ATF issues JSD Supply cease & desist over sale of parts that are not firearms

[DispositionMatrix]

A Message to Our Customers:

ATF came to our offices and warehouse to serve a cease and desist letter, regarding the selling of certain parts.

In an abundance of safety for our staff and customers, we have TEMPORARILY pulled the website until we have clear answers from our legal team. Again, we weren’t asked to take the website down, nor were we “raided”.

We’re still here, making the necessary changes to keep bringing you legal, quality firearm parts you’ve come to expect while working to preserve your Second Amendment freedoms.

ATF Serves Cease & Desist Order to Gun Parts Supplier, JSD Supply

The order originated from the ATF’s Philadelphia field office. It stated that JSD Supply could not sell both unfinished frames and firearms parts to the same person no matter if they were purchased at different times. If JSD Supply sold a frame to someone, then the customer comes back to the site and buys a gun part; then, according to the ATF, the company sold the customer a complete firearm without a federal firearms license (FFL) in violation of the Gun Control Act (GCA).

The ATF claims this action is independent of the new rule change that was unveiled last month during a White House Rose Garden ceremony and is due to go into effect this August. The order claimed it has always been Illegal under the GCA to sell parts and frames to the same person even if the transactions were separate. The ATF calls this “structuring.” Many sites sell both parts and frames, including major players in the firearms industry such as Brownells and Midway.

As of Thursday morning, JSD Supply’s website was taken offline until the company received legal advice on how to move forward. JSD Supply has been at the center of attention since NBC News released a hit piece on the company in conjunction with Pennsylvania Attorney General and governor candidate Josh Shapiro.

 

[vicorjh]

 

[allen-1]

I have two problems with this;
One - an unfinished frame, (aka 80%), isn't a firearm - no matter what parts are sold with it. It's NOT a frame.
Two - "structuring" sounds an awful lot like "constructive posession".

I have more than enough "stuff" in my garage, along with the tools to build a suppressor or a pipebomb. Doesn't mean that I have any intention of doing so - it means that I've been working on bikes, cars and other household projects for literally decades - and I have a lot of "stuff", (including "stuff" that came from my dad's basement after he died).

This is the ATF just making up violations. As though they had the force of law.

a**h***s.

 

[Davidk]

While it is BS anyways, I think "unfinished frames" means stripped lowers, not 80%. Like I said, BS even if that is correct

 

[allen-1]

While it is BS anyways, I think "unfinished frames" means stripped lowers, not 80%. Like I said, BS even if that is correct

I don't think you're correct. If we agree that a "stripped lower" is a finished receiver, but lacking parts such as trigger, trigger pins, mag release, detents, etc - then by federal law, that stripped lower is a firearm. An "unfinished frame" is just that - unfinished.

I KNOW it's not looked at that way in MA [see below], but federal law applies - so a 4473 is required for the sale, and if it's going out of state, it has to go through an FFL.


From the originally cited article:
JSD Supply products have opinion letters from the ATF stating that the items in question are not firearms. This contradiction of what the cease and desist order says and what the determination letters say is perplexing.

The regulations surrounding 80% kits are confusing. Instead of the ATF clarifying its stance in the new pistol frame rule, it muddies the water by making contradictory statements in the documents. It is unclear if ATF’s special agent will visit other companies.

As regards MA - everywhere else that I'm aware of, a stripped lower is considered a firearm.

 

[ScottS]

While it is BS anyways, I think "unfinished frames" means stripped lowers, not 80%. Like I said, BS even if that is correct

From their website: "Shop JSD Supply for 80% Lower Receivers, Jigs, and Gun Parts Kits that are used to create functional firearms with no registration or serial numbers."

While I agree this "ruling" is bullshit, I think they could have worded that sentence a bit differently.

 

[Davidk]

I don't think you're correct. If we agree that a "stripped lower" is a finished receiver, but lacking parts such as trigger, trigger pins, mag release, detents, etc - then by federal law, that stripped lower is a firearm. An "unfinished frame" is just that - unfinished.

I KNOW it's not looked at that way in MA, but federal law applies - so a 4473 is required for the sale, and if it's going out of state, it has to go through an FFL.

Not sure who is correct, but firearm experts did not write the article so all verbiage is suspect

 

[Drix]

While it is BS anyways, I think "unfinished frames" means stripped lowers, not 80%. Like I said, BS even if that is correct

Unfinished is being used by the atf to confuse the subject.

Here it means 80% frame not a stripped frame. A stripped frame is a finished firearm by federal definition- the trigger package is not part of the firearm definition.

 

[Davidk]

From their website: "Shop JSD Supply for 80% Lower Receivers, Jigs, and Gun Parts Kits that are used to create functional firearms with no registration or serial numbers."

While I agree this "ruling" is bullshit, I think they could have worded that sentence a bit differently.

ok, I sit corrected

 

[OnTheRoad]

And here I am, got some fertilizer for the garden yesterday and was going to fill the diesel truck this afternoon...

 

[MAJoe]

While it is BS anyways, I think "unfinished frames" means stripped lowers, not 80%. Like I said, BS even if that is correct

From the reading of the letter, it appears they were selling kits which included a completed slide, 80% frame with jig, and all the parts for the lower. A single package that creates a functional firearm after completing the 80%. I think even Polymer80 was told to stop selling these “build and shoot” kits.

What appears new here, are the comments around “structuring”. I am curious if that’s someone who purchases lower parts a week later, or someone who purchases “an everything else kit” later after already getting an 80%.

From the letter it also sounds like they told JSD to stop, not give us the customer list to go confiscate.

 

[jkelly1229]

I have two problems with this;
One - an unfinished frame, (aka 80%), isn't a firearm - no matter what parts are sold with it. It's NOT a frame.
Two - "structuring" sounds an awful lot like "constructive posession".

I have more than enough "stuff" in my garage, along with the tools to build a suppressor or a pipebomb. Doesn't mean that I have any intention of doing so - it means that I've been working on bikes, cars and other household projects for literally decades - and I have a lot of "stuff", (including "stuff" that came from my dad's basement after he died).

This is the ATF just making up violations. As though they had the force of law.

a**h***s.

Me either no intention of doing that stuff like at all

 

[KBCraig]

Their website is currently up and working. I see the separate parts and tools, but not the buy-build-shoot kits.

Shop By Category Archives

DIYing your own firearm? Shop rifle receivers from name brands at JSD Supply. We ship high-quality handgun parts legally and quickly, right to your door.

jsdsupply.com

 

[DispositionMatrix]

What appears new here, are the comments around “structuring”. I am curious if that’s someone who purchases lower parts a week later, or someone who purchases “an everything else kit” later after already getting an 80%.

You could start with "Further" in the 3rd paragraph of the letter:
View: https://www.scribd.com/document/573811422/ATF-Serves-JSD-Supply-With-a-Cease-and-Desist-Order-Over-Selling-Gun-Parts

From the letter it also sounds like they told JSD to stop, not give us the customer list to go confiscate.

Give it time. Given the authorities have demonstrated they already are monitoring transactions by individuals, the ATF might not even require a customer list.

 

[MAJoe]

You could start with "Further" in the 3rd paragraph of the letter

I read that, which caused me to question if that means a functioning lower (80% and LPK) as a firearm (since a 100% lower needs an FFL), or fully complete pistol (LPK, slide, etc.). I think there are very different implications if a company can’t even sell frame parts.

 

[murf4321]

Lol, so all these 80% lower companies will simply incorporate a new company with a new website and sell frames on one site with all the other parts on the other.

Democrats rolling out the rubik’s cube of mental retardation

 

[Garys]

"The process is the punishment." Even though they would likely win in court, the litigation costs could put them out of business.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

I read that, which caused me to question if that means a functioning lower (80% and LPK) as a firearm (since a 100% lower needs an FFL), or fully complete pistol (LPK, slide, etc.). I think there are very different implications if a company can’t even sell frame parts.

"...necessary components to produce a functional firearm to the same person through multiple purchases..." seems pretty clear. The ATF is prohibiting JSD from selling parts that are not firearms to customers who buy the remainder of parts that are not firearms, even via multiple transactions.

 

[allen-1]

"...necessary components to produce a functional firearm to the same person through multiple purchases..." seems pretty clear. The ATF is prohibiting JSD from selling parts that are not firearms to customers who buy the remainder of parts that are not firearms, even via multiple transactions.

That's correct, and it's BS. They've redefined what a firearm is.

 

[Compooky]

So sell everything except one part which is sold through a retailer and everything is legal.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I think the ATF can make a good case that a whole kit with an 80% P80 frame, a slide, all of the parts and a bbl is probably a firearm.

But ordering at different times?? C'mon man. So if I order a P80 frame legally, I'm banned from buying anything gun-part-related from that retailer. . . . forever????

The bottom line is that crims are gonna get gunz. Always. I'll continue to point to $450 for a BP revolver and a conversion cylinder. For your typical turdbucket, they're gonna drop the thing if they fire it anyhow. It isn't like they need 45 rounds and 3 mag changes.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

I think the ATF can make a good case that a whole kit with an 80% P80 frame, a slide, all of the parts and a bbl is probably a firearm.

Though it's a mess of unconstitutional absurdity itself, GCA'68 defines what a firearm is via law. The ATF reinterpreting/redefining firearm via writ is an abuse that needs to end. GCA'68 does not say a bunch of parts--not any of which is a firearm--is a firearm.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Hopefully PA has an equivalent to Comm2A who will help them fight it. Notably, their site looks to be back up and running at this point.

 

[KBCraig]

I think the ATF can make a good case that a whole kit with an 80% P80 frame, a slide, all of the parts and a bbl is probably a firearm.

Though it's a mess of unconstitutional absurdity itself, GCA'68 defines what a firearm is via law. The ATF reinterpreting/redefining firearm via writ is an abuse that needs to end. GCA'68 does not say a bunch of parts--not any of which is a firearm--is a firearm.

ATF has been doing so for decades when it comes to NFA.

Welcome to the War on Drugs, applied to firearms!

With the recent passing of Randy Weaver and John Ross, I re-read Unintended Consequences. Keep in mind that this novel was published in 1996, but contained multiple non-fiction examples of ATF going after people for "constructive possession" of NFA arms. In some cases it could be fender washers, tubing, or rubber washers: when it comes to silencers, parts are the same as finished firearms. Sometimes, perfectly innocuous items are deemed "parts". If they really want to build a case against you, then having wire coathangers, wire cutters, and knowledge of what a lightning link is, would constitute building a machine gun.

This is no different than the DEA prosecuting precursor or analogue chemicals as illegal drugs.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Things have not generally worked out well for people who "knew" the ATFs interpretation was "wrong" and refused to submit. Just ask the guy who ran Maadi Griffin.

 

[rcwhat]

Things have not generally worked out well for people who "knew" the ATFs interpretation was "wrong" and refused to submit. Just ask the guy who ran Maadi Griffin.

Dude was a PP and was doing everything under his wife’s name from what I remember.

 

[Gasgunner]

The really infuriating part that some are glossing over, is that it’s the ATF itself that made the determination that the “80% receiver” was not a firearm. If this is how they’re playing it, all the unserialized parts of a pistol + any inanimate object = firearm.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Dude was a PP and was doing everything under his wife’s name from what I remember.

I believe that the PP status came after he refused to stop selling his 50BMG kits.

 

[cathouse01]

Though it's a mess of unconstitutional absurdity itself, GCA'68 defines what a firearm is via law. The ATF reinterpreting/redefining firearm via writ is an abuse that needs to end. GCA'68 does not say a bunch of parts--not any of which is a firearm--is a firearm.

In 18 USC 921 (a)(3) (the actual US code for the GCA) it defines the term “firearm” as:

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device.
Such term does not include an antique firearm.

The ATF are basing all of their attacks on 80% frames/receivers on that one little qualifying phrase “or may readily be converted”. That’s why the complete lack of a concrete definition of readily in the new ruling is so egregious. Their previous findings were that the work required to make a functioning firearm from an 80% frame/receiver was sufficient in scope that they were not “readily” converted. They have now decided to change their minds because that’s what Sleepy Joe wants.

Here is their new “definition” of Readily (from the new ATF ruling):

Readily. A process, action, or physical state that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, but not necessarily the most efficient, speediest, or easiest process, action, or physical state. With respect to the classification of firearms, factors relevant in making this determination include the following:

(1) Time, i.e., how long it takes to finish the process;
(2) Ease, i.e., how difficult it is to do so;
(3) Expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required;
(4) Equipment, i.e., what tools are required;
(5) Parts availability, i.e., whether additional parts are required, and how easily they can be obtained;
(6) Expense, i.e., how much it costs;
(7) Scope, i.e., the extent to which the subject of the process must be changed to finish it; and
(8) Feasibility, i.e., whether the process would damage or destroy the subject of the process, or cause it to malfunction.

There is enough gobbledygook in here to confuse Solomon. I have to believe it is purposefully written to obfuscate the meaning to the point that the ATF Director can declare anything he/she wants as “readily convertible”.

Now compare that to the Merriam-Webster definition of “readily”: without much difficulty : EASILY. You can see why they needed their own definition, since most normal people, looking at what you need to go through to build out an 80%, would not say that it was done "without much difficulty”. If you want to confirm that, just hand an 80% lower, a 5d Tactical jig (one of the easiest to use), a router and an LPK to the average person on the street and see how long it takes them to just build a complete lower, much less a complete rifle.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Though it's a mess of unconstitutional absurdity itself, GCA'68 defines what a firearm is via law. The ATF reinterpreting/redefining firearm via writ is an abuse that needs to end. GCA'68 does not say a bunch of parts--not any of which is a firearm--is a firearm.

Mind you, I don't think it's RIGHT, but I think they could make a case for it.

On the flip side, I'm thinking the dude that buys a whole kit is likely NOT the type you want holding a firearm. The purpose of a P80 kit was to make something customly yours. Personally, if I were a gun retailer, I'd allow someone to "build" a kit of stuff themselves on my website, but I'd NEVER sell a whole-kit of a gun-in-a-box.