Tuesday, March 23, 2021

ATF Raid on Polymer80: No Product Taken, No Cease and Desist Order (from December, 2020)

Image from Googlemaps.com 

Image screenshot from Polymer80 website, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

At about 5:00 to 5:30 a.m. on 10 December, 2020, the ATF raided the corporate headquarters of Polymer80, located in Dayton, Nevada. CNN had been notified by ATF 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, about two computers were taken. The computers are to be returned on 11 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. Brownells does not sell BBS kits, so none were found at Brownells. 

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. 

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 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 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? 

Ammoland writer John Crump reports that souces 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 a legal action 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 Candidate Joe Biden, as part of his desire to attack firearms ownership in the United States. 

It makes the importance of the current legal battle contesting the election procedures in Texas v. Pennsylvania, even more important to Second Amendment supporters.  

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch




1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this follow up on Polymer80.

Please follow this story:

As you know Iowa will also have a constitutional amendment on the ballot soon for the right to keep and bare arms.