ATF Proposed Rule Change for Frames and Receivers

My thinking has always been this: the receiver (or frame) should be defined as the part that takes the feeding device. That definition works for handguns, ARs, for AKs, HK roller lock guns, Ruger 22s but the ATF doesn't do it that way. Even for revolvers the cylinder is the feeding device so it works there. Right now we have definitions that don't work for example an AR lower is not a firearm per rule.
 
67ray said:
My thinking has always been this: the receiver (or frame) should be defined as the part that takes the feeding device. That definition works for handguns, ARs, for AKs, HK roller lock guns, Ruger 22s but the ATF doesn't do it that way. Even for revolvers the cylinder is the feeding device so it works there. Right now we have definitions that don't work for example an AR lower is not a firearm per rule.
Click to expand...
IF WE HAVE TO DEFINE SOMETHING
I think its the UK that uses the pressure containing portion. That is, the chamber, whatever part includes the chamber. Seems an easier way to define it and it's a fundamental component. It's also the most critical from a safety standpoint, that seems a good reason to keep track of it during production.
 
67ray said:
Their rulemaking isn't predicated on a percentage completion. You should read it.
Click to expand...

"I can't tell you what pornography is but I know it when I see it." That's not how to create law.

And what happened to the 2 weeks ago "only if it's sold with a jig and drill bits" court argument? Were they just wrong? LOL

67ray said:
My thinking has always been this: the receiver (or frame) should be defined as the part that takes the feeding device. That definition works for handguns, ARs, for AKs, HK roller lock guns, Ruger 22s but the ATF doesn't do it that way. Even for revolvers the cylinder is the feeding device so it works there. Right now we have definitions that don't work for example an AR lower is not a firearm per rule.
Click to expand...

Here's the reality - Ruger Mk 1 was 1958 or something. The AR series was in the early 60's.

The defining rule for all of these "receiver/barrel/action" bullcraps was GCA68. That's 1968. Well after the Ruger Mk series and even after AR's. They could have made a good law and didn't. The ATF is going to lose on this one - if Congress wanted it clear 54 years ago, they should have made it clear. As I said earlier, it's only a matter of time. ATF better hope this doesn't get to the Supremes. It'll be ugly on a "did you not read the EPA case? How stupid are you?" level. It could even further limit the "effectiveness" (giggle) of the Executive Branch.
 
Dennis in MA said:
"I can't tell you what pornography is but I know it when I see it." That's not how to create law.

And what happened to the 2 weeks ago "only if it's sold with a jig and drill bits" court argument? Were they just wrong? LOL



Here's the reality - Ruger Mk 1 was 1958 or something. The AR series was in the early 60's.

The defining rule for all of these "receiver/barrel/action" bullcraps was GCA68. That's 1968. Well after the Ruger Mk series and even after AR's. They could have made a good law and didn't. The ATF is going to lose on this one - if Congress wanted it clear 54 years ago, they should have made it clear. As I said earlier, it's only a matter of time. ATF better hope this doesn't get to the Supremes. It'll be ugly on a "did you not read the EPA case? How stupid are you?" level. It could even further limit the "effectiveness" (giggle) of the Executive Branch.
Click to expand...
You can try to define it by its shape, color, texture, weight, consistency, and smell, but its all bullshit all the same. And the grifters in congress, and the feds who do their bidding want you to know how it tastes too by feeding it to you and forcing it down your throat. All gun laws are infringements.
 
42! said:
I think its the UK that uses the pressure containing portion. That is, the chamber, whatever part includes the chamber. Seems an easier way to define it and it's a fundamental component. It's also the most critical from a safety standpoint, that seems a good reason to keep track of it during production.
Click to expand...
Many countries in Europe require a 3rd party or .Gov proof test with a double charge to show the firearm is satisfactorily safe for use with a stamp indicating it was tested and passed, so there's a record of the firearm + the test performed.

I'm actually shocked the CPSC doesn't have some regulatory authority about new production firearms being proofed and having some minimum standard of being drop safe. That would be a camel's nose into the tent for bad things though.
 
67ray said:
My thinking has always been this: the receiver (or frame) should be defined as the part that takes the feeding device. That definition works for handguns, ARs, for AKs, HK roller lock guns, Ruger 22s but the ATF doesn't do it that way. Even for revolvers the cylinder is the feeding device so it works there. Right now we have definitions that don't work for example an AR lower is not a firearm per rule.
Click to expand...
that would get messy with some belt feds with more than one feeding device opening.
 
groundscrapers said:
80% frames are still legal but can't be sold with a jig or tools. You buy the frame and buy the jig separately.
Click to expand...
I just read through the "training aid" and it sounds like that while 80%'ers are "legal", they are now treated as a firearm, so 4473 and must be serialized when sold/transferred through an ffl.
I'd assume that private ftf sales within the same state can happen but buyer needs to be legal to own a firearm.
Including the jig comes into play in determining by some ambiguous method whether the frame/receiver is 'complete enough' to be considered a firearm.
 
wcorey said:
I just read through the "training aid" and it sounds like that while 80%'ers are "legal", they are now treated as a firearm, so 4473 and must be serialized when sold/transferred through an ffl.
I'd assume that private ftf sales within the same state can happen but buyer needs to be legal to own a firearm.
Including the jig comes into play in determining by some ambiguous method whether the frame/receiver is 'complete enough' to be considered a firearm.
Click to expand...
they are only a firearm IF they ship with the jig. Dealers can posses them w/o a sn if they are in that condition. They only need to add a sn if its finished or has those other parts. The confusion around this is way more detrimental than the actual ruling.
 
groundscrapers said:
they are only a firearm IF they ship with the jig. Dealers can posses them w/o a sn if they are in that condition. They only need to add a sn if its finished or has those other parts. The confusion around this is way more detrimental than the actual ruling.
Click to expand...
groundscrapers said:
they won't be numbered if they are shipped without a jig and tooling.
Click to expand...

A dealer won't be able to sell/transfer them to you unless they are serialized and with a background check - doesn't matter if finished or not, jig or not.

Effectively they are now guns, even at 80%, 79% etc

I'm not sure if a dealer can get them into stock without a serial number and then would serialize them prior to transfer. That detail may matter as an FFL who is not a manufacturer potentially has a bullshit serial numbering scheme that is about as traceable as a roll of toilet paper, but not sure how that piece works.
 
teamRR said:
A dealer won't be able to sell/transfer them to you unless they are serialized and with a background check - doesn't matter if finished or not, jig or not.

Effectively they are now guns, even at 80%, 79% etc

I'm not sure if a dealer can get them into stock without a serial number and then would serialize them prior to transfer. That detail may matter as an FFL who is not a manufacturer potentially has a bullshit serial numbering scheme that is about as traceable as a roll of toilet paper, but not sure how that piece works.
Click to expand...
I was one of those original optimists who foolishly thought that the ATF was being honest when they intimated that they were only going after the "buy-build-shoot" kits and that they were going to be reasonable about what "readily" meant. But in seeing the final rule and how they intend to enforce it, it is clear that they are banning pretty much any unserialized frame/reciever since they are interpreting "readily" as being anything that doesn't require a full blown CNC machine to complete.

Here is their previous definition of not a receiver:
80-Percent-Receiver-1-1024x720.png
Here is their new definition:
Screen Shot 2022-08-26 at 1.05.02 PM.png
 
Can the legal brains explain to me why things like the FNC and AUG have weird (at least to me) serial locations compared to normal things like AR's and AKs?
 
cathouse01 said:
I was one of those original optimists who foolishly thought that the ATF was being honest when they intimated that they were only going after the "buy-build-shoot" kits and that they were going to be reasonable about what "readily" meant. But in seeing the final rule and how they intend to enforce it, it is clear that they are banning pretty much any unserialized frame/reciever since they are interpreting "readily" as being anything that doesn't require a full blown CNC machine to complete.

Here is their previous definition of not a receiver:
View attachment 654714
Here is their new definition:
View attachment 654715
Click to expand...
what is the source of the second pic because it doesn't align with their website.

Are “80%” or “unfinished” receivers illegal? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Receiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a "firearm" are not subject to regulation under the Gun Control Act (GCA). ATF has long held that items such as receiver blanks, "castings" or "machined bodies" in which the fire-control cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov
 
groundscrapers said:
what is the source of the second pic because it doesn't align with their website.

Are “80%” or “unfinished” receivers illegal? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Receiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a "firearm" are not subject to regulation under the Gun Control Act (GCA). ATF has long held that items such as receiver blanks, "castings" or "machined bodies" in which the fire-control cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov
Click to expand...
nevermind, I found it and the slide above it adds clarity.

1661538274401.png
 
I would like the idea of marking the component with the chamber less, because it would make it a pain to change barrels on many platforms. Recievers barely wear, are rarely changed - it's nice to get the barrels that we commonly are tinkering with online and on sale.
 
groundscrapers said:
what is the source of the second pic because it doesn't align with their website.

Are “80%” or “unfinished” receivers illegal? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Receiver blanks that do not meet the definition of a "firearm" are not subject to regulation under the Gun Control Act (GCA). ATF has long held that items such as receiver blanks, "castings" or "machined bodies" in which the fire-control cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov
Click to expand...
Also, check the last review date of that first url, its "Last Reviewed April 6, 2020". Now out of date. And I see you found the ATF presentation "FINAL RULE 2021R-05F". For others, it's at: FINAL RULE 2021R-05F
 
groundscrapers said:
they are only a firearm IF they ship with the jig. Dealers can posses them w/o a sn if they are in that condition. They only need to add a sn if its finished or has those other parts. The confusion around this is way more detrimental than the actual ruling.
Click to expand...
And…it’s not a ruling, it’s a rule (made up by unelected swamp rats intent on disarmament of the country).
 

Similar threads

ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
489
pastera
pastera
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
14
Views
343
powerman
powerman
Federal Judge Rules Millions Of NRA Members Exempt From ATF Pistol Brace Rule
Replies
12
Views
557
1919FAN
1919FAN
ATF E-Forms Intentionally Shut Down (LOL for Maintenance)
Replies
16
Views
1K
Dressed to Kill
Dressed to Kill
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
Back
Top Bottom