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) |
