ATF proposed 80% rule and receiver definition is up...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elkins45

Elkins45

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
6,855
Location
Northern KY
Is there any idea when this proposal is thought to get finalized?

I just skimmed through this, need to sit down and read in entirety. It it looks as if there will need to be multiple points on some firearms that will need to be serialized based on the parts they contain (FCG, bolt, etc). So based on that it looks like AR uppers will need to be serialized, correct?
 
They're flailing around. Just about any change to the current rules isn't going to be workable (for practical reasons). Or, to put it another way, they can promulgate new rules but they aren't going to be enforceable. The horse is out of the barn.
 
Ric said:
If they can call a bump stock a machine gun, and get away with it......
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s not like it’s a piece of legislation that is waiting to be passed. It’s a .gov agency making up their rules to impose on the populace. Enforceable or not, it will make law abiding citizens into felons. It’s an obvious, egregious underhanded attempt at gun control by agency edict at the behest of the administration.
 
I disagree entirely. The bumpstock was specifically made to circumvent the NFA on machineguns. I'm not saying I don't care because I didn't want one or that I agree with it. I'm saying it is legally indefensible. Same with pistol braces, we were always on borrowed time with either one. I'd rather see the effort put into repealing the NFA in its entirety.

80% receivers are completely different. It has always been perfectly legal to build your own firearm from scratch. The 80% receiver just makes it easier. Do people really believe that criminals are farting around with 80% receivers when they can much more easily buy a stolen gun on the street? No, this is just low hanging fruit.
 
CraigC said:
I disagree entirely. The bumpstock was specifically made to circumvent the NFA on machineguns. I'm not saying I don't care because I didn't want one or that I agree with it. I'm saying it is legally indefensible. Same with pistol braces, we were always on borrowed time with either one. I'd rather see the effort put into repealing the NFA in its entirety.

80% receivers are completely different. It has always been perfectly legal to build your own firearm from scratch. The 80% receiver just makes it easier. Do people really believe that criminals are farting around with 80% receivers when they can much more easily buy a stolen gun on the street? No, this is just low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...

Bumpstops followed all regulations. One pull, one bullet. Now they want to change the goal posts because of rule following. They should’ve gone through legislation to get them added where there could be a discussion about it at the very least.

Bumpstocks don’t do anything but make shooting faster. It’s been proven that a well tuned trigger and skill by the operator can out shoot a bumpstock. So it falls under the same argument you give for 80% firearms that it’s just making it easier.

The same argument you made could be made about 80% firearms, they were created to easily make firearms and circumvent serial numbers.

So what should we give up next to appease those who hate liberty?
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately there are probably enough examples of gangs building and using 80 percent lower to make this seem common sense to a regular ol' Joe. I know our gang task force has recovered some. Really, it only needed to be a handful nationally.

I am also concerned about the threat to home building and maintenance. Defining the firearm as that which contains fire control mechanisms could of course lead to expansion beyond 80 percents, including uppers and slides.

Or it could be another great way to make gun ownership and the hobby unpredictable legal territory.
 
I've said before that my very conservative, progun, federal officer friends say that they are seeing quite a few P80 kit guns in use in certain states like CA. I've seen the pictures of the guns from the scenes.

You will have a hard time arguing that a kit that assembles into a gun shouldn't go through a FFL because a hobbyist is having fun. You can have fun with a kit that went through NICS.

If the argument is to avoid NICS, then you have to argue against that entire process.
 
BreechFace said:
Bumpstops followed all regulations. One pull, one bullet. Now they want to change the goal posts because of rule following. They should’ve gone through legislation to get them added where there could be a discussion about it at the very least.

Bumpstocks don’t do anything but make shooting faster. It’s been proven that a well tuned trigger and skill by the operator can out shoot a bumpstock. So it falls under the same argument you give for 80% firearms that it’s just making it easier.

The same argument you made could be made about 80% firearms, they were created to easily make firearms and circumvent serial numbers.

So what should we give up next to appease those who hate liberty?
Click to expand...
The bumpstock was designed expressly to circumvent the law on machineguns. There is no other reason for their existence. You can make no other argument. Yes, we all know they're just a gimmick.

80% receivers are entirely different. They do not circumvent the law. As I said, it has always been legal to build your own firearm for your own purposes and that it does not require a serial number as long as it is never sold. This just makes it easier for someone who is not a machinist. IMHO, this cannot be changed without legislation.

Where did I say anything about appeasement? I'm not talking about appeasement. I'm talking about choosing which hill to die on. The bumpstock is not even a hill.
 
GEM said:
You will have a hard time arguing that a kit that assembles into a gun shouldn't go through a FFL because a hobbyist is having fun. You can have fun with a kit that went through NICS.
Click to expand...
If it is proven that criminals are using 80% receivers in any appreciable amount, then that is probably what has to happen.
 
CraigC said:
The bumpstock was designed expressly to circumvent the law on machineguns. There is no other reason for their existence. You can make no other argument. Yes, we all know they're just a gimmick.
Click to expand...

I can make whatever argument I choose. Bumpstocks met all requirements of NOT being a machine gun. So now we are letting the government restrict without rule making? I am not ok with that. And I’m not ok with that in other areas of my life, because it is happening more and more with each drawn breath of politicians.

So are light, short reset/take up triggers only reason for existence to circumvent laws on machine guns? Their only existence is for quick and accurate shooting.

@CraigC i respect your decision on many firearm related topics but dialogue on such topics need to be had.
 
Last edited:
It's exactly what I expect out of this administration. This is why compromise on these things never helps. There is no point at which the left will be happy. Even when NICS came into being, it was only a stepping stone. The problem is deeper than the gun, the rest is window dressing. Otherwise, our drug problems would have ended over 30 years ago, but here we are.
 
While somewhat off topic, a major legalization of drugs (as Portugal did) would probably decrease gun violence more than gun laws. When there is a major bust of a drug hierarchy, gun crimes increase as folks battle to move into the supply chain business.
 
BreechFace said:
I can make whatever argument I choose. Bumpstocks met all requirements of NOT being a machine gun. So now we are letting the government restrict without rule making? I am not ok with that. And I’m not ok with that in other areas of my life, because it is happening more and more with each drawn breath of politicians.

So are light, short reset/take up triggers only reason for existence to circumvent laws on machine guns? Their only existence is for quick and accurate shooting.

@CraigC i respect your decision on many firearm related topics but dialogue on such topics need to be had.
Click to expand...
No, you can't, not logically. The bumpstock got through on a technicality. As I said, its only reason for being was to circumvent the machinegun law. For that reason, it's indefensible. It really should've never been allowed in the first place. As I said, the NFA should be repealed in its entirety, or at least the Hughes amendment. Which would make the whole argument about bump stocks moot.

Target triggers do not circumvent the law.
 
GEM said:
While somewhat off topic, a major legalization of drugs (as Portugal did) would probably decrease gun violence more than gun laws. When there is a major bust of a drug hierarchy, gun crimes increase as folks battle to move into the supply chain business.
Click to expand...
Legalizing drugs does not do anything to alleviate the drug problem or address the underlying causes. Just allows the government to make money off it.
 
CAFE is a regulation and SUV's existed LOOOOONG before it did.

People aren't overdosing, dying or ruining the lives of themselves or others over coffee.

Oxycontin is legal, how's that going?
 
CraigC said:
No, you can't, not logically. The bumpstock got through on a technicality. As I said, its only reason for being was to circumvent the machinegun law.
Click to expand...

No technicality. Bumpstocks followed the letter of the law. Maybe not the “spirit,” but the letter.


CraigC said:
For that reason, it's indefensible.
Click to expand...

it is very defensible as an argument. As was said many times, bumpstocks work with “one pull, one bullet.”

CraigC said:
Target triggers do not circumvent the law.
Click to expand...

It’s been proven one can outrun a bumpstock with a “target trigger,” so...given time and a few instance of light triggers being brought up in a court of law in instances of a crime and we will be having this same discussion with less freedoms.
 
GEM said:
I've said before that my very conservative, progun, federal officer friends say that they are seeing quite a few P80 kit guns in use in certain states like CA. I've seen the pictures of the guns from the scenes.

You will have a hard time arguing that a kit that assembles into a gun shouldn't go through a FFL because a hobbyist is having fun. You can have fun with a kit that went through NICS..
Click to expand...

I have to challenge that and ask for statistics. One guy "seeing quite a few" is anecdotal. Gangbangers can get weapons in a lot of different ways and all of them are easier than milling lowers.
 
BreechFace said:
No technicality. Bumpstocks followed the letter of the law. Maybe not the “spirit,” but the letter.

it is very defensible as an argument. As was said many times, bumpstocks work with “one pull, one bullet.”

It’s been proven one can outrun a bumpstock with a “target trigger,” so...given time and a few instance of light triggers being brought up in a court of law in instances of a crime and we will be having this same discussion with less freedoms.
Click to expand...
That's the definition of "technicality". Banning bump stocks only takes away a freedom you shouldn't have had in the first place, under the NFA.

I know but there are no laws limiting trigger fingers. We all know that aimed, deliberate semi-auto fire is more efficient anyway. That's beside the point.
 
Let's ask a simple question. If the kits are for hobbyists, and you would consider buying one for a hobby, would you not because it went through an FFL?

I currently have bought guns for SD and competition (a hobby and SD practice), they have gone through an FFL.

What is the difference?

As far as not believing my friend, tough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F-111 John
  • Locked
Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms (Final Rule)
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
DoubleMag
D
kje54
  • Locked
ATF Rule 2021R8 goes into effect January 31, 2023
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
210
Views
12K
kje54
kje54
hso
  • Locked
New Suppressor Rule 90 Day Comment Period
Replies
6
Views
1K
merlynski
merlynski
LiveLife
ATF pistol brace rule lawsuits
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
8K
LiveLife
LiveLife
gc70
ATF's Proposed Revision of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
kcofohio
kcofohio
Back
Top