ATF's proposed new firearms related definitions

[SDW]

This probably isn't news to most people here. Just a heads up that right now it's all just "proposed". There will be a 90-day comment period, so if anyone's got anything to say about it, the time is now.

MrGunsnGear has a links in the info below the vid where comments and be posted to the ATF, etc.

Wishing us luck on all this!

[Lemonaid]

This reminds me of when the police send letters to people they have warrants for telling them they have won a big screen T.V. and to come to this building to claim their prize.
Telling the ATF how stupid their new policies are puts you on the visit and inspect me first list.
BUT, I could very well be wrong about this.

[SDW]

Yeah, on the one side, you might feel like you're sticking your neck out to have your head lopped off. But this isn't Russia or China. Yet. We still have a right, and kind of a duty to say our piece. To do otherwise is the same as just running and hiding. The Gun Control Act requires a 90-day Comment Period for the public to have a say be available before solidifying any proposed changes so that the government body knows if what they want to do is the right thing, i.e. something that people are generally in agreement with. For us not to say anything, since we have the opportunity, seems a little short-sighted and defeatist.

[LRRPF52]

[rabiddawg]

^ yep

[grayfox]

Well. I downloaded the proposed rule and am reading it. Am up to page 41/115 as we speak.
Now this is only my first read, but so far there isn't a lot to see here.
1. No definition of receiver already in place, is affected or changed. None. It says this explicitly at least 2 times that I've found.
2. The biggest area is in the area of 80% kits. It attempts to clamp down on "unlicensed" sale of these "P-80" kits. "Licensed sale" of these seems so far, ok. And it does not prohibit someone from from building and owning one (a "PMF") for private use (not for sale or distribution) -- says this explicitly as well. If you get, what is now, an 80% receiver, only difference is it will need to go thru NICS and have a serial# before you get it. And if you already have one or somehow own one when the rule is in place, but then need to bring it to a gunsmith for some kind of work or mod... well the gs has to put a serial # on it and record it, but doesn't have to do any NICS on you for it - it still goes back to you when he's done.
3. The suppressors stuff -- looks similar but I'm not majoring in suppressor stuff right now anyway. But it looks/sounds analogous.

If someone comes up with a "new" design, ie, not an AR, not a glock-like, not a fal, not an AK... something new. then they need to go thru the drill of getting the receiver defined and serialized, whether that is one, 2 or several pieces.... a NEW design. A new AR does not qualify as a new design.
One thing I wondered about while reading was when they talk about "split-receiver" systems... which most stuff sold today is. Would the upper receiver (of an AR etc) or slide of a "glock-like" suddenly be re-classified as a receiver needing a serial #? Answer is "no." This all has to do with how the GCA and "standard" ATF definitions have been operating... Not to go into this now but the new proposed definitions basically try to correct that going forward for new designs. Current stuff is left as-is.

Anyway, that's my first read of 40+/- and for now it looks as if their lawyers kept them from doing very much with this proposed rule... but we'll see.
And maybe in the next 70+ pages I'll see something a lot more alarming... but for now I'm not real impressed.

[lazyengineer]

Well. I downloaded the proposed rule and am reading it. Am up to page 41/115 as we speak.
Now this is only my first read, but so far there isn't a lot to see here.
1. No definition of receiver already in place, is affected or changed. None. It says this explicitly at least 2 times that I've found.
2. The biggest area is in the area of 80% kits. It attempts to clamp down on "unlicensed" sale of these "P-80" kits. "Licensed sale" of these seems so far, ok. And it does not prohibit someone from from building and owning one (a "PMF") for private use (not for sale or distribution) -- says this explicitly as well. If you get, what is now, an 80% receiver, only difference is it will need to go thru NICS and have a serial# before you get it. And if you already have one or somehow own one when the rule is in place, but then need to bring it to a gunsmith for some kind of work or mod... well the gs has to put a serial # on it and record it, but doesn't have to do any NICS on you for it - it still goes back to you when he's done.
3. The suppressors stuff -- looks similar but I'm not majoring in suppressor stuff right now anyway. But it looks/sounds analogous.

If someone comes up with a "new" design, ie, not an AR, not a glock-like, not a fal, not an AK... something new. then they need to go thru the drill of getting the receiver defined and serialized, whether that is one, 2 or several pieces.... a NEW design. A new AR does not qualify as a new design.
One thing I wondered about while reading was when they talk about "split-receiver" systems... which most stuff sold today is. Would the upper receiver (of an AR etc) or slide of a "glock-like" suddenly be re-classified as a receiver needing a serial #? Answer is "no." This all has to do with how the GCA and "standard" ATF definitions have been operating... Not to go into this now but the new proposed definitions basically try to correct that going forward for new designs. Current stuff is left as-is.

Anyway, that's my first read of 40+/- and for now it looks as if their lawyers kept them from doing very much with this proposed rule... but we'll see.
And maybe in the next 70+ pages I'll see something a lot more alarming... but for now I'm not real impressed.

Haven't studied it well, but this was my take so far also. Basically, more of a yawn, than anything - as pretty much all of this is current practice now anyway. Frankly, if I were a gun-grabber hoping for the ATF to come up with something; this isn't it.

[SDW]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Your opinions are reassuring. My main concern was that I could not tell, from reading all that gobbledy-guk, if they were saying our upper receivers would now also become "firearms" unto themselves and require serial numbers. What a PITA that would be.

[LRRPF52]

This was the guy hosting build parties with 80% lowers.

[grayfox]

You can add your name to the form email GOA has on their website, I just did, to express my opinion.