EPArmory, Aries Armor, BATFE Raid and 80% Lowers

By Dean Weingarten

EP Lowers Polymer 80% AR15 JIG-LESS lower receiver
EP Lowers Polymer 80% AR15 JIG-LESS lower receiver
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- I have been trying to make sense of the current chaos involving EPArmory 80% lowers, the BATFE, and Aries Armor.   Kilbreaux at the eparmory.com forum has some cogent analysis:

Of course I wonder just what IF anything the ATF can do in terms of retrieving receivers from customers.

First, a significant number of receivers had to be OTC, cash sales…no way to track those people down. For the CC internet customers, so they find out who they are…how do they prove the parts received were manufactured in such a manner as to be considered a firearm? Assuming they even know what they’re talking about and EP was making lowers “outside first” the problem the Feds have when it comes to rules of evidence and what happens in courts where lawyers tend to show up, and the thin film of “probable cause” that gets a warrant from a rubber stamp bench, carries no weight. How does the ATF prove any receivers sold prior to their visit were built incorrectly? Clearly EP Armory isn’t going to “confess” to building them outside-to-in…and in fact they even LOOK build “inside-to-out” by anyone who has any knowledge of plastics molding…the “flashing” around the polymer insert plug is from the receiver indicating the plug was already there when the outside part was injected. But the point is, the Feds position is tenuous…better for the purpose of making cautious people scared than for actually “proving” anything.

Add to this the fact that any lowers already milled out no longer contain ANY “incriminating evidence.” On a milled lower there is NO WAY to ascertain HOW it was molded. IF as was implied in EP’s Facebook post, they did in fact have a “Letter” from the ATF, even their own ad-hoc rule changing can’t be leveraged against the end customer.

I read a post on Calguns where some clown stated he’d bought an EP lower but never finished it as if to suggest this lets him off the hook, yet he is in fact, more “wrong” than right in his view because IF the ATF were to show up at his front door and demand to see the lower and it was presented in “as received” condition, then HE is in possession of an unregistered firearm! However, if (as Chris’s post above made me suddenly realize) the ATF show up at the front door demanding to see the lower and it’s already been machined out, the “evidence” as it were, that the receiver was improperly molded is GONE!

(It’s kind of like when the school takes your 13 y/o daughter down to the local abortion clinic without ever telling you because THEY CAN, and they CAN’T tell you, and she has an abortion. YOU can no longer push for prosecution of some punk because the EVIDENCE has been destroyed! (This is how it works in Kalifornia)

Well, the same thing applies here…regardless of what the ATF round during their raid, they cannot prove (only allege) that receivers not on the premises were manufactured improperly, and if they send out “surrender” letters to purchasers the LAST THING a purchaser wants to do is send them an as-delivered lower! Because IF…and that’s a MIGHTY tall if, the ATF does deem the EP lower improperly made, the surrender of one in that configuration would be a felony in and of itself…and by sending it directly to the ATF the purchaser has “confessed” through stupidity.

On the other hand, if the purchaser chooses to surrender a completed lower – interior milled out, and appropriately “demilled” by sawing in half, the ATF is NOT receiving a “unregistered firearm” in the mail and have absolutely NO WAY to prove the receiver was EVER in such a configuration as to be considered an unregistered firearm.

And as Chris stated above…as far as he’s concerned he has a legal firearm…I suspect that simple statement pretty much sums it all up…once completed the EP lower is no longer in as-manufactured configuration and without the ability to PROVE that EP Armory has always been manufacturing them in the wrong sequence, I don’t think the ATF has a whole lot of options other than the intimidation factor that will probably cause most who receive such demand letters to return what they have…but for those who are bragging about having never touched their lower with a tool, if they send it back that way – EVEN IF they saw the entire thing in half, what the ATF receives will STILL BE “evidence” of an unregistered firearm having been in the possession of the sender!

Well thought out analysis of the practical effects on an BATFE effort to “retrieve” any lowers that they think might have been manufactured improperly.   However, consider that in most of the United States, there is no requirement to register guns.   There is even a federal law that forbids gun registration.   Even in the documents that I have seen from the BATFE  involving Aries Armor, they claim that they only want the customer list to determine if any prohibited possessors came into possession of what they now claim is a firearm.   From scribd.com, paragraph 5, of the Declaration of Paul J. Ware, Division Counsel for the Los Angeles Field Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobaccos, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), concerning the Aries Armor case:

I further advised that I would do my best to expedite ATF’s reconsideration of the determination that the receivers were firearms and if ATF determined they were not firearms, ATF would return the product to his client.  I also requested the records of any customers who had purchased EPS Arms receivers to ensure they were not distributed to persons prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm.  I also made it clear that we are limiting our request to only the EPS Arms receivers and records of sales of those receivers.

From the documents, it is fairly clear that Mr. Ware is writing about EPArmory receivers.   I am not sure how the nomenclature was mixed up.  Mr. Ware is a Division Counsel, so he does not speak for upper BATFE management.  Still, what he writes is interesting.

It is not illegal to possess a firearm that never had a serial number.  It is illegal to remove or deface an existing serial number.  There are multiple millions of legal firearms in the United States without serial numbers, and from the popularity of making your own guns, it appears to me that the number is constantly growing.  There are millions, perhaps tens of millions of private sales that occur each year that make serial number tracing of no practical value.

This is one of the reasons that those opposed to an armed population push so hard for universal gun registration.   One of the significant points of that effort is to make it illegal to own a firearm that is not registered.   There are only a very few places where that is the case now, and California is on that path.  It is another instance of moving from a society where everything that is not prohibited is allowed, to one where everything that is not allowed is prohibited.

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve douglas

what about the costumer list…


The BATF is out of control like most of the departments and agencies of this administration. They have no respect or fear of prosecution. The Attorney General should have been brought up on charges and jailed several times already. Only way short of a revolution is to vote them out. I love my country but I fear my government is no longer just a bumper sticker.


Just one little minor detail left out of this: the BATFE raid was in direct violation of a court-ordered injunction.

Steven Mace