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 11, 2022, 03:14 PM   #1
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
The new rules have been announced

The NSSF has sent members a link to the new BATFE rule that redefines what constitutes a frame or receiver. It's only 364 pages, so grab a six pack and a bowl of popcorn before you sit down to read it.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ru...ation/download
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 11, 2022, 11:32 PM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Somebody on another forum pronounced it "Not really many changes." It's the feral government, and the document is 364 pages. Not even the feral government can take 364 pages to make "Nor really many changes."

I haven't read through it yet, but I've seen enough to be concerned.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 12, 2022, 02:22 AM   #3
ballardw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 1,090
Can't make to easy to understand, then folks might get the idea it is much ado about nothing or a complete overstep of the legislation.

More pages = "we're doing more".
__________________
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
All data is flawed, some just less so.
ballardw is offline  
Old April 12, 2022, 02:30 PM   #4
Rob228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,375
I made it through about 100 pages of it, the general idea is that partially manufactured "receivers and frames" are going to have to be serialized and sold with a 4473. They get a little murky when it comes to the definition of receivers and frames as well; the way it is written I -think- they may be able to decide that an upper receiver (or pistol slide assembly) ALSO counts as a firearm. I could be off on my interpretation of that one.

Brandon Herrera gives a decent rundown of it on YouTube (strong language, some off color humor and not safe for work)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L8wHOm0xug
Rob228 is offline  
Old April 12, 2022, 03:35 PM   #5
Unkl Chuck
Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2012
Location: south of the piney woods,TX
Posts: 43
I too, read some of it and suffered 'brain fade'. Appears to be typical 'gummint bureaucrat speak', not quite definitive and needing additional 'clarification' as suits those making the clarification.
Unkl Chuck is offline  
Old April 12, 2022, 04:06 PM   #6
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob228
They get a little murky when it comes to the definition of receivers and frames as well; the way it is written I -think- they may be able to decide that an upper receiver (or pistol slide assembly) ALSO counts as a firearm. I could be off on my interpretation of that one.
After reading and re-reading the executive summary, I think that is clearly their intent.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 22, 2022, 05:12 PM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
I haven't read it, yet, may not (I've got more fun things to read) but I cannot imagine even our govt creating a 300+ page document about a simple thing and NOT deliberately intending to hide something through sheer volume boring the reader into missing important things.

My understand of the traditional definition is the receiver is generally the one part without which all the other parts will not create a functional firearm.

However this is not a hard and fast rule, as there are other parts without which you don't have a gun. Such as a chamber to hold the cartridge.

If an upper (without a lower) can be legally a firearm, does that mean an AR with both an up and a lower is two different firearms??

Which would, of course require two separate background checks, trips to an FFL dealer, and all the other cr...er stuff??

I don't doubt that is what some folks want.

How long is it going to be before we need bacground checks and nanny state approval in order to buy or possess a magazine? A firing pin? A spring??

ANY gun part? or anything that could be made into a gun part??

Slippery slope folks and they're pouring oil on it constantly.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 22, 2022, 09:25 PM   #8
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
My understand of the traditional definition is the receiver is generally the one part without which all the other parts will not create a functional firearm.
Enjoy that for another 115 days (or so). The new rule WILL change that. AR-15s will then require a serial number on both the upper and lower receiver. Depending on how hard the BATFE wants to push it, the new definition could be read to require a serial number on the slides of semi-automatic pistols, since the firing pin or striker is part of the fire control group.

You really do have to read the rule. Remember, "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 23, 2022, 12:35 AM   #9
Bill DeShivs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 10,779
I'm sure the lawsuits are gearing up now to challenge it.
__________________
Bill DeShivs, Master Cutler
www.billdeshivs.com
Bill DeShivs is offline  
Old April 23, 2022, 11:00 AM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
Since you have already gone further into it that I, can you tell me if there is any mention of "grandfathering", existing PARTS and firearms?

Is this something they want applied from now on, or are they reaching back and trying to order us to add serial #s to guns (and parts) owned before the rule takes effect???

doesn't seem like they can do that, but that doesn't mean they're not going to try...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 23, 2022, 11:27 AM   #11
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Since you have already gone further into it that I, can you tell me if there is any mention of "grandfathering", existing PARTS and firearms?
From the executive summary in the 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.
IMHO (remember, I am not a lawyer) the rule is taking specific aim at AR-15s, but those who have studied it more deeply and with better understanding of legalese than I possess have suggested that the language could extend to semi-auto slides due to the firing pin or striker being housed in the slide.

At this point, we are beyond the "We'll just have to pass it to see what's in it" stage. It has been passed. It becomes effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register (I don't know if has been published yet), so starting in approximately four months we are going to start finding out what's in it. The prudent will try to figure it out before the effective date.

I have already suggested to the board of my state's 2A group that we invite an attorney to come to one of our meetings to explain it to us in small words that people other than lawyers can understand, but the current officers seem to have one-way e-mail accounts -- or else their official e-mail server is a black hole. All I have heard in response is crickets.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 24, 2022, 05:54 AM   #12
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 10,006
Quote:
IMHO (remember, I am not a lawyer) the rule is taking specific aim at AR-15s, but those who have studied it more deeply and with better understanding of legalese than I possess have suggested that the language could extend to semi-auto slides due to the firing pin or striker being housed in the slide.
I only read a bit of it, but my impression is the ruling takes aim primarily at what constitutes a "ghost gun." The "split receiver" thing to me sounds like they are trying to account for the separation of the fire control mechanism and bolt/firing pin/striker in seperate containing components as found in the examples they gave.

I've never really understood the obsession with silencer regulation since they have never supplied any significant data that I'm aware of that correlates violent crime/homicide with the use of silencers. I could be wrong, though.

Ultimately--IMO anyone with enough time and tools can make a firearm from scratch, much of the regulations seem to be "stop-gap" impediments to the ease or simplicity of assembling a functional firearm. Seems like there are some additional record-keeping burdens being placed on licensees. I personally was approved for multiple FFL category licenses but once I did a "real world analysis" of all the impacts of record-keeping etc vs what I could actually make as a business--I immediately resigned them.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old April 24, 2022, 01:11 PM   #13
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
Quote:
I've never really understood the obsession with silencer regulation since they have never supplied any significant data that I'm aware of that correlates violent crime/homicide with the use of silencers. I could be wrong, though.
The only place I think you are wrong is in assuming that gun control laws about specific firearm types are created due to documentable, verifiable, significant criminal activity with that specific type.

Personally, I've always considered the NFA 1934 to have been a "make work" law to give all those Treasury agents a job to do after Prohibition essentially "put them out of work".

I have heard that original drafts of the NFA covered handguns along with everything else. And that when the people pushing it were advised it would never pass if it included handguns, they replaced the handgun regulation with "silencers".

It passed, I believe simply because so few people owned the covered items, and fewer yet cared, or even knew about "another tax law" until it personally bit them.

The arguments often used to support silencer restrictions have always been flawed. Claims that crimes could be more easily committed without gunshot noise conveniently ignoring the simply fact that bows, KNIVES and impact weapons (including clubs, fists and feet) don't make gunshot noise. And claims that regulating silencers would limit poaching again ignores the fact that the majority of people poaching game in orderto EAT in 1930s depression wracked America rarely had the money to obtain a silencer to begin with.

Simply based on statistics, there must be some intelligent people in govt. Why is it they seem to be fundamentally incapable of recognizing that things (inanimate objects) do not commit crimes? Only people do....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 24, 2022, 04:53 PM   #14
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,606
So, how is an AR different then say a 1911 in the physical make up? Trigger and hammer in the frame…firing pin and extractor in the “upper”. Barrel also in the upper. Heck, that definition fits most pistols but would not fit a Revolver.

I cant see that rule standing up to judicial review.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old April 24, 2022, 07:45 PM   #15
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkbite
So, how is an AR different then say a 1911 in the physical make up? Trigger and hammer in the frame…firing pin and extractor in the “upper”. Barrel also in the upper. Heck, that definition fits most pistols but would not fit a Revolver.

I cant see that rule standing up to judicial review.
Dunno, but I have read numerous articles over the years suggesting that the upper receiver of an AR-15 is the part that should be serial numbered rather than the lower, OR that both parts should be. The new BATFE rule isn't the first time this has been contemplated.

As for how is an AR different from a 1911, for the sake of discussion I'll be the devil's advocate. Maybe it's not -- which is why I commented previously that the new rules may go beyond AR-15s to encompass all semi-automatic handguns. What fire control parts are in an AR-15 upper? The bolt carrier, the bolt, the firing pin, the extractor, and the ejector. What fire control parts are in a 1911 "upper"? The bolt (after all, the slide IS the bolt), the firing pin, and the extractor. (The 1911 ejector is mounted on the "lower.")

As to the new rule standing up to judicial review, I guess I would ask what part of it do you think would be rejected by a court, and why? It's a regulation, adopted under the authority of a federal law that grants the BATFE the authority to promulgate regulations. In order to be rejected by a court, the regulation would have to either be in direct conflict with the law, or go beyond the authority granted by the law. So where do you see the new rule being either in conflict with the underlying statute or going beyond what the statute allows the BATFE to regulate?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 24, 2022, 08:30 PM   #16
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 5,624
How is this being imposed without due process, or a change in law?

Did I miss something? How does this just pop up?
Nathan is offline  
Old April 24, 2022, 10:34 PM   #17
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
Consider for discussion, the following...

Quote:
What fire control parts are in an AR-15 upper?
The bolt carrier, the bolt, the firing pin, the extractor, and the ejector are there, and so is the barrel. So are other parts.

Consider the definition that those parts, bolt, firing pin, etc, are NOT fire control parts. They are the firing parts. There is no "control" there, once activated they do what they do without possibility of interruption or "control".

What controls activation of the firing cycle are OTHER parts, typically in what ever part of the firearm includes the ultimate fire control part, the trigger.

I think the argument can be made that the only actual fire control part is the trigger though I suppose for practicality we should include safeties, as part of the "control" system, when and where they exist.

Since triggers and any other "fire control parts" are typically easily replaceable, rather minor parts, and since they must be housed in something, and without that something, you don't have a functional firearm it made sense to make that the serial# part for legal purposes.

This standard significantly predates the modern modular design of many firearms, we have a situation where traditional definitions are not always as applicable as they once were.

The solution being offered in this case is for the regulatory agency to redefine what they regulate to better adapt it to different designs. The fly in the ointment is that some of us disagree with the expanded definitions.

And, whether or not the agency's redfinitions are within their lawful authority, or if they are usurping the authority of Congress, by using regulation in place of law.

Its a tricksy thing to balance, sometimes..

Quote:
How is this being imposed without due process, or a change in law?

Did I miss something? How does this just pop up?
As I understand it, due process has been followed, for regulatory changes by the govt. What some are disputing is whether or not it is the province of the ATF or of Congress to make the changes the ATF is making.

How does this "just pop up?" The same way every change in Fed enforcement regulations "pops up". Only a handful of those who would be directly affected pay close attention to what's actually going on, and "calls to arms" to muster public opinion against them are rarely responded to before they are too little, too late.

The issues might be constant front page news but the details of what will be done rarely are, until after they are done.

As I understand it, the law requires the information about proposed changes must be available to the public. It doesn't require it to be easy to find, or understand...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 24, 2022, 11:09 PM   #18
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
As I understand it, due process has been followed, for regulatory changes by the govt. What some are disputing is whether or not it is the province of the ATF or of Congress to make the changes the ATF is making.

How does this "just pop up?" The same way every change in Fed enforcement regulations "pops up". Only a handful of those who would be directly affected pay close attention to what's actually going on, and "calls to arms" to muster public opinion against them are rarely responded to before they are too little, too late.

The issues might be constant front page news but the details of what will be done rarely are, until after they are done.

As I understand it, the law requires the information about proposed changes must be available to the public. It doesn't require it to be easy to find, or understand...
Due process has indeed been followed. The government put out a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" almost a year ago, the proposed new rules were published, there was an open period for public comments on the proposed rule, and then the rule was tweaked to take into account the comments.

The NSSF knew this was coming and they participated in the comment period. So did a lot of gun makers. If we were taken by surprise, it's because we weren't paying attention, not because it just "popped up."

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/03/bid...ms-april-2022/

According to Ammoland, more than 300,000 people submitted comments -- most of them against the proposed new rule:

Quote:
Last April, President Biden announced that he was ordering the ATF to act against unfinished frames and receivers in addition to pistol stabilizing devices. The ATF wrote up new regulations and submitted them to the National Registry for a public comment period. Over 300,000 Americans submitted comments on the topic. Most of the comments opposed the rule change.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 25, 2022, 07:25 AM   #19
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 5,624
Yea, I remember participating in the comment period. It seems those comments were ignored and they doubled down with something far more extreme. I’m seeing a disconnect between the original and what we have here.

It seems like a rule change based on their inability to address the 90% issue. It is also an important attack on hobbiests so they don’t have to address the actual crime taking place.

This will do nothing, but make building an AR a 3 transfer process…..and maybe more laborsome. It is an easy place to attack Americans since it does nothing to the ability to build private armies, I mean security, for the rich…..just beats down gun owners.
Nathan is offline  
Old April 25, 2022, 11:57 AM   #20
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
Quote:
since it does nothing to the ability to build private armies,
private armies? No. Private arms?

I'm afraid it does, it complicates the process, which WILL induce greater expense, it might reduce the number of people making parts (if ser# uppers become a requirement, the maker WILL have to track and maintain records and that = higher cost.

It will do NOTHING to those people who are currently breaking existing law, which is the problem these rules are supposedly trying to stop.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 25, 2022, 03:58 PM   #21
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
My concern is that it may cause the supply of 80% frames and receivers to dry up. As it stands today, I can buy a completely finished AR-15 lower receiver or 1911 frame for significantly less than what it would cost me to buy an 80% lower or frame. The companies who make those can charge a premium because some buyers are willing to pay a premium in order to build a completely legal firearm that doesn't have to go through an FFL.

Once everything has to go through an FFL, many of those buyers will likely just opt for a 100% lower or frame, and the 80% suppliers won't have enough business to stay in business.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 25, 2022, 08:41 PM   #22
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 25,318
Quote:
Once everything has to go through an FFL, many of those buyers will likely just opt for a 100% lower or frame, and the 80% suppliers won't have enough business to stay in business.
A point I'm sure did not escape the thinking of those who wrote the new rules.

Seems to me a lot of gun control isn't aimed at reducing crime so much as reducing public interest and use of firearms. The more complicated and expensive they can make it, the fewer people will pursue it.

And, while numerous folks push loudly and publicly for bans and background checks etc., I think the long term serious threat is the slowly tightening noose of regulation and cost, discouraging people from developing any interest (or skill) in privately owned firearms.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old April 26, 2022, 06:47 PM   #23
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
And, while numerous folks push loudly and publicly for bans and background checks etc., I think the long term serious threat is the slowly tightening noose of regulation and cost, discouraging people from developing any interest (or skill) in privately owned firearms.
Besides making it onerous and expensive to discourage new gun ownership, I suspect stuff like universal background checks, gun registries, etc to take aim at the existing guns already in circulation.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old April 26, 2022, 08:36 PM   #24
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATN082268
Besides making it onerous and expensive to discourage new gun ownership, I suspect stuff like universal background checks, gun registries, etc to take aim at the existing guns already in circulation.
If that's in the new rules, please cite and quote the section.

If it's not in the rules, it's not pertinent to THIS discussion. The new rules have 364 pages full of legalese. That's enough fodder for discussion without wandering off into speculation of what else "they" might have in mind.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 26, 2022, 10:05 PM   #25
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
If that's in the new rules, please cite and quote the section.

If it's not in the rules, it's not pertinent to THIS discussion. The new rules have 364 pages full of legalese. That's enough fodder for discussion without wandering off into speculation of what else "they" might have in mind.
Fair enough.
ATN082268 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 12:55 AM.


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 0.12629 seconds with 8 queries