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!

[video=youtube_share;KIqG-c03QTE]https://youtu.be/KIqG-c03QTE[/video]

[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]

Don’t care, will not comply, next slide.

Hard to institute firearms policy when your own crackhead/pedophile son is a prohibited person buying firearms that end up thrown in the trash by his wife, creating a potential public hazard, your ATF Director nominee was Shot Spotter’s North American Sales Representative and failed to mention that to Congress in the HPA committee hearings, and you can’t even get the name of the ATF correct unless he changed it to A - F - T.

“Two blasts!”

Joe Biden was a complete joke and openly-mocked within the Democrat party for decades, is even more of a joke now, and is incapable of forming coherent policies or inspiring anyone to follow anything that escapes his mouth other than aides that wipe up the spittle after one of his imbecilic and cyclical aneuristic rants.

[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]

They’re trying to lay the groundwork for covering for their incompetence in prosecuting people for making AR-15 lowers, since their own retired agents who were SMEs within Firearms Technology Branch have testified in favor of defendants who were unlawfully charged with retarded cases.

As soon as one of these former agents explained that the AR-15 lower does not even meet ATF’s own definitions of what a receiver is, they panicked and didn’t want the word to get out because they have prosecuted and gotten convictions on other innocent people with the same types of cases. A CA judge even found their case to be baseless under Federal Law:

A judge in California issued a tentative order this week finding a “disconnect” in the ATF’s classification of AR-15 lower receivers as “firearms.”

The case began when the ATF launched an investigation and subsequent prosecution against Joseph Roh, who they accused of illegally manufacturing and selling AR-15 receivers in a warehouse outside Los Angeles.

After deliberating for more than a year, US District Court Judge James V. Selna determined that because an AR-15 lower receiver does not house the bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to the barrel, as defined in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, it does not constitute a “receiver” and cannot be considered a “firearm” under federal law.

“No reasonable person would understand that a part constitutes a receiver where it lacks the components specified in the regulation,” Selna wrote.

Therefore, the judge determined, “Roh did not violate the law by manufacturing receivers.”

The case garnered national media attention after CNN reported that prosecutors in the case struck a plea deal with Roh to avoid the judge’s tentative order becoming permanent.

According to CNN, “Sources familiar with the agreement said prosecutors wanted to strike a deal in order to prevent Selna’s order from becoming permanent, drawing publicity, and creating case law that could hamper ATF enforcement efforts.”

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.