WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
Can you? I know enough about machining to know that it's not nearly that simple or easy.
ATF proposed 80% rule and receiver definition is up...
- Thread starter Elkins45
- Start date
- Status
Can you? I know enough about machining to know that it's not nearly that simple or easy.
The 80 percent receiver is the same thing. There is no “official 80 percent measurement”. That’s my point. Under the law, the block of aluminum and the “80 percent” are the same. Neither is a firearm.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
This is an 80% "kit". It provides the 80% receiver and everything necessary to make it function as a 100% finished receiver. Which requires all of two holes to be drilled. It's in my cart right now but I probably won't buy it because I don't see the point.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1019357040
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1019357040
It is absolutely a legal drug. I can get a prescription and pick them up 10mins away at the local Walgreens. The point is not whether it's readily available. The point is that it is HIGHLY addictive and ruins more lives than fathomable. Yet is perfectly legal. As I said, making the drugs legal won't make the drug "problem" go away. It will make it worse. I agree, the problem is people. The operative difference here is that guns don't make people violent and we have a constitutional right to own them. Drugs do make people addicted and are not protected by the constitution.
Whether I can or not is not the point. I know people with the skill and machinery to knock one out in a day from a block of aluminum, and I also know other people who would take days to finish an “80 percent”, and still screw it up. How easy or hard it is is subjective. The point is that putting a serial number on a non firearm is crazy. The amount of difficulty required is irrelevant. That’s like deliberately making a firearm more difficult to shoot to make it “safer”.
Harriw
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Messages
- 282
Regarding your comment in whether or not members support the concept of a NICS check....
I suspect the vast majority of us have no problem with a NICS check in concept - that is, a simple check to see if a potential purchaser is on a list of prohibited persons (lots of assumptions here... just for the sake of this argument assume the only way you get ON this list is by being convicted of a felony, that due process was followed prior to your conviction, that an actual procedure exists to have your name removed from the list if it's been placed there in error, etc.).
What we (well, I at least) DO have a problem with is the requirement that the 4473 form created to facilitate that NICS check be kept readily accessible for 20 years, and be made available to the ATF upon request. Although it requires a lot more leg-work to "query the database," this is still, in effect, a national firearms registry. THAT's why these 80% kits are so popular among members of this board. It's not that we object to a background check. It's that we object to the paper trail it creates. It hasn't been discussed much yet in this thread, but this proposed rule change also proposes changing that 20 year requirement to, in effect, forever. Maybe gangs are building 80% kits now... I would have to think their tried-and-true methods theft and straw-purchases by girlfriends, newer gang members without records, etc., would be a whole lot less work though. The point is, nobody HERE wants to build 80% lowers to get around a background check. They want to build 80% lowers so that if/when confiscation occurs, there's no record of those builds.
I do understand from the previous thread (discussing the original leaked draft of this proposed rule) that the primary reason for running serial number traces is not crime solving, but checking recovered guns (often in an effort to return them to their original owners). But I still don't think a registry is a good idea given the global history of gun control, and the trajectory of it in this country.
Pudge
Member
Yes
Yes. Just like it is now. Yes.
Harriw
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Messages
- 282
As a follow-on from my post above... I hesitate to get into this as it's beyond the scope of this thread, and beyond the scope of the proposed rule change (and therefore there's really no point in mentioning it in a response to the ATF). But if the NICS check were changed to eliminate this back-door registration effort by eliminating the paperwork after, say, a week or month, I think you'd see a LOT less interest in trying to dodge checks by those who would pass them anyway. Furthermore, if a process existed for an individual seller to quickly and easily run a NICS check on a potential buyer without involving (and being charged by) an FFL, in a way that protects the buyer against potential identify theft by the seller (think about what personal info you list in a 4473...), and in a way that did NOT produce a paper trail, you'd see a lot more support among gun owners for "closing the gunshow loop hole" with "Universal Background Checks."
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
I disagree. I think how easy or difficult it is, is pretty much the entire point. Along with the tools required to do so. Because if the skills, knowledge and tools required to make a firearm are so difficult or expensive to attain as to be prohibitive for the vast majority of people, that seriously limits the ability of criminals to access firearms via building them from scratch.
If it makes no difference, why do the 80% kits even exist? Why aren't people just buying blocks of aluminum and CNC machines?
In countries with total bans, guns are being made from scratch by criminals. You can google that. They tend to be full auto SMGs in a lot of cases as they are easier to make than semis.
The point of the paper work being kept by the FFL is a good one. I see no reason why after the check it is not eliminated. Of course, if there is a phone call, that record will exist, unless you are naive. Folks have said clearly now that the reason for the kits is to avoid the checks and kept records. Good folks might want that and I know some. Bad folks - what do we do about that?
About whether if you build from scratch, should it go through an FFL, if you smelt the ore, etc. - that's the extreme other end from let's say the common AR and P80 type kits where the parts are clearly gun parts. While we can debate how gun like the part is, if NICS exists, I'd say that they go through NICS if that process exists.
While criminals get guns from all kind of secondary sources, straw men, thief, etc. - do we want easy direct sales?
How to deal with that?
The point of the paper work being kept by the FFL is a good one. I see no reason why after the check it is not eliminated. Of course, if there is a phone call, that record will exist, unless you are naive. Folks have said clearly now that the reason for the kits is to avoid the checks and kept records. Good folks might want that and I know some. Bad folks - what do we do about that?
About whether if you build from scratch, should it go through an FFL, if you smelt the ore, etc. - that's the extreme other end from let's say the common AR and P80 type kits where the parts are clearly gun parts. While we can debate how gun like the part is, if NICS exists, I'd say that they go through NICS if that process exists.
While criminals get guns from all kind of secondary sources, straw men, thief, etc. - do we want easy direct sales?
How to deal with that?
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
According to the paper, there were 8712 such firearms recovered in 2020 alone. Over four times as many as 2016. If the majority of those were rendered from commercial 80% frames, it would seem that it's kind of a problem.
.308 Norma
Member
Deleted.
OP
OP
Elkins45
Member
Yes, if one is a licensed manufacturer. A non-licensed person who makes the occasional gun is a maker, not a manufacturer. You see this distinction with regard to NFA items as well. A guy who chops the barrel of his rifle to make it an SBR has to engrave his info because he is the maker. Colt, Ruger, whoever would be the manufacturer.
A silly distinction? Sure, but one that matters legally. I can find nothing in the CFR requiring a non-FFL who makes a gun to serialize it if they decide to sell it.
I do see a whole lot of discussion about the intent of the maker being important in determining whether the sale of a homemade gun is illegal. Guy builds a gun to sell the next day, he’s a criminal. Guy builds a gun for fun and gets tired of it a few years later, he’s a hobbyist.
Why would a government clerk ever need to know the distinction? Gun store employees and cops are the only people that would probably need to know the distinction. You just look the gun over until you find the part that has the serial number on it anyway.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I may be wrong on that but that's how I remember it.
Dudedog
Contributing Member
OK, we see the proposed rule change.
What we need to do is submit comments on why we don't like it.
We need to point out what we don't like and submit a rational comment to try to prevent the purposed change.
I don't know how long the comment period is but we need to get them in.
(looking for how to submit a comment now, if someone has the procedure please post a link)
Edit. In the link on the first post.
Last edited:
Pudge
Member
[QUOTE="GEM, post: 11926956, member: ]
About whether if you build from scratch, should it go through an FFL, if you smelt the ore, etc. - that's the extreme other end from let's say the common AR and P80 type kits where the parts are clearly gun parts. While we can debate how gun like the part is, if NICS exists, I'd say that they go through NICS if that process exists.
[/QUOTE]
Then what you want is for the government to take that right away from the people. And the members here on THR who have exhibited their skills on projects they have constructed, should have to go through an ffl and have background checks and submit to the government a freedom they haven't misused. You and I do not agree here.
About whether if you build from scratch, should it go through an FFL, if you smelt the ore, etc. - that's the extreme other end from let's say the common AR and P80 type kits where the parts are clearly gun parts. While we can debate how gun like the part is, if NICS exists, I'd say that they go through NICS if that process exists.
[/QUOTE]
Then what you want is for the government to take that right away from the people. And the members here on THR who have exhibited their skills on projects they have constructed, should have to go through an ffl and have background checks and submit to the government a freedom they haven't misused. You and I do not agree here.
luzyfuerza
Member
Excellent question.
My answer is that we consistently arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate those prohibited persons who possess and/or use dangerous weapons.
The current system burdens those who are NOT prohibited possessors, while often failing to impose consequences on the "bad folks" who do "bad things".
This reversal of consequences is the core issue here. At least for me.
The instant prohibited possession results in, say, an automatic five years in federal prison, then we can talk about the "reasonableness" of the burdens on the law-abiding.
Last edited:
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
I completely agree with this concept. If punishments are severe enough, the rate of crimes will reduce (though will never reduce to zero). The old "it's not the odds, it's the stakes" thing. Not that I'm suggesting we should, but if we started taking fingers, it'd probably have a dramatic effect.
The problem with this solution is that punishment is not something the vast majority are really comfortable with. They prefer to think of incarceration as "rehabilitation". So we're at another point of trying to convince the majority of people to adopt a concept they are pretty firmly against.
It's all well and find to discuss how we'd have the world rotate if it were our decision, but it's not. It comes down to how the collective feels about the issue. And that's hard to affect. So if your solution is harsher punishment for felony possession of a firearm, how do we make that a reality?
Pudge
Member
lysanderxiii
Member
What is the legal definition of "80% receiver"?
In order for something to be "legally defined" requires that legislation be passed that defines it. The legal definitions of a "firearm", "machine gun", Destructive device, etc, are in United States Code, Title 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, Subtitle E - Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes, CHAPTER 53 - MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS, Subchapter B - General Provisions and Exemptions, PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS, Sec. 5845 - Definitions
In order to prohibit, or regulate, something it first must be defined, legally. "Pretty sure" doesn't cut it.
This is it in a nutshell, and what I said about 5 pages ago. The question about why we want these has already been answered multiple times, if a few people would just choose to read it. Let's move on to what we are going to do about it, i.e. comment period, etc.
Pudge
Member
Deleted - double post
Last edited:
1KPerDay
Member
I haven’t read the entire thread so forgive me if this has been addressed. My limited understanding of the proposed new rule is that any housing or frame or receiver or whatever that houses any part of the firing mechanism will now be deemed a firearm. So please LMK if I’m understanding this correctly:
And by the new rules, we have 7 days during which all currently possessed “firearms” that are not serialized will need to be serialized or destroyed? forgive me if I’ve misunderstood something
- AR upper receivers will need to be serialized and treated as firearms.
- RUGER MK series .22 pistol grip frames will need to be serialized and treated as firearms.
And by the new rules, we have 7 days during which all currently possessed “firearms” that are not serialized will need to be serialized or destroyed? forgive me if I’ve misunderstood something
lysanderxiii
Member
No, because there is a legal definition of a "firearm" and these do not fit that definition. If they want to move the bar, move it legally by passing legislation that redefines the word "firearm".
That's how laws work.
States that wanted to legalize pot did so by passing legislation, not by redefining "drugs" and excluding stuff just dried out a bit before being consumed.
EDIT:
If you don't like bumpstocks because they are technically not machine guns, but you think they are, or want to make "kits" require a 4473, then change the legal definitions through legislation, not through asking the opinions of appointed officials.
Last edited:
I am amazed and disappointed at how many people actually think this is about the prevention of crime, helping to solve crimes, or done in the interest of safety.
This is being done by a federal agency under the guidance of an administration that actually, literally said they want to take your guns. What other purpose could this possibly have? They have actually told us what they want to do, and we are seeing the beginnings of this happening right now.
This is it. We need to stop rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and have politicians call this out publicly and loudly for what it is.
They have already made the NRA so busy with other things that they cannot respond to this appropriately. This is done by design, as they realize legislation will be difficult, so they are using the government agencies to accomplish their goal.
This is being done by a federal agency under the guidance of an administration that actually, literally said they want to take your guns. What other purpose could this possibly have? They have actually told us what they want to do, and we are seeing the beginnings of this happening right now.
This is it. We need to stop rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and have politicians call this out publicly and loudly for what it is.
They have already made the NRA so busy with other things that they cannot respond to this appropriately. This is done by design, as they realize legislation will be difficult, so they are using the government agencies to accomplish their goal.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
