The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 27, 2022, 06:06 AM   #26
Geezerbiker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2011
Location: Willamina, OR
Posts: 1,862
Any idea what effect it's going to have on those of us that already have a couple (or more) per-serial numbered uppers? There must be millions of them out there...

Tony
Geezerbiker is offline  
Old April 27, 2022, 01:52 PM   #27
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,284
one of the problems when it comes to items that were unregulated and now are, comes down to enforcement and "burden of proof".

And, who is doing the asking....

There are two basic ways they can go about it. The more sensible one (to me) is to simply accept that having the item, without the NOW required markings, simply indicates it was bought before the regulation(s) went into effect.

The other approach is much more burdensome to the citizen (so for sure someone, somewhere will use it) and that is to require the owner to provide "proof" they owned the item before the law went into effect and is therefore, grandfathered.

THAT is a virtual impossibility for many if not most of us with things that never before were required to have records kept.

Its a sad day for all of us when the stroke of a pen can turn us into criminals for not having "proper papers" for property that never required "papers" to own before.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 27, 2022, 05:40 PM   #28
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezerbiker
Any idea what effect it's going to have on those of us that already have a couple (or more) per-serial numbered uppers? There must be millions of them out there..
Did you read post #11?

From the executive summery of the new rule:

Quote:
The final rule also exempts from the new definitions and marking requirements existing split frame or receiver designs in which a part was previously classified by ATF as the firearm “frame or receiver” and provides examples and pictures of select exempted frames or receivers, such as AR-15/M-16 variant firearms. The only exception to “grandfathering” will be for partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers, including weapon or frame or receiver parts kits, that ATF did not classify as firearm “frames or receivers” as defined prior to this rule.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 30, 2022, 08:12 PM   #29
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,249
Just received an e-mail blast from the NSSF. The new rules were published on April 26, so they become effective 120 days after that date.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 30, 2022, 08:38 PM   #30
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,284
If this information is spread widely enough, we'll have another shortage...

Unserialized uppers....possibly more...

Fortunately for me, I'm no longer in the market for such things...

If I were, I'd be looking to stock up...

Just sayin'....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 30, 2022, 10:58 PM   #31
Geezerbiker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2011
Location: Willamina, OR
Posts: 1,862
I thought I had read the entire thread but I must have missed post #11. I have enough uppers for my ARs and I have no plans to buy more. I wouldn't be surprised if the price of uppers goes nuts before the new rules take effect...

Tony
Geezerbiker is offline  
Old May 1, 2022, 11:41 AM   #32
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,119
Any reference to slides - i.e. Glock compatible "uppers".
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old May 1, 2022, 02:26 PM   #33
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onward Allusion
Any reference to slides - i.e. Glock compatible "uppers".
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...on-of-firearms

Quote:
Part III
B. Definition of “Frame or Receiver”


The Department proposed to revise the definition of “frame or receiver” with a multi-part definition. First proposed was a general definition of “frame or receiver” with nonexclusive examples that illustrated the definition. This was followed by four proposed supplements, described below, that further explained the meaning of the term “frame or receiver” for certain firearm designs and configurations. Although the proposed definition was intended to more broadly define the term “frame or receiver” than the current definition, it was not intended to alter any prior determinations by ATF regarding which specific part of a given weapon it considered the frame or receiver. The NPRM also proposed to codify in the regulations the factors ATF considers when classifying the frame or receiver of a firearm.

1. General Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

As a threshold matter, the NPRM proposed that the new definition, with a partial exception for an internal frame or chassis, make clear that each frame or receiver be visible to the exterior when the complete weapon is assembled so that licensees and law enforcement can quickly and easily identify the markings. Next, the NPRM proposed defining the term “frame or receiver” more broadly as a part that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component, which would have included, at a minimum, any housing or holding structure for a hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails. However, the proposed definition would not have been limited to those particular fire control components [45]

and was proposed to be general enough to encompass changes in technology and parts terminology. For further clarity, four nonexclusive examples with illustrations of common single-framed firearms were provided.

See

86 FR at 27727, 27742. Finally, the proposed definition stated that persons who may acquire or possess a part now defined as a frame or receiver that is identified with a serial number must presume, absent an official determination by ATF or other reliable evidence to the contrary, that the part is a firearm frame or receiver without further guidance.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 1, 2022, 02:49 PM   #34
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,119
^^^
Hmmm, that's going to be interesting as it relates to slides. It reads like the manufacturers will need to stamp their slides and ship 'em to a FFL. I hope lawsuits get going.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old May 1, 2022, 03:18 PM   #35
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,284
Quote:
I hope lawsuits get going.
Absent an act of Congress (and we know how likely that is at this time,,,), lawsuits seem to be the only available course of action... BUT....

What do we sue them for??

And, I mean that as a serious question. It appears that the ATF followed the proper process for changing their regulations. Just because we object to what they changed them to does not automatically make them guilty of violating anything.

Did they overstep their lawful authority?
Did they create an unworkable definition?
Did they actually infringe on our rights?
These, and other questions must be answered in order to determine what legal ground any lawsuit will operate on.

My point here is that no matter how stupid, unnecessary, convoluted or irritating a regulaton or law is, that alone does not make grounds for legal action. There has to be something else, something that can be shown to violate existing law and imposes an undue hardship on our rights.

The fact is, that no matter what it is that a govt does that we may feel is overreach, we have to find something in existing law that prohibits that, or we don't have a good leg to stand on in court.

So, against this new definition of what is and isn't a firearm receiver, what do we have??

All I can see right now is tradition, and against law, tradition usually doesn't prevail...

Thoughts??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 1, 2022, 05:59 PM   #36
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,119
I wonder how the EO will impact 3D printed guns or homegrown firearms - ones built entirely with 1st party mfr'd parts - for example, single shot shotgun.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old May 1, 2022, 08:06 PM   #37
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onward Allusion
I wonder how the EO will impact 3D printed guns or homegrown firearms - ones built entirely with 1st party mfr'd parts - for example, single shot shotgun.
"EO"? As in Executive Order?

This is not an executive order. This is administrative rule making by a federal agency, pursuant to their authority under federal law, and carried out in accordance with mandated procedures.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 1, 2022, 11:27 PM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,284
I wonder how much money the ATF will need to handle the expanded workload I see this creating?

I think this is a fine example of "never let a crisis go to waste, and if you don't have one, MAKE one!"

Expanding Govt's "reach" by re-writing regulations and not bothering Congress to re-write the law is an old tactic of bureaucracy seems to be effective enough they keep doing it.....

When the proper govt mandated process is followed to allow them to do it, I don't really see what we can do about that.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 2, 2022, 07:51 AM   #39
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
When the proper govt mandated process is followed to allow them to do it, I don't really see what we can do about that.
The same thing "we" did about Washington DC's law on firearm storage in the home, and Chicago's firearms laws: sue on the basis of the rule overly infringing our rights. Or on the basis that the rule exceeds the parameters of the definitions established by law.

I don't know what chance such a lawsuit might have of succeeding. I'm not a lawyer. But we have been going along for decades using rules with definitions that were supposedly based on the parent laws, and now the BATFE comes along and expands on those definitions. Their argument, I'm certain, is that they are merely "clarifying." The counter-argument would be that they're not clarifying, they're making it up.

Our other recourse (if we ever get a Republican Congress again) is to get the underlying law(s) changed to negate the new definitions, or to simply say that an unfinished block of metal (or plastic) is NOT a firearm unless and until it has been completed sufficiently to be functional as a firearm.

Neither looks good but, if I had to choose, I think I would lean toward option number one as having a better chance of succeeding. But the process would take years, even IF successful.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 2, 2022, 08:01 PM   #40
sfwusc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2013
Posts: 230
The new rule is going to stop people from making items that can be finished into firearms. I don’t think it stops homemade firearms. The people that can make a firearm from 0% is going to be less than those that start from 80%.
sfwusc is offline  
Old May 2, 2022, 09:36 PM   #41
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,603
Yeah, but the slippery slope is…if an 80% lower is too close to being a firearm, what about a 75% one? 60%? 50,40? Where exactly IS the cut off?

A block of Aluminum the size of a AR lower, i would call a 0%. Is that regulated?
Sharkbite is offline  
Old May 3, 2022, 01:58 AM   #42
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,284
So, the reported problem is home "manufactured" firearms being ILLEGALLY sold on the street....

which already breaks several different Federal laws,

and the administration's response to cries of "do something" is to issue a huge "rule change" that expands the definition of a firearm "receiver" and requiring certain parts, which were always before just parts, now be serial #'d and become, in and of themselves, legal firearms for all record keeping, background check and ownership requirements.

I haven't heard a word about any changes or proposed changes to the regulations and laws governing home manufactured firearms, only a massive increase in what parts will now be covered by those laws.

I can't see where this can have any effect on the already illegal manufacture and sale of "ghost guns".

Aside from a massive expansion of authority, what I see from this is the typical, cynical, political response to "do something". Its something that does nothing about the "problem" being complained about, and I wonder if there will be any prosecutions of actual criminals, or if it will be another of the things that they "won't have time for..."

No doubt some poor honest folk will screw something up, get caught and nailed to the wall for doing so, hopefully along with at least a handful of people running a criminal enterprise, but based on past administration's performance, I rather doubt the real criminals will suffer much...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 5, 2022, 08:42 PM   #43
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
"This is not an executive order. This is administrative rule making by a federal agency, pursuant to their authority under federal law, and carried out in accordance with mandated procedures."
But is it truly? Is it not the purview of Congress to pass laws? Does BATF have the authority to so radically revise firearms laws absent any accountability to or on the part of Congress?

It would seem that some of the provisions discussed so far will burden manufacturers with additional costs and expenses, at least. (This may in fact be part of the intent.)

With respect to the "split receiver language", it does appear that for AR-type weapons with an upper and lower receiver, both upper and lower will require separate serial numbers and associated record-keeping systems. It would logically follow that there would be separate forms for any purchaser to purchase either or both.

If matters continue down the path being discussed, where the sheer challenges with procuring firearms or parts for maintenance and repair become additionally burdensome to the point they deter firearms acquisition, is this not a set of regulatory requirements specifically designed to deter firearms ownership? Which, as noted above, only pertain to those of us inclined to obey laws - rather than the criminals who will not concern themselves with such laws with regard to the firearms they'll use to commit crimes.

It seems as if a jealous Congress would want to get involved at some point with regulatory changes of this magnitude and impact on American society. At least I'd hope so.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old May 6, 2022, 01:36 AM   #44
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,284
Quote:
But is it truly? Is it not the purview of Congress to pass laws? Does BATF have the authority to so radically revise firearms laws absent any accountability to or on the part of Congress?
It is the purview of Congress to pass laws.

The ATF is not changing any LAW.

The ATF is changing their regulations, NOT any law. It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but there is a significant difference in the words and what they mean, legally.

Regulations are created by each govt enforcement agency, specific to their area of responsibility under the authority granted the Executive branch.

This is our system, for better and for worse....Congress writes laws that may be quite specific in some areas and more general in others, but none of the laws contain the massive amount of detail needed to operate an enforcement system day to day, day in and day out.

that is intentionally left to each department of the Executive branch to carry out. Congress has the opportunity to review and approve or deny, but it seems that only in rare cases do they do anything but rubberstamp approval.

Some believe that is the purview of the courts, but of course the courts can only act on things that are already in place, not proposed.

And the courts seem to usually take the position that while ruling on the cases before them, and the law as it applies in those cases, it is not the function of the court to correct or even educate Congress or anyone else, if that does not apply to the case before them.

While the rule change about what is, and isn't going to be legally a firearm is a big deal to us, for most of the rest of the US its a matter they don't really understand, don't care about, and has no effect on their lives.

Numerically, the firearms enthusiasts who are most affected are a tiny minority of the voting population, and therefore, what we want is quite low on the priority list of neutral government actors and there are a great many who are far from neutral on the matter of private firearms ownership.

As far as I can see at the moment it seems to be just one more example of govt screwing with a minority group falsely claiming that it will reduce crime.

I can't say if we really get the government we deserve, but we absolutely do get the government we elect.

Expanding the authority of government agencies, no matter which route is taken always comes "from the top, down".
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 6, 2022, 08:42 AM   #45
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
"This is not an executive order. This is administrative rule making by a federal agency, pursuant to their authority under federal law, and carried out in accordance with mandated procedures."
But is it truly? Is it not the purview of Congress to pass laws? Does BATF have the authority to so radically revise firearms laws absent any accountability to or on the part of Congress?
Yes, it is truly. The Congress DID pass a law. It passed a law authorizing the BATFE to adopt regulations.

Whether the BATFE has exceeded the authority granted to them by the Congress will be a question for courts to decide. That's the way our system works.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 7, 2022, 08:09 AM   #46
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid View Post
But is it truly? Is it not the purview of Congress to pass laws? Does BATF have the authority to so radically revise firearms laws absent any accountability to or on the part of Congress?....
Congress routinely delegates rule-making authority to various agencies. BATFE is one such agency. This is nothing new or unexpected. Whether BATFE has overstepped its bounds will be a question for the courts to decide.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 28, 2022, 05:37 AM   #47
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
So if 80% lowers are declared firearms, why not just manufacture 75% lowers? Also could a Republican president after Biden undo these regulations by issuing a rule to their ATF to not consider uppers and 80% lowers as firearms?
LogicMan is offline  
Old May 28, 2022, 09:02 AM   #48
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicMan
So if 80% lowers are declared firearms, why not just manufacture 75% lowers? Also could a Republican president after Biden undo these regulations by issuing a rule to their ATF to not consider uppers and 80% lowers as firearms?
Read the regulations. The new rules don't say "80 percent receivers shall henceforth be considered as firearms." I'm not going to open up the rule now and search for the exact language, but it basically says anything that can be easily made into a firearm IS a firearm. It has been argued that raw castings and raw forgings for receivers may have to be serialized under the new regs.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old May 28, 2022, 05:51 PM   #49
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,284
One of the problems with those kind of regulations, and, worse, when laws actually do it is when they use language like "easily" or "readily converted..." and it has to be applied to a specific point.

What might be "easy" for someone with a machine tool and the experience to run it can be far from easy for dumbspit me, who has hardware store files.

Never had anything to do with them, but have heard the term a LOT but not with a good explanation of detail. Just what is an 80% receiver? One with 80% of the metal removed? 80% of the holes drilled? 80% of the total amount of work needed already done???

Who decides what THAT is???

And as has been asked, if 80% now legally = fully complete and ready to go, then 79% doesn't, what stops are there for future changes of mind???

Ultimately, the same logic could be carried to the extreme of having to serialize raw ore in the ground.

Background check needed before you can buy a pick and shovel????

Literally, where does the madness of redefining the physical world to suit one's ends stop???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 28, 2022, 07:47 PM   #50
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Never had anything to do with them, but have heard the term a LOT but not with a good explanation of detail. Just what is an 80% receiver? One with 80% of the metal removed? 80% of the holes drilled? 80% of the total amount of work needed already done???

Who decides what THAT is???

And as has been asked, if 80% now legally = fully complete and ready to go, then 79% doesn't, what stops are there for future changes of mind???
The link provided in the opening post of this discussion answers all these questions. It's a very long document, but by skipping over parts that pertain to gunsmiths, FFLs, marking requirements, etc. and only reading the parts that address frames, receivers, and partially completed firearms, you can start to get a handle on what the new rules cover.

Basically, who decides when a chunk of metal (or a blob of polymer) becomes a firearm is the BATFE -- which is not a change. It has always been the BATFE. I once met a guy who sold 80% AR-15 lower receivers. He told me that the BATFE initially approved one model as being 80%-compliant, then they reversed their approval and he had to change his castings and jigs so that the end user had to perform different steps to complete the receiver. The revised design was then approved as an 80% receiver.

As far as I know, there was never a written rule or law that specifically mention "80 percent." That was just the line that the BATFE arbitrarily drew for determining when a chunk of metal became a frame or a receiver. It was clearly a subjective determination. But they will now include such factors as the availability of jigs and tools as part of their determination of how "easily" and "readily" a partially-completed frame or receiver can be completed.

It's really pointless to try to discuss this if you haven't read through the document. It answers most, if not all, the questions we have, but because it's not a single regulation but a bunch of amendments to various sections of federal regulations, there's no single section or paragraph I can quote that will answer the questions.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12110 seconds with 10 queries