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

danez71 said:

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...

A maker can put a serial number anywhere they want to. Legally, the only place that needs the serial number is what the ATF defines as the firearm. Walther is rather well known for putting serial numbers on parts to match parts together.

In the end, this is just "the sky is falling" panic from antis. A lower receiver, even stripped is the firearm as far as the ATF is concerned. If the ATF makes a law change, the AR market will be the largest affected. And they will adapt. There were NY and CA compliant AR-15 rifles before the signature was ever scawled on whatever generation "assault weapon" ban came up.

herrwalther said:

In the end, this is just "the sky is falling" panic from antis....

Click to expand...

Oh good grief. This has NOTHING to do with "antis".

herrwalther said:

A maker can put a serial number anywhere they want to. Legally, the only place that needs the serial number is what the ATF defines as the firearm. Walther is rather well known for putting serial numbers on parts to match parts together.

In the end, this is just "the sky is falling" panic from antis. A lower receiver, even stripped is the firearm as far as the ATF is concerned. If the ATF makes a law change, the AR market will be the largest affected. And they will adapt. There were NY and CA compliant AR-15 rifles before the signature was ever scawled on whatever generation "assault weapon" ban came up.

Click to expand...

Ya..um.. ok

I'm not sure what the intent of you post quoting me because the premise of my question was if .gov started requiring both the upper and lower be serialized because of some new definition that both be considered a firearm.

dogtown tom said:

Oh good grief. This has NOTHING to do with "antis".

Click to expand...

No. Not at all.

It could be something they latch onto to their advantage but the judges ruling has nothing to do with pro or anti.

Hmm.
At the time of manufacture, the original Thompson had matching serial numbers on lower frame and upper receiver (some handfitting was required).
In arsenal rebuilds, the US Military would strip Thompsons, inspect, gauge, repair, and reassemble the guns with no effort to match lower and upper receiver serial numbers. They used the upper receiver serial number for records and tracking.

When the Armalite series came along, it was the lower receiver which houses the fire control group that bore the only serial number and it became the controlled part.

This proposal is an unnecessary complication. With the AR series, millions in military hands, millions in civilian hands, none of the extant uppers serially numbered, they are going to require matching serial numbers on upper and lower? I think the goal is chaos, not reasonable control.

danez71 said:

I'm not sure what the intent of you post quoting me because the premise of my question was if .gov started requiring both the upper and lower be serialized because of some new definition that both be considered a firearm.

Click to expand...

Because the ATF has not once considered multiple, separate assemblies as "the firearm." ATF would have to hire on a lot more of people to rewrite firearm law all over again. Take just one example: AR. If a lower and upper were "the firearm" together, it would cause all sorts of logistical and legal problems with the millions of ARs and AR parts nationwide. The amount of bureaucracy involved makes the change unlikely.

Oh... I agree generally.

I was wondering why the other posters who made the comment that if both were serialized that they would need to be registered together.

I don't see that they would automatically need to be registered together if hypothetically .gov simply said both need to be serialized.



It's way too far out there too worry at this point, imo.

herrwalther said:

Because the ATF has not once considered multiple, separate assemblies as "the firearm." ATF would have to hire on a lot more of people to rewrite firearm law all over again. Take just one example: AR. If a lower and upper were "the firearm" together, it would cause all sorts of logistical and legal problems with the millions of ARs and AR parts nationwide. The amount of bureaucracy involved makes the change unlikely.

Click to expand...

Wrong.Wrong.Wrong. Go read post #21 in this thread.
ATF doesn't need to hire anyone, they already have plenty of staff dedicated to regulations.
ATF rewrites their regulations ALL THE TIME. At least once a year there will be a notice in the Federal Regster of an impending change regarding firearms.
Unlikely? Amazing that some of us have already forgotten the last change to definitions......that would be the change to the definition of machine gun to include bumpstocks.

And the upper receiver can shoot under regular conditions just exactly how again please?
After taking my target rifle into it's upper and lower components, do I try to get a really small hammer up in there and whack the firing pin. How do I / other shooters stop the rearward motion of the bolt. Other function problems...

We can argue in a court room that a paper ruler will measure just as correctly as a traditional metal one, well, until the paper ruler is used 'real world' 4,5,11 times.

Friends!! There may be 1000s of cases whereas someone in otherwise good standing finds a quirk in law. This IMHO will soon tumbleweed away, and I am not one to dismiss the overreach of the Gov. .