05-14-2021, 12:36 AM
grayfox Wrote: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.