• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

ATF Proposed Rule Change for Frames and Receivers

Really if they want to know why in the US we own 400+ million guns (or waaay more) - all they need to do is look at gun control pushes and buying patterns.

I'd probably only own a couple AR15s and a couple AR10s, 10 mags for each platform maybe (as far as the models they really hate), modest amounts of ammo in storage. That is if they weren't threatening to ban them every so many years. Instead I've got piles of them, additional lowers, spare parts of every sort, huge caches of mags new in the packaging, a couple of every 9mm p80 they made, 80% AR lowers, thousands of rounds particularly of ammo they dislike, etc etc

Really if they wanted to harm the industry, slow the arming of America, they would be better off just shutting up about it. Nobody would have 20 lowers sitting in their safe, unserialized rifles buried in the woods, etc etc if it wasn't for (the typically failed) attempts at gun control.

I definitely own WAY more guns than I would if it weren't for the nonstop attack on 2A by the left. I own them because I am afraid that one day, they won't be available and existing will be grandfathered in. They are actually part of my retirement plan. Buying stocks is boring (I do it anyway) so investing money in something you can enjoy and make money on (for me watches, guns, cars, etc) seems like a no brainer.
 
My son lives in Georgia, (that's one of the reasons we relocated here).

What I was trying to say, was that looking back at what happened in CT in 2014, I'd do things differently now. I'm trying to look forward, anticipating what the rewording by ATF means and what its impact will be.

For example, I have lower parts kits, spare springs, spare pins, spare bolt carrier groups, spare triggers - but are they going to become regulated items? If so, I'd rather have them on hand, for my son if not for me.
Yep, it’s always darkest before the dawn. Remember the ‘70’s when concealed carry, in most states, was rare? Now ~50% of America is shall-issue or constitutional carry! I think anything can change over the course of several decades
 
Yep, it’s always darkest before the dawn. Remember the ‘70’s when concealed carry, in most states, was rare? Now ~50% of America is shall-issue or constitutional carry! I think anything can change over the course of several decades
Equally impressive is the public impression - the argument of OK Corral gunfights and blood in the street if unimportant unconnected people are allowed to carry has pretty much lost all credibly. Who woulda thunk that a city with a total ban on post 82ish handguns and no carry licensing would eventually become "Shall Issue"? There have been few if any credible efforts to roll back any of the shall issue / constitutional carry laws. Even MA is trending towards ever increasing percentages of "restrictions: none", but it still very weak on that pesky due process thing.
 
Last edited:
Equally impressive if the public impression - the argument of OK Corral gunfights and blood in the street if unimportant unconnected people are allowed to carry has pretty much lost all credibly. Who woulda thunk that a city with a total ban on post 82ish handguns and no carry licensing would eventually become "Shall Issue"? There have been few if any credible efforts to roll back any of the shall issue / constitutional carry laws. Even MA is trending towards ever increasing percentages of "restrictions: none", but it still very weak on that pesky due process thing.

Historically there was definitely this feeling about concealing weapons being a criminal act, maybe from gangster movies. The whole SBR, SBS concept arises from it and continues on federally today.
 
Historically there was definitely this feeling about concealing weapons being a criminal act, maybe from gangster movies. The whole SBR, SBS concept arises from it and continues on federally today.
But at least the SBR classification in MA gives you the ability to legally carry a loaded AR in public.

The wisdom of doing so, however, is left as an exercise for the reader.

The logic you cite applies to silencers as well, and the only reason there is an NFA tax stamp rather than a ban is back in 1934, congress knew it did not have the power to ban full auto/sbr/aow/cans.
 
The logic you cite applies to silencers as well, and the only reason there is an NFA tax stamp rather than a ban is back in 1934, congress knew it did not have the power to ban full auto/sbr/aow/cans.
From the research I’ve done, the primary drivers behind the tax stamps for machine guns and cans were the “Robber Barons”, the rich fat cats of the time. They didn’t want the workers to be able to arm themselves as well as their union busters and they didn’t want the, in the words of one, “poor Italian immigrants” using cans to hunt all the game animals. The current value of $200 today is $4,291.10, so the $200 tax stamp was quite a barrier for poor workers and lowly immigrants. So the workers couldn’t afford to arm themselves with machine guns like the union busters were doing and poor people wouldn’t be able to afford cans to hunt with and, potentially being more effective, reducing the number of game animals for the rich folk to go after.

It actually had very little to do with crime control, even if that is how it’s been presented.
 
Last edited:
Equally impressive if the public impression - the argument of OK Corral gunfights and blood in the street if unimportant unconnected people are allowed to carry has pretty much lost all credibly. Who woulda thunk that a city with a total ban on post 82ish handguns and no carry licensing would eventually become "Shall Issue"? There have been few if any credible efforts to roll back any of the shall issue / constitutional carry laws. Even MA is trending towards ever increasing percentages of "restrictions: none", but it still very weak on that pesky due process thing.
Autocrats of any stripe, including American blue-state bureaucrats, will continue to double-down on the most rediculous regulations until the entire house of cards comes crashing down. Much like Putin in Ukraine. Politically, in both cases, there’s no way to retreat and save face at the same time.
 
If you count shall issue, it’s way over 50%
View attachment 605326

Texas went ConCarry in 2021......

That map isnt accurate, there are now 24 con carry states iirc



Reciprocity_Map-2.jpg
 
Texas went ConCarry in 2021......

That map isnt accurate, there are now 24 con carry states iirc



Reciprocity_Map-2.jpg
It was the first map I found that proved my point.
The point I was making is if you add up shall issue and constitutional carry states, it’s like 40 something out of 50.
It’s a huge majority.
 
Clear, simple, explanation of these changes from the NRA:

 
Clear, simple, explanation of these changes from the NRA:

I would like to thank the National Rifle Association for putting up the endless fight against this heinous gun control. They do such a great job. Without them, who knows where we'd be.
 
I definitely own WAY more guns than I would if it weren't for the nonstop attack on 2A by the left. I own them because I am afraid that one day, they won't be available and existing will be grandfathered in. They are actually part of my retirement plan. Buying stocks is boring (I do it anyway) so investing money in something you can enjoy and make money on (for me watches, guns, cars, etc) seems like a no brainer.
I’m a collector, I can only carry 2-3. Anything over that is not going to work

Plus I lost them all in a toy boating accident

RIP

C8199477-D47B-4E17-BC52-64568CFA649A.jpeg
 
If someone more intelligent/motivated than myself could give a idiots version for me please
See @teamRR post #331 linking to the NRA’s explanation. The published rule is no different than the one released on April 11.

I have given up on trying to read this thing. While some areas are relatively clear (the receiver of an AR will continue to just be the lower) others are completely opaque (their supposed definition of “readily”, 145 weasel words without a single concrete example). Most of the 80% manufactures seem to think it will require them to serialize their products and sell them through FFLs.
 
Finally a G & G video that isn't 29 minutes long when it should be 4 minutes . . .
If its monetized they get way more $ for content over 10min, however the better creators know how to stage their stuff so that the user can just fast forward to the correct places....
 
They're F'd. I've sent reasonable amounts of $ to FPC this year. I'll have to check. But the one this week that Braden went over where they said, "No, we don't have a problem with 80% as long as you don't include the jig and drill bits." LOL.

I wouldn't mind, but hte Freaking GCA68 was passed in. . . . .1968. When the M16 was the primary small arm of the US Military. Shouldn't someone have done a better job of defining what a frame or receiver or firearm was???? It's not like this is a 19th century law pertaining to 21st century weapons. It's a late-20th-century law pertaining to late-20th-century weapons.
 
Back
Top Bottom