active license of all contracted licensees;
(2) maintain records of firearms production;
(3) maintain work orders, contracts, and related instructions for services
rendered that describe the various firearm manufacturing processes;
(4) maintain orders for firearm parts that have yet to be received; and
(5) maintain invoices to repair non-functioning machines.
Source

So, as you can see, it's not like the ATF is going to shut you down because your engraver was broken and it took more than 7 days to mark your receivers.
edit on 5/20/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Oh, there is no real way for the BATF to state for sure as to when they were made. Stag-Arms appears to already have said too much to them, indicating that they were made a while back and then made excuses as to why they didn't have SNs.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join