Buying a ghost gun before the ban
- Thread starter castile
- Start date
- Status
I don't understand how something that can't legally be sold some day become more valuable? I'm sure that there are some who don't worry about the criminality of selling something that can't be legally sold, but I have to wonder who they think they'll be selling them to?
This line of thinking is what leads to things like the BATF and conversations like this. Trusting the government to show some sort of benevolence is naive at best and willfully blind at worst.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help" ..........
danez71
Member
Correct. CA 'Self made firearm' serial number requirement feeds the CA Registration/UBC requirements.
Maybe soon to be playing in theaters nationwide.
Since there are regulatory definitions about what a firearm is and those definitions might change it is pretty straightforward to look at the current regulatory definition. What a change in definition might be should reference actual proposed regulator changes.
Common usage terms tend to be much more fluid and have debatable definitions. "Ghost Gun" is a political phrase applied to incomplete firearm frames or receivers that would require a manufacturer to serial number per ATF rules if completed. Originally it was referring to completed firearms manufactured without a serial number, sold to criminal gangs, and used in crimes, but that has expanded to "frames/receivers".
This then is where the problem arises. It becomes an opportunity for Antis to regulate to eliminate the incomplete firearm frame/receiver manufacturers. You can read the proposed changes to the definition in the Federal Register at the link below.
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...me-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms
Should a change of the ATF definition of a firearm to include these "80%" frames/receivers become law, the incentive for incomplete frame/receiver manufacturers to continue in business will virtually disappear. Further, individuals who have purchased the incomplete firearm frames/receivers as some sort of an investment may find that they can't legally sell them. Providing some grandfathering for owning them is likely, but selling them could be illegal.
Last edited:
The original question was whether people were buying "ghost guns" ahead of a proposed ban. Use of a term applied to frighten people soon drew fire, and it was not long before we were wrestling with terminology issues, then the politics involved. I suspect we know what the subject of attention is and the question remains, are you speculating in this product or not? Hard pass here.
danez71
Member
You're right.
What the definition of a ghost gun is and the related tangent discussion wasn't part of the OP.
I never answered the OP.
Its currently a hard pass for me as well.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
something about getting older makes me wish I had things that no longer exist as kind of a personal museum to show my grandkids one day. I have my doubts (insert acceptable/PC term for a P80 kit) will remain legal for very long. So I am tempted to buy one, likely leaving it unopened, and toss it in the back of the safe.
However I do have a kid in college, so $90 to trow something In the back of my safe isn’t a thing that’s going to happen.
This is only true since the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Prior to that you could mail order any gun from such places as the Sears or JC Penny catalogs and have them sent directly to your home through the USPS.
And to answer the OP's question, I have been building 80% firearms and even 0% firearms for quite some time now. Some of them started out as nothing more than a hunk of raw material and a blueprint. I don't build my own to skirt any laws r to hide them from the government. I do it so I can have a truly customized firearm. And as things stand, there is no law preventing people from making their own firearms for personal use. Even if this new 80% ruling goes into effect, it still does not change the law about building your own firearm at home for personal use.
AlexanderA
Member
Incomplete ("80%") receivers might be useful in assembling "dummy" guns, which could be used as placeholders if the equivalent live guns were banned. This was something I was thinking about last year, when an "assault weapon" ban was being considered here in Virginia. The idea would be to substitute dummy receivers for the actual receivers, and then store the actual receivers out of state. This would be more practical than taking the complete guns out of state, both for logistical and security reasons. Thank goodness the legislature backed down, and the plan didn't need to be put into effect.
This use of incomplete receivers is the exact opposite of the "ghost gun" phenomenon.
This use of incomplete receivers is the exact opposite of the "ghost gun" phenomenon.
Elkins45
Member
Does CA prohibit the sale or importation of unserialized 80% lowers, or does it merely prohibit building an unserialized gun from one?
Archie
Member
Pretty much; just like 'Saturday Night Special' and 'Assault Weapon' (not to be confused with assault rifle).
Supposedly it refers to a firearm not required under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to have pre-permission by the Federal government for manufacture or possession. It boils down to anything the left doesn't want you to have.
Elkins45
Member
Unless someone has access to a time machine the pre-68 rules are irrelevant.
If I had access to a time machine I wouldn’t go back to 1967 and bu unserialized guns. I would go back to 1985 and form 1 every AR and AK I could get my hands on.
gunmechanic
Member
Through our entire existence as a country the practice of building our own firearms has been within our rights.Now due to the current politicians in control and there ilk they want to stop any thing to due with firearms. This frame/receiver thing they are trying to go after can and in my opinion will have major repercussions. If they re/define the terms it is not just this made up term ghost gun ,For one thing all gun parts and accessories could be required to be serialized and a background check required for all said parts.I guess most people were not aware of this nefarious thing going on .I am well aware due to the fact my hobby is working on my own firearms so for me this could stop me from enjoying the part of the hobby i like the most.My opinion on the post is to get the things you may want now before the inmates running the asylum destroy this part of our rights and hobby!
danez71
Member
Currently, CA law it's ok to buy an unserialized 80% but you can't finish it with out applying for a state issued S/N and jumping through those hoops
But counties, such as San Diego for example, are working on prohibiting unserialized 80%
https://bearingarms.com/john-petrol...ego-council-poised-to-ban-80-receivers-n48338
Elkins45
Member
To get back to the original question: if I were buying 80% kits as a hedge against their eventual prohibition I wouldn’t do it thru mail order with a credit card. Face to face in cash is the only way to remain truly anonymous, and even then it needs to be a transaction where the seller doesn’t know your real name or phone number. Credit card transactions are easily revealed with the appropriate government paperwork, or the seller might happily give you up to avoid some other legal problem.
RickD427
Member
Additionally, Under California's AB-879, beginning on July 1, 2024 it becomes illegal to:
1) Possess any firearm precursor part (which includes unfinished 80% receivers) if the person is prohibited from possessing firearms.
2) Sell, or transfer, any firearms precursor parts except through a dealer.
3) Bring into California firearms precursor parts that were lawfully obtained in another state.
California is a very politically nutso state and a lot of localities are attempting to create local bans. California does has state preemption of firearms laws (refer to California Government Code 5071), but that really isn't stopping the effort.
JFrank
Member
If your taking a survey, i'm in the NO column
Gordon
Member
If it didn't take so long to process form 1s , should take under 30 days IMHO, and cost say $50 , I could see it as reasonable.
Back 15 or so years ago I went with buddies to San Jose California to a "factory" that you had to push a button on a million dollar CNC machine to make a billet AR receiver from a billet , think it was $150 back then . I was not that impressed quality wise , altho it was ok it needed a little polishing out. I chose a beefier than stock style with integral trigger guard which was not available at that time.I actually could put any numbers or letters on it I wanted to, and chose Molon Labe , of course
.
At the price of good anodized receivers in last 5 years it is not worth it IMHO unless you think the govt will come after you eventually if registered. They have in Ca. of course
Back 15 or so years ago I went with buddies to San Jose California to a "factory" that you had to push a button on a million dollar CNC machine to make a billet AR receiver from a billet , think it was $150 back then . I was not that impressed quality wise , altho it was ok it needed a little polishing out. I chose a beefier than stock style with integral trigger guard which was not available at that time.I actually could put any numbers or letters on it I wanted to, and chose Molon Labe , of course
.At the price of good anodized receivers in last 5 years it is not worth it IMHO unless you think the govt will come after you eventually if registered. They have in Ca. of course
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,117
Ignoring the tangent argument on "ghost guns" the answer is yes. Buy as many as you can reasonably afford. Even better if you can procure them in a FTF transaction.
Aside from all the terminology and legal discussion, consider this. I watched a video on completing one of those 80% receivers, it ain’t easy. If you think you’re going finish it off in your garage, think again. You really need to be an experienced machinist and have some very expensive and technical equipment.
I wonder how many have been ruined tossed aside.
I wonder how many have been ruined tossed aside.
entropy
Member
Drill press, a jig for the specific receiver, and a machinist's vise. Skill with the drill press makes it easier.
Elkins45
Member
If you’re referring to an AR lower that may well be true, but when I built my 100% functional Glock 22 clone from a Polymer80 lower it took me 15 minutes using a cordless drill, pocket knife and Dremel. I could have done it without the Dremel using a rat-tailed file but it would have added 15 minutes
. Add another 10 minutes to install a Glock parts kit and the 10 seconds or so to mount the slide assembly and the end result is that I built a 100% functional handgun using components I purchased entirely online. The lower and parts kit came from Rockey Brass and the slide/barrel were used Glock factory units bought as a complete set on eBay. This was in late 2019 before all the craziness hit so my total cost was only around $320.They were all delivered to my house by the US Postal Service.
CapnMac
Member
Barring those states which now require an FFL, of course. And, most of those are New Laws and have not been actually tested yet.
The claim that these firearms are "increasingly" being found at "crime scenes" is typically sources to journos reporting from "sources" typically cited as within BATFE. All such claims need to be examined more closely than they are.
If in [previous time period] 0 of a thing are found, and in [subsequent time period] n are found, the increase will be n * 100 "percent" by definition. Yesterday, 0, today 1, a 100% increase. Of that one thing only.
If, say, 100 weapons were discovered, and 1 had no serial number last year, and this year 2 were found with no s/n, you still have only recovered 100 firearms, even if the number w/o s/n has doubled. This is how we get "lies, dam' lies, and statistics."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
