Remember That Time ATF Raided Polymer80: No Product Taken, No Cease & Desist Order

BBS Kit from Polymer80 advertising cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- At about 5:00 to 5:30 a.m. back on the 10th of December 2020, the ATF raided the corporate headquarters of Polymer80, located in Dayton, Nevada. Fake-news-media outlet CNN had been notified in advance of the raid.

The ATF was operating on a novel legal theory: the idea that parts, in proximity to 80% receivers, constituted firearms.

According to a very reliable source, two computers were taken, more or less, as some peripherals may have been taken as well. The computers were to be returned on 11th December, once the ATF has taken “images” of the data on the computers.

Virtually no product was taken. The Agents were looking for Buy Build Shoot (BBS) kits. None were found because none were in stock.

The ATF then contacted Brownells.com. Brownells does not sell BBS kits, so none were found at Brownells.

Confirmed here

My source says ATF agents then went to a Polymer80 employee’s residence in another state, and without a warrant, bullied their way inside and took a BDS kit the employee had.

Confirmed here

The ATF legal theory, that parts in proximity to an 80% receiver, constitute a firearm, is new legal ground.  The fact no product was taken, and no cease and desist order was issued, may indicate the ATF is on very shaky legal ground.

As AmmoLand News investigative reporter John Crump has written in an earlier article, Polymer80 has ATF Determination Letters showing the Polymer80 products are not firearms.

The “proximity” reading is rather ambiguous.

  • How close is too close? If six inches is too close, how about six feet?
  • If the product is ordered in two separate packages, then delivered by a shipper, and left on a doorstep on top of one another, has the delivery person committed a felony by delivering a firearm?
  • If two packages come together in the US Mail, does that violate USPS protocols against shipping pistols through the mail?

John Crump reports that sources tell him, under a Biden administration, the DOJ would not contest a lawsuit from California, saying 80% receivers should be legally considered firearms. This could lead to a legal “settlement” whereby the law is changed without any change in either regulation or statute.

Such “settlements” have been a favored tactic of environmental and labor groups.



My source indicates Polymer80 will be filing continued legal actions against the ATF for harm rendered to the company, resulting from the raid, when they have not broken any law.

Actual legal theories will await developments.

Raids such as this have been hinted at in reports of conferences between ATF higher echelon and the then-candidate Joe Biden, as part of his desire to attack firearms ownership in the United States.

The complete system failure of the legal battles contesting the 2020 election procedures in Texas v. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, should frighten and motivate Second Amendment supporters into continued and robust political action.

The country is already divided into opposing camps. This sort of raid by ATF throws gasoline on the fire of civil distrust so it is good to remember and review.

It is hard to think of something which would do more to convince conservatives that the Deep State is not to be trusted, than questionable law enforcement against gun manufacturers, even before a real change in the government, a change in statutes, or even, a change in a bureaucratic rule.


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 retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Subscribe
Notify of
16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
swmft
swmft
4 months ago

trump is from new york which makes him a democrat or rino at best, he was a better choice than bilery,or hiboma but not a conservative, but I do like his court choices hope they take a case that nullifies the firearms act , remember the miller ruling was made without knowledge of what the military uses, trench guns are ALL short barreled whether rifle or shotgun, firearms for clearing buildings also better short. Long guns are for open and long range

Kaiserworks
Kaiserworks
4 months ago

Nothing ever changes until belly’s are hungry. When you start to see that, know its time to go for a swim to retrieve everything you lost in the boating accident. Until then, accept that fellow gun owners and maybe even you will continue to be raided, financially ruined and possibly jailed. There is no ‘next election’, its all about food supply at this point.

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
4 months ago

All the big Federal Agencies have been out of control since obana weaponized them. They didn’t knuckle under to Trump either who even suggested they do something about bump stocks. So the ATF illegally rewrote the 1934 NFA definition of a machine gun. President Trump did not ban them or sign anything banning them, it was solely the ATF violating administrated procedures. Even worse, Trump’s casual statement to take the guns first, then due process kicked off the Red Flag flurry of laws in Democrat States.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
4 months ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

Trump didn’t suggest – he ordered them to ban bump stocks. That is “knuckling under” to him – they did what he told them to do.

It was not “solely” the ATF violating “administrated procedures.”

How can you possibly still believe the things you wrote? The evidence is out there for all to see.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
4 months ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

Here’s the February 18, 2018 meeting in which he was begging Democrat and Republican legislators to create a bill with all sorts of gun control laws:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?441884-1/president-trump-calls-comprehensive-gun-bill

He bragged he was just the guy to get it done.

He told them not to be afraid of the NRA.

When they asked about bump stocks, he told them not to even consider putting that in the bill – he would take care of that personally by circumventing the legislative process.

Last edited 4 months ago by JSNMGC
JSNMGC
JSNMGC
4 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Two days after his gun control conference, he made good on his promise to take care of bump stocks. Here’s the February 20, 2018 Presidential Memorandum:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-application-definition-machinegun-bump-fire-stocks-similar-devices/

In the memorandum, he again bragged that Obama had failed to act to ban bump stocks, but he was smart and found a way to legally justify taking executive action on the matter by ordering the Administrative State to redefine the meaning of words.

Last edited 4 months ago by JSNMGC
Finnky
Finnky
4 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Bump stocks are a perfect example of federal agency knuckling under. Under Obama they stuck to the truth, that bump stocks are an unregulated accessory. With Trump they also pushed back but when ordered to break the law, they knuckled under and did so.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
4 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

Exactly. Spreading untruths to apologize for Republican politicians harms Pro 2nd Amendment efforts. We should be loudly pointing out to the Republican establishment that Trump lost because he flip-flopped on gun control and if the Republicans ever want to have another Republican in the White House, they better not do that again.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
4 months ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

Obama weaponized the Federal Agencies?

Have you ever seen footage of the amount of weapons and other equipment and the number of armed government employees who conducted and supported the actions at Ruby Ridge?

That was George H.W. Bush.

Federal agencies had been “weaponized” even before that disaster.

Finnky
Finnky
4 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

“Weaponizing the federal agencies” does not refer to arming them – though arming them makes them more effective tools. Weaponizing refers to using agencies as weapons against political opposition. Don’t have any examples that old, but wouldn’t be surprised if it started in the eighteen century. More recent include Hoover’s FBI, everything McCarthy did, and of course Nixon’s actions to retain power.
I realize that agencies have been used against broad groups before, but it seems likely that targeting all of the ~100 million gun owners in the country is a significant escalation toward tyranny.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
4 months ago
Reply to  Finnky

When the agencies being referred to are LE agencies, “weaponizing” them by giving them more and more weapons is a big part of the “weaponization.” Waco happened because of Ruby Ridge. Ruby Ridge happened because federal LE agencies were offended that a random citizen exercised his right to not spy on other people for them. Randy Weaver just wanted to be left alone – he hadn’t done anything wrong. The government wanted to control him and the best way to do that was to orchestrate a way in which he broke the law (which he was never convicted of). That… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
4 months ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

at least as far back as when that former corporate railroad lawyer from Illinois ordered US troops to invade a sovereign foreign nation. And most likely long before that, when da fedguv sent armed revenue agents into the hills of Kentucky and Tennesee and Virgina to ferret out private stills, seize alcohol, try and collect taxes on them ilegally imposed….. look into that “Whiskey Rebellion” and the beginnings of what became the BATF.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
4 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

Even more recently, the Bureau of Prohibition was happily enforcing Prohibition (even though one of the most famous enforcers was an alcoholic). Repeal of prohibition was 1933, but you never reduce the size of government, so, tax alcohol and rename the Bureau of Prohibition the Alcohol Tax Unit (ATU). Since government employees could not safely store government machine guns and keep them out of the hands of criminals, in 1934 the government decided to prevent non-violent, non-government employees from having machine guns. Makes sense. By 1942 the ATU was running out of things to do, but you never reduce the… Read more »

Stag
Stag
4 months ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

All federal agencies have been out of control since they were formed. Obama didn’t do anything worse than most presidents before him when it comes to using unconstitutional agencies against the people.

Stag
Stag
4 months ago
Reply to  Stag

Well said!

BigJim
BigJim
4 months ago

‘Thugs’ came from the Thugee Cult over in India. The British swiftly did away with them. Back when they were Upright ‘Gents. Thugs; eerily similiar to last years riots and in Portland recently.