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

[Ric]

I disagree entirely. The bumpstock was specifically made to circumvent the NFA on machineguns. I'm not saying I don't care because I didn't want one or that I agree with it. I'm saying it is legally indefensible. Same with pistol braces, we were always on borrowed time with either one. I'd rather see the effort put into repealing the NFA in its entirety.

80% receivers are completely different. It has always been perfectly legal to build your own firearm from scratch. The 80% receiver just makes it easier. Do people really believe that criminals are farting around with 80% receivers when they can much more easily buy a stolen gun on the street? No, this is just low hanging fruit.

What a bump stock does, I’ve been doing with a rubber band since the early ‘80s. When a Platoon Sergeant taught me.
Pulling a trigger really fast isn’t a machine gun

 

[LNK]

Let's ask a simple question. If the kits are for hobbyists, and you would consider buying one for a hobby, would you not because it went through an FFL?

I currently have bought guns for SD and competition (a hobby and SD practice), they have gone through an FFL.

What is the difference?

As far as not believing my friend, tough.

Some would rather have guns that are not traceable should the end game of tyranny ever come to pass. So by saying you favor going through an FFL, you are essentially advocating for registration. While 4473's are not currently collected by the federal government, they could at some time.

Unless you think the gang bangers won't be able to get any firearms because you now need to go through an FFL?

 

[mcb]

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.

This post is right on IMHO, if you're going to make a significant change to the law or the way the law is being interpreted it needs to be through legislation. That is how our Representative Republic works. That way the changes are answerable to the people and we can contact our representative on the issues and if needed vote them out of office if we did not like they way the voted. We can't vote out out of office an appointed ATF personnel.

 

[Megawatt maker]

Ok. Call me lazy, but I dont have the patience to read all the legal mubo jumbo.

Can someone sum it up in simple terms for this tired old dumb electrician?

Like...and they trying to say uppers now have to have SN#...and what not?

 

[Elkins45]

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:

• 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.

If the above is accurate, will we then need to fill out separate 4473. for each half and will one MKIII pistol count as 2 handguns?

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

No. Go read the section I quoted in post #93.

 

[luzyfuerza]

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?

At the threat of further thread drift...

I'm not in favor of harsher punishment, just consistent application of the law.

Actually, in 2019 the Trump administration instructed federal prosecutors around the country to redouble their efforts to prosecute those committing gun crimes (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/atto...ch-project-guardian-nationwide-strategic-plan) including prohibited possessors arrested in possession of firearms.

By contrast, the current administration has taken the position that connecting crime and punishment is a racist construct, and that violations of criminal law should not necessarily be followed by consequences like bail and incarceration.

We make my proposal a reality by electing politicians who see the connection between crime and punishment, and who reject as false excuses those policies currently in vogue.

I now promise to return to comments that are laser-focused on the proposed frame/receiver rules...

 

[hk940]

ATF has always had confusing classifications, Why is the Ruger MK 1-1V barrel and receiver the serial numbered part, when the frame has the trigger hammer and mag well, yet the 1911 frame is the serial numbered part when it has the trigger, hammer and mag well?

 

[Harriw]

QUOTE="Elkins45, post: 11927104, member: 112546"]No. Go read the section I quoted in post #93.[/QUOTE]

Yup. Here it is again for newcomers who don't want to read the whole thread:

QUOTE="Elkins45, post: 11926895, member: 112546"]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;[/QUOTE]

Full disclosure: I read the leaked version, and have not read this official version yet. They do make clear that they do not intend to change their existing serialization scheme for existing designs.

That said, there is plenty of other stuff in this proposed change that we should be concerned about (such as the 80% issue discussed above, as well as the change in document retention requirements for 4473's). And even regarding the upper and lower receiver issue for existing designs... despite the section quoted above, I must admit that I don’t have a whole lot of faith in the ATF that they won't find a way to pull a fast one on this.... *puts on tinfoil hat*

 

[bibox]

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”.

Building an 80% this way may be a moot point with 3D printing. STL files are available even for Hi-Points (known colloquially as Lo-Points) -





Multiple auctions for C9 parts kits sans frame -

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=hi+point+parts+c9&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_sop=16

Make no mistake, it's our solons that let this genie out of the bottle by their refusal to punish offenders and burden legal gun owners with more laws.

More laws got you the above, a 3D printed frame for a Hi-Point and it's files dispersed to the æther.

That’s like deliberately making a firearm more difficult to shoot to make it “safer”.

Speaking of Hi-Points, California raises hand -





More California -

https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-may-soften-gun-crime-laws-citing-impact-on-people-of-color

 

[CapnMac]

Can someone sum it up in simple terms for this tired old dumb electrician?

Like...and they trying to say uppers now have to have SN#...and what not?

There are several issues in the rule change.

First, they are beginning from an assertion that PMF (Personally Made Firearms) are being discovered at an increasing number of crime scenes. They do not clarify how adding serialization will change that condition

One is that they want to add the word "readily" to the definition of what is a "recognizable" gun part. And that they don't want to actually define how they mean "readily." So, is that a bored dude with a file, or a Master Machinist with a full machine shop. Is it 15 minutes or 15 days. They want to eat the cake and have it , too.

Another is that they want all "recognizable" gun parts that can be "readily" assembled into a firearm serialized. That means people who run a machine shop selling as subcontractors as well hobbyists. Just which parts are not defined at all. Conversion cylinders, Magazine conversions, stock conversions, etc.

A fillip to the above is that the number and agreement of serialization is not defined. Let's say you have an XXX brand buffer tube, under the proposed new rule, it needs an s/n. Let's suppose you also buy a "conversion" carbine-length gas tube, which might need a serial. Which serial applies? If you pull an upper off a serialized lower, doe the new upper need to be serialized to the lower? None of that is defined.

Also, they want FFL to retain records forever, and not just 20 years. They also want to create a new Federal category of Serial Number makers, who will be guaranteed work in serializing anything requiring temporary or permanent Transfer.

Now, they tossed a carrot in with the sticks. The only good portion of this Rule Change would be that suppressors would only be identified by their tube or outer assembly., the internal bits would not each be considered suppressors per se, as they are now. Under the new rule, you could have spare baffles, or more than one muzzle adapter (maybe).

I have summarized this in this way, as these are the sorts of thing that ought to be addressed, point by point, in the Public Comments area, which is meant to be accessible to all of the general public (I need to find the link). Procedural rules require ATFE to answer every Comment made on this rule change.

Note, too, I include the carrot. ATFE ought be praised for a sensible change to how suppressors are regulated. Then, castigated for the less-good items noted above.

 

[Megawatt maker]

There are several issues in the rule change.

First, they are beginning from an assertion that PMF (Personally Made Firearms) are being discovered at an increasing number of crime scenes. They do not clarify how adding serialization will change that condition

One is that they want to add the word "readily" to the definition of what is a "recognizable" gun part. And that they don't want to actually define how they mean "readily." So, is that a bored dude with a file, or a Master Machinist with a full machine shop. Is it 15 minutes or 15 days. They want to eat the cake and have it , too.

Another is that they want all "recognizable" gun parts that can be "readily" assembled into a firearm serialized. That means people who run a machine shop selling as subcontractors as well hobbyists. Just which parts are not defined at all. Conversion cylinders, Magazine conversions, stock conversions, etc.

A fillip to the above is that the number and agreement of serialization is not defined. Let's say you have an XXX brand buffer tube, under the proposed new rule, it needs an s/n. Let's suppose you also buy a "conversion" carbine-length gas tube, which might need a serial. Which serial applies? If you pull an upper off a serialized lower, doe the new upper need to be serialized to the lower? None of that is defined.

Also, they want FFL to retain records forever, and not just 20 years. They also want to create a new Federal category of Serial Number makers, who will be guaranteed work in serializing anything requiring temporary or permanent Transfer.

Now, they tossed a carrot in with the sticks. The only good portion of this Rule Change would be that suppressors would only be identified by their tube or outer assembly., the internal bits would not each be considered suppressors per se, as they are now. Under the new rule, you could have spare baffles, or more than one muzzle adapter (maybe).

I have summarized this in this way, as these are the sorts of thing that ought to be addressed, point by point, in the Public Comments area, which is meant to be accessible to all of the general public (I need to find the link). Procedural rules require ATFE to answer every Comment made on this rule change.

Note, too, I include the carrot. ATFE ought be praised for a sensible change to how suppressors are regulated. Then, castigated for the less-good items noted above.

So, this sounds like they are trying to kill our hobby...those of us who build our own ARs, AKs...whatever. Sounds like every part needs a SN#..

What a load of crap.

 

[CapnMac]

So, this sounds like they are trying to kill our hobby.

Which is a legitimate thing to Comment upon. That the Rule change would have a punitive effect on those with a legitimate hobby interest in PMF.

Which also provides a way to jab them about the unintended consequence of putting unnecessary burdens on the subcontractors, which would then further complicate both the established industry, and the hobbyist as well. (They have a pretty vested history with the industry, and want to retain that privileged position.)

 

[kwguy]

So, this sounds like they are trying to kill our hobby...those of us who build our own ARs, AKs...whatever. Sounds like every part needs a SN#..

What a load of crap.

Exactly. You got it right on the head.

 

[tallpaul]

I disagree entirely. The bumpstock was specifically made to circumvent the NFA on machineguns. I'm not saying I don't care because I didn't want one or that I agree with it. I'm saying it is legally indefensible. Same with pistol braces, we were always on borrowed time with either one. I'd rather see the effort put into repealing the NFA in its entirety.

80% receivers are completely different. It has always been perfectly legal to build your own firearm from scratch. The 80% receiver just makes it easier. Do people really believe that criminals are farting around with 80% receivers when they can much more easily buy a stolen gun on the street? No, this is just low hanging fruit.

I did not read the whole thread yet but a court stopped the ATF ruling calling the bumpstock a machine gun.... btw there is nothing wrong about them or machine guns either for that matter... not against the 2nd amendment at all- the issue is we as a peopleshould never stood for the original restrictions to begin with... we need to punish severely those who misuse items vs punishing us all because we might do something wrong with an item some don't like or afraid of.... with your views you would likely want all penises removed because they may be misused or used to hurt someone....

https://www.courthousenews.com/bump...CN) — A divided,felony offense to possess one.

 

[kwguy]

I did not read the whole thread yet but a court stopped the ATF ruling calling the bumpstock a machine gun.... btw there is nothing wrong about them or machine guns either for that matter... not against the 2nd amendment at all- the issue is we as a peopleshould never stood for the original restrictions to begin with... we need to punish severely those who misuse items vs punishing us all because we might do something wrong with an item some don't like or afraid of.... with your views you would likely want all penises removed because they may be misused or used to hurt someone....

https://www.courthousenews.com/bump-stocks-are-not-machine-guns-sixth-circuit-rules/#:~:text=CINCINNATI (CN) — A divided,felony offense to possess one.

Perfect. Exactly.

 

[CraigC]

.... with your views you would likely want all penises removed because they may be misused or used to hurt someone....

Uh, excuse me???

 

[mnrivrat]

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.

I believe I covered the legal with prescription and illegal without it. With all due respect trying to spin it as you do doesn't make you right. Your talking the same trash logic as anti gun people use to try to make them unavailable.
They can be harmful if abused so lets take them away.
You don't have a clue as to how much good opiates can do for those in severe and chronic pain. For us who need them there is no substitute. Addictive - yes , but if your life is full of physical pain you wouldn't care. If you lived in my body you wouldn't care. For those that abuse them, it is no different than those who abuse a firearm. Like I said, it is a people issue, not an object issue. Back to gun things the second amendment says "shall not be infringed" One of the founding fathers said in a letter something to the effect of the sword, the rifle, and all implements of the soldier are the birthright of an American. I have listened to your points . Now perhaps it is time for you to take a step back, open your ears, and listen to what points of view others have.

 

[CraigC]

I believe I covered the legal with prescription and illegal without it. With all due respect trying to spin it as you do doesn't make you right. Your talking the same trash logic as anti gun people use to try to make them unavailable.
They can be harmful if abused so lets take them away.
You don't have a clue as to how much good opiates can do for those in severe and chronic pain. For us who need them there is no substitute. Addictive - yes , but if your life is full of physical pain you wouldn't care. If you lived in my body you wouldn't care. For those that abuse them, it is no different than those who abuse a firearm. Like I said, it is a people issue, not an object issue. Back to gun things the second amendment says "shall not be infringed" One of the founding fathers said in a letter something to the effect of the sword, the rifle, and all implements of the soldier are the birthright of an American. I have listened to your points . Now perhaps it is time for you to take a step back, open your ears, and listen to what points of view others have.

Of course, they're great treatment for pain. As I said, they also have a very dark side, one not alleviated by the fact that they're legal. Do you really think fewer people are going to die or ruin their lives on heroin or crystal meth if the stuff was made legal? You wanna talk about perspective, maybe you haven't been to enough funerals of friends and family members who've lost their battle with opioid addiction?

You're going to preach to me about the constitution? You obviously have not read a damned thing I've posted here.

 

[DrDeFab]

I may have missed it. but I haven't seen a lot of discussion about the origin and context of the proposed change. If you aren't familiar with the following stories, or others like them, you might want to come up to speed. (There are probably better links for some or all of these, but I just grabbed these after a few minutes of searching.)

Dan O'Kelly
United States v. Jimenez, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1038 | Casetext Search + Citator
Roh, Ruling on AR-15 receivers.pdf (armsandthelaw.com)
Ares sues ATF - DocumentCloud
Remember That Time ATF Raided Polymer80: No Product Taken, No Cease & Desist Order (ammoland.com)

The short version is that cases are getting dropped or kicked because of the sloppy and arbitrary definitions of things like "receiver". The point of the proposed rule is to stop that - but my paraphrase of the result would be "everything we ever said was a receiver, and everything we choose to call a receiver in the future, IS a receiver, because we call it one." I don't consider that a reasonable solution.

Oh, and while they are at it, they throw in a few things like "keep those records forever!" (My more cynical side wonders if they added a few things they could drop as a negotiation tactic to keep the rest.)

 

[kwguy]

I may have missed it. but I haven't seen a lot of discussion about the origin and context of the proposed change. If you aren't familiar with the following stories, or others like them, you might want to come up to speed. (There are probably better links for some or all of these, but I just grabbed these after a few minutes of searching.)

Dan O'Kelly
United States v. Jimenez, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1038 | Casetext Search + Citator
Roh, Ruling on AR-15 receivers.pdf (armsandthelaw.com)
Ares sues ATF - DocumentCloud
Remember That Time ATF Raided Polymer80: No Product Taken, No Cease & Desist Order (ammoland.com)

The short version is that cases are getting dropped or kicked because of the sloppy and arbitrary definitions of things like "receiver". The point of the proposed rule is to stop that - but my paraphrase of the result would be "everything we ever said was a receiver, and everything we choose to call a receiver in the future, IS a receiver, because we call it one." I don't consider that a reasonable solution.

Oh, and while they are at it, they throw in a few things like "keep those records forever!" (My more cynical side wonders if they added a few things they could drop as a negotiation tactic to keep the rest.)

I understand that, but negotiate with who? They HAVE to have the comment period, but after that, they can just implement it. It’s not like it’s a bill that gets debated. It’s just them with no check or balance. The check is supposed to be the existing legislation, but they don’t seem too concerned about that when they want serial numbers on a hunk of metal or plastic that is not a firearm.

 

[P5 Guy]

Slapping guns together from parts kits | The High Road

A lot harder to do back when an AK47 receiver flat had to be bent to start building a ghost AK?

 

[DoubleMag]

Also FYI ( it is IMHO ) this is just testing the waters, see what the response is.

There are other trees of liberty with 2A 'low hanging fruit'

Heavy Comment Period response = ''I think we should pick a... LITTLE over there''
Light response = ''I think we should pick a...WHOLE LOT everywhere''

Oh BTW, why do I need/want a **** or even a **** ? It's not wants & needs its RIGHTS. But let's try this...'' for all lawful purposes.''

but my paraphrase of the result would be "everything we ever said was a receiver, and everything we choose to call a receiver in the future, IS a receiver, because we call it one." I don't consider that a reasonable solution.

AND IF THERE IS A LIGHT RESPONSE, THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN. Sharpen those crayons, Patriots! Get your comments in

....BE THE ROCKS out on pier's edge that helps BREAK THE WAVES....

 

[BreechFace]

Just getting back to you, forgot to reply earlier.

It has? I’m not disagreeing, I’m intrigued. Do you have a video of such a feat?

https://lockedback.com/jerry-micule...n-the-fpc-lawsuit-against-the-bump-stock-ban/

 

[BigBore44]

https://lockedback.com/jerry-micule...n-the-fpc-lawsuit-against-the-bump-stock-ban/

I thought it might be Jerry. Still, if one human can do it. It’s possible that others could also.

 

[BreechFace]

I thought it might be Jerry. Still, if one human can do it. It’s possible that others could also.

Jerry, like Chuck Norris is not human.