See update below.
If this lawyer lost any gun cases, his clients may have grounds for appeal due to ineffective counsel. I just hope he didn’t convince a client to cop a plea to unlawful possession of paper weights.
It started with this news report.
Indiana teen built ‘ghost gun’ from online parts
In February a 17-year-old boy in Evansville, Indiana, went onto the website of Columbia-based firearms manufacturer MidwayUSA and spent $235.37 on parts making up 80 percent of a Glock 17 pistol.
It’s the usual Ooooh! Scary ghost guns BS. Pretty clearly the reporter doesn’t know the difference between an unfinished 80% receiver and a finished-but-unequipped one.It didn’t help that he went to Columbia, MO attorney Stephen Wyse for info.
Under federal law, long-gun unfinished receivers are classified as firearms, said Columbia attorney Steve Wyse. Handgun unfinished receivers are not classified as firearms under federal law, Wyse said.
That’s bad enough, but when I took to Twitter to point out the error things only got worse. Wyse replied.
I actually said that unfinished receivers to machine guns are considered firearms under federal law. The feds consider an AR-15 to be a machine gun
AR-15s are semiautomatic, not machineguns, unless unlawfully modified. And whether intended for a machinegun or not, an unfinished (80% or less) receiver is not considered a firearm; it’s a receiver-shaped paperweight. Compare the two:
An 80% lower.
A paper weight until it’s further milled. It could be milled to be an AR lower, or — assuming you’re properly licensed and doing it for mil/police, and not for civilian use (thanks, VNRA — it could be milled to take an M-16 trigger group. For now, it’s an inert chunk of metal.
A finished AR lower.
This, being by ruling of the ATF is a firearm. Note the lawfully required markings, including serial number.
But Wyse had to double down on the AR-15 = machinegun line.
The federal govt. defines a AR-15 receiver as a “machine gun”. Not my definition and not within my power to change
He’s l… being less than truthful, or he doesn’t understand the difference between an AR-15 (semiautomatic firearm) and the the M-16/M-4 family of assault rifles (select-fire). According to his bio, he’s a Democrat, so it could go either way. Ditto for his possible… confusion over 80% and finished lowers.
It’s a shame reporter Philip Joens didn’t go to an “expert” who actually knows what he’s talking about and/or is honest.
I hope Wyse hasn’t convinced a client to cop a plea for possession of an AR-15 semiauto “machinegun” or 80% lower. As I started, such a client would certainly seem to have grounds for appeal, and should get an opinion from a knowledgeable attorney.
Update, 5/29/2019, 5PM: Mr. Wyse has anticipated the “semi-auto problem” about which The Zelman Partisans have been warning since October 5, 2017. Wyse argues that bump-fire stocks make semiautomatic rifles “easily convertible” to machineguns under the recent BSTD rule.
While the bump-stock-type device rule was finalized (and is being challenged in federal courts), there has been no ruling actually establishing the “semi-auto = machinegun” equivalency. I don’t see any Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making or NPRM for such a rule.
Yet.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
(More Tip Jar Options) |
My one real question is whether he actually is that ignorant, or is he acting?
Just from his tweets though (and being a dem), I have to go with “Yep, he is that ignorant about gun laws and regs.
From what I’ve seen from other dems, that ignorance is carefully cultivated.
And, there’s no telling what other subjects he’s as ignorant of. Quite a lawyer to stay away from.
Most attorneys are both generalists, and what I would describe as “Law Mechanics”. This one appears to be a “shade-tree” version. They effectively memorize a mass of general information, hire a good paralegal to do 85% of the profit center work, and cash checks in the interim. Sad.
“shade-tree” version” = shyster
n. an unscrupulous lawyer or politician.
It is perfectly legal in Missouri to mill an 80% AR-15 lower in Missouri. You do NOT have to have it serialized. I checked with the ATF. It is considered a hobby gun. One only has to serialize it if transferring it to another. What would be the sense of buying all the tools, templates, and hours of work and then have to put a registered serial number on it, a lot of work and red tape, when you could save a lot of money and buy the gun over the counter? None. But you do not have to serialize it so it does make sense. I even heard an attorney in the K.C. area state once a so-called “ghost-gun” is milled, into a receiver, it must be serialized. Like the 80% Glocks, this is FALSE. Unless you researched the process and done an 80% lower, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do some homework people.
When I wrote of “required markings,” I was speaking of that commercially sold complete lower, not one you complete for personal use.
Some states have passed laws requiring homebuilders to add serial numbers. Amusingly, none of the ones I’ve checked have language that specifies just how the number is set: In each case stamping “1” on every frame/receiver you built would meet the dumbass letter of the law.
Got it and you’re correct. I wasn’t referring to you but a local attorney who was discussing “ghost-guns” in Missouri. My apologies for any confusion on my part.