Design of AR-15 could derail charges tied to popular rifle

I see the logic, but the enforceable side of it is impossible.

Unless it’s a complete firearm it’s not a firearm... so a gun with a magazine disconnect is no longer a firearm because it is incomplete and not functional without a magazine. So Thug Nasty is cruising around doing a drive by and the fuzz lights up the wigwags on him. He conveniently loses the magazine out the window as he speeds away and now he no longer possesses a firearm.

Oh... more parts have to be serialized... Established law has it that a reciever that holds the parts together is the firearm and all the attached parts are just parts. Changing that is a nightmare legally, but ATF has already agreed to what so many “firearms” are. Do we suddenly need serialized Glock slides? Do we need serialized Contender barrels? Do we only regulate the “scary” guns by arbitrarily defining them in such way that people get around the definitions with things like a bump stock. Ok, we only have to serialized it when it’s completed as a functional firearm... hmm that’s fine and good, but now we need to keep groups of parts together as guns, or maybe we need to serialized every AR upper to match the lower that it’s going on, but then we have 6 uppers with the same serial number so that doesn’t work.

Maybe we just leave well enough alone since the new laws will serve to make a grand total of zero difference in crime prevention but it will make a lot more people (that don’t think like the mass idiot collective groupthink monster) into criminals. OR maybe we actually enforce the laws that are already on the books when we have opportunity to do so. I know, I’m preaching to the choir.

Rule3 said:

OK technically it would be the "upper receiver" to which the barrel is attached and not often removed as a separate piece.

Click to expand...

There isn't a an "upper receiver" nor "lower receiver" on Ruger MkI/II/III/IV........just receiver.

The Ruger manual lists the barrel and receiver as one piece assembly

Click to expand...

Correct. but that has more to do with ordering parts and little to do with compliance with ATF regulations on the required markings on a firearm.
The actual barrel on a Ruger is machined separately from the receiver, factory method of assembly makes removal very difficult.

There is no serial on the frame with the fire control group as in other guns.

Click to expand...

Look at KelTec P3at, Sig P320, etc.........no serial on those frames either.

WestKentucky said:

I see the logic, but the enforceable side of it is impossible.

Unless it’s a complete firearm it’s not a firearm.

Click to expand...

Says who?
ATF regs are clear on what is/is not a firearm. Thats the reason behind the article in the OP.......defense attorneys are basing their defense on an erroneous/incomplete definition of firearm receiver as it applies to the AR15 lower receiver.

.. so a gun with a magazine disconnect is no longer a firearm because it is incomplete and not functional without a magazine.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

So Thug Nasty is cruising around doing a drive by and the fuzz lights up the wigwags on him. He conveniently loses the magazine out the window as he speeds away and now he no longer possesses a firearm.

Click to expand...

Thats not the argument being presented or remotely close.

Oh... more parts have to be serialized... Established law has it that a reciever that holds the parts together is the firearm and all the attached parts are just parts. Changing that is a nightmare legally, but ATF has already agreed to what so many “firearms” are.

Click to expand...

Simple fix to ATF regs. Can be done in six months if they really wanted.

Do we suddenly need serialized Glock slides?

Click to expand...

Already have them, barrels too.

Do we need serialized Contender barrels?

Click to expand...

No.
Not really sure what you think you are arguing here.

Do we only regulate the “scary” guns by arbitrarily defining them in such way that people get around the definitions with things like a bump stock. Ok, we only have to serialized it when it’s completed as a functional firearm... hmm that’s fine and good, but now we need to keep groups of parts together as guns, or maybe we need to serialized every AR upper to match the lower that it’s going on, but then we have 6 uppers with the same serial number so that doesn’t work.

Click to expand...

You need to do some reading.
In short:
Defendants charged in crime involving AR lowers.
Defendants attorney points out that an AR lower does not meet the definition of "firearm" in ATF regulations.
Judge agrees.
US Attorney drops prosecution before judge issues ruling.

It ain't a conspiracy, it's federal laws/ATF regs that have never kept up with firearms development.

Maybe we just leave well enough alone since the new laws will serve to make a grand total of zero difference in crime prevention but it will make a lot more people (that don’t think like the mass idiot collective groupthink monster) into criminals. OR maybe we actually enforce the laws that are already on the books when we have opportunity to do so. I know, I’m preaching to the choir.

Click to expand...

Well, when the law doesn't define an AR lower as a firearm, what law do you want enforced?

dogtown tom said:

Says who?
ATF regs are clear on what is/is not a firearm. Thats the reason behind the article in the OP.......defense attorneys are basing their defense on an erroneous/incomplete definition of firearm receiver as it applies to the AR15 lower receiver.



Wrong.



Thats not the argument being presented or remotely close.



Simple fix to ATF regs. Can be done in six months if they really wanted.



Already have them, barrels too.


No.
Not really sure what you think you are arguing here.



You need to do some reading.
In short:
Defendants charged in crime involving AR lowers.
Defendants attorney points out that an AR lower does not meet the definition of "firearm" in ATF regulations.
Judge agrees.
US Attorney drops prosecution before judge issues ruling.

It ain't a conspiracy, it's federal laws/ATF regs that have never kept up with firearms development.


Well, when the law doesn't define an AR lower as a firearm, what law do you want enforced?

Click to expand...

I was going through hypotheticals based on the comments of others. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Either way it’s a rabbit chase.

WestKentucky said:

I was going through hypotheticals based on the comments of others. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Either way it’s a rabbit chase.

Click to expand...

Gotcha

The crux of this is that the ATF wrote the definition of a receiver based upon a bolt-action rifle that contained bolts, firing mechanism (striker or hammer).
When the AR came around, ATF came up with a "most like" working definition. One of the notable things they failed to do was to codify that definition into the CFR.

And, that lack has now come back and bitten them, and repeatedly.

There was a case out on the west coast where a dude was holding "build parties" was busted for having 80% lowers and a felony conviction. That one, if memory serves wen to the 9th Circus that basically said that laws require definitions, and not suggestions.

What one lawyer does, other will also do. So, this is snowballing.

And, as Tom succinctly points out above, ATF could have fixed this, decades ago, as a simple administrative procedure. Still can. They just add language that says "For rifles of the AR type or configuration, the receiver shall be considered [list/description]." Now, some work there, as they also would need to have definitions for FAL and the different kinds of actions.

dogtown tom said:

Who is "they"?

Click to expand...

Why idiots of course!

Idiots that won’t read. Idiots that think a primer can be serial number stamped by the firing pin. Idiots that sue Home Depot for 2x4s for not being 2 inches by 4 inches. Anti- American idiots that think they can conceive of every situation that could be so they must legislate for it, no matter how far from reality it is. Idiots that think a scope should be registered but their kids unvaccinated. Idiots with an opinion on everything and an education in nothing.

I honestly believed that the ridiculousness would wane. That “Idiocracy” was a satire. But it doesn’t end. We tolerate pathological stupidity, even give it fair consideration. Instead of correcting it.
Allowing constant revision, instead of responsibility.

Why? Who did you think I meant? Marmots?

WestKentucky said:

I was going through hypotheticals based on the comments of others. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Either way it’s a rabbit chase.

Click to expand...

Seemed clear to me

I guess the antis have decided more uppers need to get sold.

But then if they turn the AR15 into 2 firearms then is it still a semi auto?

Aim1 said:

That would suck if you bought them from separate companies or times.

Heck, even one manufacturer who made both but had to make matching serial numbers.

Click to expand...

We're on the way to having ARs that are like Johnny Cash's Cadillac.
You need a serial number for the upper, lower, hand guard, bolt, barrel and stock. If you piece mill, that's 6 different numbers.
Each time we change a part, we much bring the old one in to prove that we aren't building illegal weapons.
We also must pay a small filing fee....

Wonder if I would have a case to get all those FFL transfer fees back?

It would not be out of the realm of possibilities for the ATF will come to issue an opinion that both the upper and lower receivers need to be serialized because they’re both considered firearms. And why stop there?... that could give them the idea to say that the slide on a pistol is the upper receiver and needs to be serialized and treated as a firearm. The liberals and the ATF continuously chip away. If a pro gun politician chipped away half as much as a liberal, the NFA would be repealed and gun owners would be treated like first class citizens by now.

If anyone would bother to read the law, it states that the "firearm" is that part which contains the receiver, the fire control group (trigger mechanism), and onto which the barrel attaches. The judge made the easily defensible conclusion, as the lower receiver does not attach to the barrel.

The law was written before the AR platform was popular. It did not anticipate a 2-piece, modular receiver.

As stated before, this could be easily changed. I doubt 'we the people' will like the changes, however it goes.

I see this going one of two ways -
The upper AND lower will be serialized, or
The upper and lower will be made to be inseparable in some manner.

Hooda Thunkit said:

If anyone would bother to read the law, it states that the "firearm" is that part which contains the receiver, the fire control group (trigger mechanism), and onto which the barrel attaches. The judge made the easily defensible conclusion, as the lower receiver does not attach to the barrel.

Click to expand...

Thank You!
All I could think while reading all this was “well, was the judge right? What does the law say?”

I can certainly see where he got his conclusions. like everyone else, I doubt we like the “fix.”

748 said:

I guess the antis have decided more uppers need to get sold....

Click to expand...

Oh good grief.
This isn't an anti vs pro issue. READ the article. This is a legal argument based on the ATF definition of "firearm" and "receiver".

giggitygiggity said:

It would not be out of the realm of possibilities for the ATF will come to issue an opinion that both the upper and lower receivers need to be serialized because they’re both considered firearms. And why stop there?... that could give them the idea to say that the slide on a pistol is the upper receiver and needs to be serialized and treated as a firearm.

Click to expand...

1. It won't be an opinion, it would require a change in the definitions in ATF regulations. Definitions carry the weight of law, opinion letters do not.
2. ATF already knows which part they consider as the firearm.....thats the part that they require marking.
3. "And why stop there?".......for starters, ATF can't invent regulations as they see fit. As with any government regulation there must be an enabling federal law.

The liberals and the ATF continuously chip away. If a pro gun politician chipped away half as much as a liberal, the NFA would be repealed and gun owners would be treated like first class citizens by now.

Click to expand...

This isn't the "liberals and ATF chipping away"....it's a judge agreeing with the defendant that ATF regulations are not what the US Attorney believes they are.
And "pro gun politician"? No.Such.Thing.

I think that the cat is already out of the bag simply because making an AR-15 lower receiver is now so easy. I have seen CNC machines for sale at gun shows complete with the AR-15 software ready to go. Insert aluminum block, press the button, come back after lunch and you have a new receiver.

The machine costs about $5k.

It is getting even easier with 3D printing.

Even if they outlaw home manufacturing they could not prove that a homemade receiver was made after the ban law date was passed.

Hooda Thunkit said:

If anyone would bother to read the law, it states that the "firearm" is that part which contains the receiver, the fire control group (trigger mechanism), and onto which the barrel attaches. The judge made the easily defensible conclusion, as the lower receiver does not attach to the barrel.

The law was written before the AR platform was popular. It did not anticipate a 2-piece, modular receiver.

As stated before, this could be easily changed. I doubt 'we the people' will like the changes, however it goes.

I see this going one of two ways -
The upper AND lower will be serialized, or
The upper and lower will be made to be inseparable in some manner.

Click to expand...

Great post and the ruling makes sense.

As a practical matter, I can see both the upper and lower being serialized, but under the current law only one of either cannot be considered the "firearm". The two would need to be combined to qualify as the "firearm".

So if you live in a state with registration and you combine the two, then both would need to be registered together with both serial numbers. Some may think one could simply claim that they only have gun parts and avoid registration, but if one is ever found in possession of a combined upper and lower, the person may be found to be in violation.

Also, one would be able to purchase a lower by itself and not need an FFL to ship.

Overall, it's a victory for the accurate interpretation of gun laws where the government takes an overly aggressive reading of the law. How it eventually ends up is anybody's guess.

Y'all really ought to read what Tom has written.

The receiver definition was written around bolt action arms, and even semi-autos like the Garand; it contained the firing mechanism, bolt and breach face.
When split receiver firearms became popular, ATF did not change the definition of receiver to include this new difference.

Instead, they had an internal pow-wow, and created a rule on how to cope with these new arms. They did not change the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect this new set of rules.

Changing the CFR is within the purview of ATF, it's something they do on a regular basis. Not something involving FTL, Rock Candy Mountains, or peace in the MIdeast--just paperwork and gumption.

They didn't do that.

Now, they've had a half-dozen cases get thrown out as a result of their lack of gumption. Whether or not that is/was a bad thing is fodder for flamewars over on arfcom.

What will make this "go away" would be, under Definitions, Receiver, to add categories for one-piece and two-piece, and to define which is serialized. Then just publish that to CFR.

readyeddy said:

So if you live in a state with registration and you combine the two, then both would need to be registered together with both serial numbers.

Click to expand...

I've seen this type of comment a few times.

I must be missing something....

If, hypothetically, the upper and the lower were each serialized because they both each were considered firearms, Why would they need to be registered together?

Precedent and long usage has a value all its own. In some two-part designs, the "lower" is the firearm, and in others, the "upper" is. This is somewhat arbitrary, but is well understood in the gun world. Anything else would totally upset the apple cart. The court case ruling otherwise was incorrect, even though it arose out of a clever argument by the defendant's lawyer. Ultimately things will go back to what we're used to seeing. There can be no other way.

AlexanderA said:

...... The court case ruling otherwise was incorrect.....

Click to expand...

How so?

danez71 said:

I've seen this type of comment a few times.

I must be missing something....

If, hypothetically, the upper and the lower were each serialized because they both each were considered firearms, Why would they need to be registered together?

Click to expand...

Neither the upper or the lower would be "firearms". I think it's possible for a gun part to have a serial number even though it's not a "firearm".

But the simplest way forward to is to just continue to serialize the bottom only, with the understanding that it, by itself, is not a "firearm" until combined with the upper receiver. That would make it much easier to ship lowers only without the need for an FFL.

readyeddy said:

Neither the upper or the lower would be "firearms". I think it's possible for a gun part to have a serial number even though it's not a "firearm".

But the simplest way forward to is to just continue to serialize the bottom only, with the understanding that it, by itself, is not a "firearm" until combined with the upper receiver. That would make it much easier to ship lowers only without the need for an FFL.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I was going with the assumption that if it's serialized then it would be considered a firearm.

My thinking is that there is no way .gov will say the part that was considered a firearm for decades and needed a FFL transfer is no longer a firearm unless it's mated to another part.