Dimitrios Karras of Ares Armor is a little frustrated with the BATFE’s inconsistency regarding 80% lowers, and what constitutes their manufacture. To assist ATF director B. Todd Jones in understanding, Karras wrote a letter outlining some of the previous statements made by Jones regarding this issue:

On page 2 and 3 you state the following,

“…it generally requires substantial additional machining before it can accommodate fire control components such as a trigger, hammer, or sear…”

“…incapable of being assembled into a weapon…”

And my personal favorite quote on page 3,

“ATF Ruling 2010-10 assumes that a licensed dealer-gunsmiths would perform certain activities on articles ALREADY classified as frames or receivers (i.e., no machining or other processes required to allow it to be used to assemble a weapon)… *emphasis added

Here, you have very clearly stated that an item that requires “machining or other processes” before it is suitable for use in assembling a weapon would not ALREADY be classified as a frame or receiver. THANK YOU FOR THIS GIGANTIC ADMISSION!

5. ) Indexing marks DO NOT make a random object into a “receiver”.

On page 3, you incorrectly and in pompous contempt of the Court make the following statement,

Although such an article may be classified as a “receiver” when it is indexed…

As you are fully aware, this is direct conflict with UNITED STATES v. PRINCE. The ATF has already lost this argument in Federal Court. I have mentioned this case in previous communication with you. It is fully on record that you are aware of this case and its implications.

If Karras’ language seems a little bit soured, that is because the ATF raided Ares Armor back in March, and took all of their EP80 polymer lower receivers:

Let me ask one simple question… If a “receiver” is a “weapon”, why are they defined separately and uniquely in the GCA as firearms?

A “receiver” by itself cannot be “readily converted to expel a projectile” as the receiver by itself lacks the necessary parts. I would love to hand you a receiver and ask you to readily convert it into a weapon. Perhaps you would do that hand waiving Jedi-Mind trick thing you did to Congress when you were asked about why you raided my business!

Attached to the letter was a pictorial explanation of Karras’ interpretation of what Director Jones had previously said about the manufacture of a firearms receiver, done in crayon:

That is certainly an unconventional way to vent your frustrations! Hopefully this dispute is settled soon, and Ares Armor can get back to their business.

H/T To Daniel Watters, and The Firearms User Network