A Houston County gun shop is staring down a civil lawsuit after a local gun-owners group claimed the store was selling parts that can turn a semiautomatic AR-15 into a fully automatic firearm. The complaint, filed in Houston County court, names H&H Armory LLC and its owner, Hunter Haines, and asks a judge to halt any future sales of the parts and award damages.
According to 13WMAZ, the lawsuit was filed on June 11 by a plaintiff identifying itself as AR-15 Gun Owners of America. The station reports that the complaint seeks injunctive relief and notes that federal law enforcement has investigated the sale of auto-sear devices in the past.
What the complaint alleges
The filing accuses H&H Armory of selling so-called “auto-sear” attachments, small components that can be used to make an AR-15 fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has long treated drop-in auto sears as machineguns under a long-standing agency ruling, according to the ATF. Unregistered possession or transfer of such parts can run afoul of federal firearms laws.
Who’s involved
The plaintiff, AR-15 Gun Owners of America, operates in Warner Robins, and the complaint names H&H Armory LLC and owner Hunter Haines as defendants, as reported by 13WMAZ. Federal firearms license records list AR-15 Gun Owners of America at 2066 Watson Blvd in Warner Robins, placing both businesses in a tight local market for AR-15 parts and accessories, according to FFLs.com.
Legal backdrop
Federal prosecutors and the ATF have gone after conversion devices before, and dealers who sold machinegun conversion parts have faced criminal charges. In one example, a Kansas City gun-store owner recently pleaded guilty to selling machinegun components, an enforcement action highlighted in an ATF account that underscores the legal risks for retailers handling such gear.
State and city lawsuits have joined a wider national effort to crack down on rapid-fire conversion devices, with manufacturers and retailers increasingly pulled into court. The Washington Post recently covered a prominent Maryland case that tests similar legal theories.
Legal implications
Under federal law, a “machinegun” includes “any part designed and intended…for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” language spelled out in Cornell Law School’s publication of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). The Hughes Amendment, codified at Cornell Law School’s version of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), broadly prohibits civilian transfers and possession of such weapons. Criminal penalties and civil injunctions are among the tools that authorities and private plaintiffs can seek if violations are proved.
The Warner Robins case is still in its early stages, and the outcome could range from an injunction and monetary damages to referrals to federal authorities, depending on what investigators and the court ultimately find. Court dockets will show the next procedural steps as additional filings come in.
