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

Status
Not open for further replies.
"How will any of these proposed changes, especially the additional background checks associated with every additional 4473, reduce crime?"

These rules and gun control laws were never intended to reduce crime. It's never been about reducing crime. It's about control.
But they know saying "hey we want these rules to control people" definitely won't work.
 
I’m going to email my Senators and house reps, as well as MTG, Rep Bobert, and Lindsey Graham. Those last three aren’t my reps, but they are, or have been, vocally in support of the 2A.

The “comment period”, while important, is playing by their rules. They need to be called out in front of God and everyone for these underhanded, backdoor attempts at further gun control.
 
For the record, for those who respond with emotion rather than logic, I vehemently oppose any and all new legislation. So my rhetoric concerning bump stocks will not be misconstrued as appeasement or a "Fudd" argument.

The fact remains that the last "assault weapons ban" was proven to do nothing to prevent crime. All they ever do is affect the law abiding citizen. Because criminals aren't walking into gun shops and buying AR's. However, if they are building guns from 80% receivers then that is subject to debate.


Oh BTW IMHO...

Post #67 for the win! Thnx for clear ideas, suggestions, and NOT saying I ''have no need'' to buy a kit for regular reasons, as a hobby, collecting, investment, etc. , or the absolute worst and most egregious,some here are FLAT OUT AGREEING with the opposition.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Hysterical responses that take any comment that does not 100% agree out of context and altering the intended meaning.


So far, nobody here has discussed these consequences of the proposed regulations:
That's because the proposed legislation is not the subject of this thread.
 
So let's play devil's advocate, since we already have laws against crime - why not simply abolish the NICS system and have Handguns on sale like any commodity in the supermarket, next to the organic vegetables. Or in the convenience stores in the central city? Most buyers will be law abiding but a small percent won't be. That is the situation also with the kits.

Folks are not thinking this through. There is a meta principle here above and beyond the 80% kits. Would you buy a kit if you have to go through an FFL?

If you don't want any checks on anyone buying a gun, say so. The kits are a minor nuance.

Why don't folks see that? Who buys the kits for a simple hobby or to have one to make a gun that hasn't gone through NICS for a potential trace?

Should anyone who builds their own firearm need to be licensed as a manufacturer, and serialize their construction and file it with the ATF?
 
“The fact remains that the last "assault weapons ban" was proven to do nothing to prevent crime. All they ever do is affect the law abiding citizen. Because criminals aren't walking into gun shops and buying AR's. However, if they are building guns from 80% receivers then that is subject to debate.”

Whether or not something is used in a crime should not matter when it comes to the securing of our rights. Speech is often used in crimes, as well as cars, knives etc and etc. If the use of a tool, technique, or other type of machine in crimes is the metric upon which we base our rights, we’d be back in the stone age, with laws (apparently) against stones, fists, and teeth.

The whole “80 percent” talking point is just that. There’s no official “measure” of 80 percent. A thing is either a firearm or not. 80 percent is a cute phrase invented by the manufacturers several years ago because it sounded cool. Just remove the “80 percent”:

“Because criminals aren't walking into gun shops and buying AR's. However, if they are building guns from ‘scratch’ then that is subject to debate.”

No it’s not. Building guns for personal use is legal. Always has been. It doesn’t matter who builds it. If its a criminal, then go after the criminal, not the right. And some criminals DO walk into gun shops and buy AR’s. Just like some criminals rent trucks and blow things up with them. That is not the point. That whole “use by criminals” is only a talking point used by those who want to take away our rights.
 
Last edited:
Should anyone who builds their own firearm need to be licensed as a manufacturer, and serialize their construction and file it with the ATF?

If they intend to sell it, then the gun should be subject to the same constraints has any gun manufacturer. Folks are still avoiding the question of whether they support NICS or Glocks should be on sale at the supermarket to anyone of age. That's really the argument. The kits are to avoid NICS and not hobbyists for the most part. So if the P80 kits don't go through an FFL, should any NICS like checks exist? Lorcins For You - in the convenience store?

All the nitpicking of 80% or what part, avoids the issue of guns being produced and sold, perhaps to prohibited persons without the current NICS or similar system.
 
Ok, so you are going to argue with me when I state unequivocally that not only are these proposed laws unconstitutional but they also do not work? Are you just looking to argue? Because I have better things to do with my Sunday.

"80% receiver" is not "just a talking point". We'll call them that because it's what the manufacturers call them. Regardless of whether it's truly 80% or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they have no serial number and can be bought and easily finished by anyone with a modicum of skill. This is another example where the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are at odds.

Let's say 80% receivers are banned outright. How does that prevent a law abiding citizen from buying a Glock or AR? It doesn't. The only people it prevents from buying a Glock or AR are the people who already can't legally do so, convicted felons.


If they intend to sell it, then the gun should be subject to the same constraints has any gun manufacturer.
It already does. If you intend to sell a firearm made from an 80% receiver, it must have a serial number, excise tax paid, etc.. Which means you have to be a licensed manufacturer. Which many gunsmiths are. Not something the individual can accomplish.
 
If you intend to sell a firearm made from an 80% receiver, it must have a serial number, excise tax paid, etc.. Which means you have to be a licensed manufacturer. Which many gunsmiths are. Not something the individual can accomplish.
I don’t believe this is accurate for a hobbiest, someone who builds a gun and then later decides to sell it. ATF suggests you add a serial number but it’s not currently required by statute IIRC.
 
Craig, you avoid the issue with trivia and if you don't like to argue, you don't have to log on. The issue again and again is whether the kits are being bought to produce guns for prohibited persons and perhaps being bought by prohibited persons to begin with. Thus, to be specific should the P80 Glock kits, for example, have to go through an FFL. Yes or No? If not, then should there be any NICS checks or similar procedures?

Last, you don't decided what is constitutional. Has Scotus said background checks are unconstitutional in principle?

Here's Heller for you:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

If the P80 kits can be sold and advertised as quickly assembling a gun, then they seem to be able to be regulated as a standard, complete handgun.
 
I suggest you re-read the OP.
I’m the OP. This isn’t about proposed legislation, it’s about a proposed administrative rule change. Legislation requires Congress and the President. Administrative rule changes just need bureaucrats and the absence of sufficient public resistance.

I think it’s a bit of a semantic rabbit hole to make much of a distinction, since the practical effect will be the same. I read your original post that was being replied to and I’m not 100% certain what you are hypothesizing is accurate, at least in regard to AR markings. I think the intent of the rule is to codify without ambiguity which part will be serialized, not to serialize all of them.
 
Last edited:
I am considerably less concerned about those goofy 80% frames and receivers than I am that they worded slides and uppers and hell..... arguably even a bolt carrier group into the mix. Considering someone will argue BCGs as being "visible".

"Under the proposed rule, a “frame or receiver” is any externally visible housing or holding structure for one or more fire control components. A “fire control component” is one necessary for the firearm to initiate, complete, or continue the firing sequence, including, but not limited to, any of the following: hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails."


Todd.
 
If they intend to sell it, then the gun should be subject to the same constraints has any gun manufacturer. Folks are still avoiding the question of whether they support NICS or Glocks should be on sale at the supermarket to anyone of age. That's really the argument. The kits are to avoid NICS and not hobbyists for the most part. So if the P80 kits don't go through an FFL, should any NICS like checks exist? Lorcins For You - in the convenience store?

All the nitpicking of 80% or what part, avoids the issue of guns being produced and sold, perhaps to prohibited persons without the current NICS or similar system.
Define "80%", and define "kit". These are not currently defined in any legislation, and therefore can mean a block of aluminum or two parts bought together.

And, please provide some evidence that, "The kits are to avoid NICS and not hobbyists for the most part". Most "kits" I know of where built on legally procured receivers or frames (AR, M14, FAL, and M1911) by hobbyists.

And one last thing: "Glocks should be on sale at the supermarket to anyone of age..." yep, I allegedly know that store, give the guy $350 and you can get any pistol you want. Sometimes you have to tell him a week in advance what you want, so he can contact his suppliers.
 
Last edited:
So that means if I am a skilled machinist with a CNC machine and a block of aluminum I can “readily” build any weapon I want. So I guess my block of aluminum needs to be serialized.
 
As propose the rule change would not require AR uppers nor their included parts to be serialized. Quoted from the PDF:

One important goal of this rule is to ensure that it does not affect existing ATF classifications of firearms that specify a single component as the frame or receiver. Application of the rule, as proposed, would not alter these prior ATF classifications. To provide more clarity, this supplement to the definition would include a nonexclusive list of common weapons with a split/multi-piece frame or receiver configuration for which ATF has previously determined a specific part to be the frame or receiver. If a manufacturer produces or an importer imports a firearm falling within one of these designs as they exist as of the date of publication of a final rule, it can refer to this list to know which part is the frame or receiver. The manufacturer or importer can then mark without needing to ask ATF for a classification. The nonexclusive list identifies the frame or receiver for the following firearms: (i) Colt 1911-type, Beretta/Browning/FN Herstal/Heckler & Koch/Ruger/Sig Sauer/Smith & Wesson/Taurus hammer fired semiautomatic pistols; (ii) Glock-type striker fired semiautomatic pistols; (iii) Sig Sauer P320-type semiautomatic pistols; (iv) certain locking block rail system semiautomatic pistols; (v) AR-15-type and Beretta AR-70-type firearms; (
 
Craig, you avoid the issue with trivia and if you don't like to argue, you don't have to log on. The issue again and again is whether the kits are being bought to produce guns for prohibited persons and perhaps being bought by prohibited persons to begin with. Thus, to be specific should the P80 Glock kits, for example, have to go through an FFL. Yes or No? If not, then should there be any NICS checks or similar procedures?

Last, you don't decided what is constitutional. Has Scotus said background checks are unconstitutional in principle?

Here's Heller for you:



If the P80 kits can be sold and advertised as quickly assembling a gun, then they seem to be able to be regulated as a standard, complete handgun.
My above post was not in response to you.

The people don't decide what is constitutional???
 
I don’t believe this is accurate for a hobbiest, someone who builds a gun and then later decides to sell it. ATF suggests you add a serial number but it’s not currently required by statute IIRC.
My understanding is that if you build a firearm from scratch, you can never sell it. Because it has no serial number and since the GCA of 1968, it is illegal to manufacture a firearm without one.


So that means if I am a skilled machinist with a CNC machine and a block of aluminum I can “readily” build any weapon I want. So I guess my block of aluminum needs to be serialized.
A block of aluminum is not a firearm receiver. Which is completely off topic anyway. The subject is 80% receivers. Not scratch-building guns from raw material.
 
My above post was not in response to you.

The people don't decide what is constitutional???

Sorry if I thought you were talking to me. Oops.

About folks who say they don't know folks who aren't hobbyists? Are you in touch with criminal elements? I've already mentioned the P80 kits are being used for criminals. If you call me and my buddy liars, that's your problem.
 
Sorry if I thought you were talking to me. Oops.
We were posting at the same time, I should've gone back and added the quote.


Define "80%", and define "kit". These are not currently defined in any legislation, and therefore can mean a block of aluminum or two parts bought together.
Pretty sure a block of aluminum does not constitute 80%.
 
The subject is 80% receivers.

One problem is that there is no statutory, regulatory, or court precedent definition of an "80% receiver."
Perhaps the government has avoided providing one like they avoid defining "doing business" requiring a FFL.
The commercial definition of "80%" is subject to a good deal of mission creep, with less and less work required to complete, the glockish P80 being the leading example.
 
Oxycontin is legal, how's that going?

Oxycontin is NOT a legal drug as you imply. Tell me which store you can go into and purchase those legal items. They are not legal without a doctors prescription. If there is a problem as you imply, it is not the drug itself. Just like guns are not a problem. People are the problem. Be it bump stocks, machine guns, or whatever, inanimate items hurt nobody.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top