ATF proposed rule 2021R-05, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms.

[Nathan]

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...me-or-receiver

I’m struggling to understand this proposed rule other than I don’t believe I need further expansion of the definition of a receiver or firearm.

Seems like they are really going after privately completed firearms. Not really offering any value in crime prevention. Seems like just an infringement.

Please help me understand in a little more detail?

[rickyrick]

Looks like they intend to, or can include AR uppers.

Under the proposed rule, a “frame or receiver” is any externally visible housing or holding structure for one or more fire control components. A “fire control component” is one necessary for the firearm to initiate, complete, or continue the firing sequence, including, but not limited to, any of the following: hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails.

The proposal goes on to say...

More than one externally visible part may house or hold a fire control component on a particular firearm, such as with a split or modular frame or receiver.

[Aguila Blanca]

It appears to me that they are looking to close two "loopholes":

1) I have known for a long time that the AR-15 is problematic in terms of whether the upper or lower should be deemed to be the "frame" and receive the serial number. Many people who know more about this than I have argued that it should be the upper, but the reality is (as the preamble to the proposed new rule explains) that -- under the existing language -- neither the lower or the upper contains the entire fire control group. It had not occurred to me that the same could be said of semi-automatic handguns such as the Glock and even the 1911. So they want to tighten up on what's covered.

2) More importantly, as I expected when I saw your post, they want to kill off "ghost guns." Some states have already enacted laws requiring that 80% receivers must be marked with a serial number and delivered (transferred) through licensed FFLs. This would apparently make that the law of the land.

Is it an infringement? IMHO, sure it is.

[44 AMP]

Did you notice that again they use the ambiguous term "readily converted..." ?

And that 4473s now must be retained as long as the dealer is in business?? And the generous allowance that paper records on which there has been no activity for 20 years must still be retained, but may be stored at a separate location, which is considered part of the licensee's premises and open to inspection...

AND that parts kits that do contain a receiver, but not a finished functional receiver are now considered firearms??

so, now they are proposing that the ATF can determine a collection of UNFINSIHED parts is a firearm, IF they can be "readily" finished, and the ATF gets to determine just what 'readily" means.

Does that sound like a good idea to you???

[FrankenMauser]

That proposal is a wish list. They're throwing out everything they want, in hopes of getting at least some of it to stick.

Shotgun blast, to see if they can hit a few points.

The widest fishing net, to see what they can catch.

The widest, ambiguous and ridiculous definitions, in order to be able to interpret however they please, whenever they feel like someone is guilty of Wrongthink.

According to the definitions in the proposal, firearm designs that use the stock or grips to hold fire control parts in place are receivers and would have to be serialized and registered (10-22s, Marlin 60s, Buckmarks, Marlin lever actions, Remington Viper, and many, many more).
2x4 boards would need to be serialized and registered, because they are readily convertible to a firearm receiver.
Same for black iron pipe. Readily convertible.
Hardware stores better their FFL paperwork ready.

Will the ATF generally prosecute that way? Probably not.
Will the ATF admit that those definitions are that bad? Absolutely not.

But I know of at least three different activist groups that are preparing to bombard the ATF with complaints about unserialized and illegally transferred pipe, wood, nuts, bolts, nails, aluminum billets, sheet steel, drill bits, and any other hardware that might *possibly* be used in a firearm and meet this stupid definition - should this make it through as-written.

It does nothing for crime. It does nothing but become a pain in the butt for the average tinkerer/builder. It does nothing useful.

[Nathan]

It seems like an effort to over reach with current laws to strengthen their position when they pass some kind of weak ban such that the ban is stronger.

Basically you could get parts labeled AR pistol parts now, then ban AR pistols and suck a bunch of legal rifle parts into it.

I can’t tell, but it looks like a clear rules infringement directed at legal gun owners in an effort to get fudds to buy in now. Then write some kind of AR ban directed at Fudd support. I’m probably overthinking this, but Fudds will never fight back against these chip away things. Hell, Fudds supported GOPA along with the NRA and Reagan. The purpose was to clean up Miami and Chicago....how’s that going?

Their taking comments now. We have to figure out a clear comment. Who has a good comment?

[44 AMP]

Their taking comments now. We have to figure out a clear comment. Who has a good comment?

I don't suppose "shut up and go away" (without the expletives I would dearly love to add) would be considered a useful comment??

I noted in a news report. from the Washington Post..

the Justice Department asserts that from January 2016 through December 2020, more than 23,900 suspected privately made firearms were reported to have been recovered by law enforcement from potential crime scenes, including in connection with 325 homicides or attempted homicides.

SO, in 4 years they don't KNOW if more than 23,900 firearms "recovered" were home made, or not, don't know if they came from actual crime scenes, or not, and some are "connected to" 325 homicides or attempted homicides...

They are NOT saying those guns were USED in 325 murders or attempted murders, only that they are somehow "connected to" them....

An unserialized home built AR recovered from a crack house where there was a shooting, but not used in the shooting is "connected" to the murder/attempted murder....smoke and mirrors, people, smoke and mirrors...

I do find it ironic that when Biden was VP and asked why, when thousands of federal gun crimes were committed by people lying on 4473 forms but only 43 got prosecuted, his answer was "We don't have time for that.." now that things are being done under his direction, apparently the ATF has found time to do NEW things, wonder how they are doing enforcing existing law? Probably about the same as before would be my guess.

[Nathan]

I find 23,900 a large number. I’m wondering if this is some expansionism to make a point like 23,900 firearms recovered related to a crime were either never transferred(Pmf) lor transferred as “other” or were never transferred as a rifle or pistol....seems like we can make this ghost gun bucket as big as we want!. While, the “other” guns are not ghost guns, but make a way better story, if you call them that.

[LeverGunFan]

Absent a change to Federal Regulations by congress, any new interpretation by the DOJ and/or ATF would have to adhere to current US Code. The current definition of a frame or receiver appears to be:

a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel

Any expansion beyond this definition could result in a legal challenge, which happened in the case of Joseph Roh.

In this case Roh was charged with illegally manufacturing AR-15s with 80% lowers, but his attorney argued that the lower receiver does not meet the definition of a receiver per US Code. Roh agreed to a plea deal and essentially escaped prosecution.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I find 23,900 a large number.

Look up FBI crime statistics and see how many violent crimes are committed each year. 23,900 sounds like a big number ... but it's not. Remember, that's covering a five-year span. On average, that's 4,781 per year, which works out to 13.43 per day -- spread over 50 states. And also keep in mind that these are "suspected" PMFs (i.e. "ghost guns"):

From January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020, there were approximately 23,906 suspected PMFs reported to ATF as having been recovered by law enforcement from potential crime scenes, including 325 homicides or attempted homicides, and that were attempted to be traced by ATF, broken down by year as follows:

So out of those 23,906 "suspected" (meaning not known or proven to be) ghost guns, over a period of five YEARS, just 325 were potentially associated with homicides or attempted homicides. 325 / 5 = 65, so that works out to slightly more than one "suspected" PMF" associated with a "potential" homicide per state per year. That's hardly a tsunami of crime.

And then keep in mind that "homicide" is defined as the taking of a human life. Think about that. When a police officer shoots and kills a mass murderer -- that's a homicide. When an armed citizen shoots and kills a home invader -- that's a homicide. They didn't say 325 "murders" -- they said 325 homicides or attempted homicides. If some of these incidents were "attempted" homicides, that means they were not homicides -- nobody died.

They are twisting words to make their numbers appear far more scary than they are. Remember what Mark Twain once said (or wrote): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, ... and statistics." It's all in the spin.

[Aguila Blanca]

Now let me attack another aspect of this boondoggle.

At the time these definitions were published around 50 years ago, single-framed firearms such as revolvers and break-open shotguns were far more prevalent for civilian use than split/multi-piece receiver weapons, such as semiautomatic rifles and pistols with detachable magazines. Single-framed firearms incorporate the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism within the same housing. Years after these definitions were published, split/multi-piece receiver firearms, such as the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle upper receiver and lower receiver), Glock semiautomatic pistols (upper slide assembly and lower grip module), and Sig Sauer P320 (M17/18 as adopted by the U.S. military) (upper slide assembly, chassis, and lower grip module), became popular.

Really? 50 years ago was 1970. I carried an M16 in Vietnam in 1968. Colt started selling commercial, semi-automatic AR-15s in 1963. So it's not like this is some new technology that arrived some years after the definitions were written and adopted. Further, elsewhere in this document the BATFE mentions that even the venerable 1911 has some of the fire control parts (the breech, the firing pin, the extractor, and the ejector) in the slide, so the 1911 is one of these so-called "split/multi-piece receiver firearms." How long has the 1911 been around? Wait, lemme do the math ... 2021 - 1911 = 110. Yeah, the 1911 has been around for more than a century -- 60 years before the adoption of these suddenly problematic definitions, and all of a sudden it's a problem because the firing pin is in the slide rather than the frame/receiver?

I ... don't ... think ... so.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AB

Really? 50 years ago was 1970. I carried an M16 in Vietnam in 1968. Colt started selling commercial, semi-automatic AR-15s in 1963.

Tommy guns and STG43s have that same basic architecture.

[44 AMP]

There's a point being missed, intentionally so, I think with the red herring focus on "split recievers".

Since the advent of serial numbers (and gun control laws) only ONE PART has required a serial #, that part, no matter what part it is, is LEGALLY the firearm. Whether it is complete and functional or stripped of all other parts, it is legally the firearm.

AND, that one part has to be complete and functional. Ready to have all the other parts attached and fitted to be a functional firearm. We have allowed the govt to fudge that, a bit with their term "readily converted" or "easily completed" or words to that effect.

We have accepted the govts claim that up to 80% completed is not "easily or readily finished" but 81% and up, is, and so that is legally a firearm.

Now, they are looking at making more than one piece legally a firearm. Is it really an impossible leap to foresee demands that every part of the firearm, down to washers, pins and springs each have serial numbers so that they can be tracked cradle to grave??

People have already demanded this kind of thing for ammunition. From "taggents" in the powder to microstamping and other proposals, this has happened.

Tell me, what is the likely response by our govt if, overnight, thanks to a BATF rule change, every AR in the nation (and all future production becomes not one trackable firearm, but TWO???

Do you think current staffing and budgets will be able to manage a a virtua doubling of work load from having to keep tabs on two serial numbered firearms that just happen to be physically fastened together during use??

And, how about that, do both parts need to be matching serial numbers?? Will it be a Federal Firearms crime to put one # AR upper on a different # lower???
I see a whole raft of potential issues, crimes in hiding perhaps, depending on how unelected officials interpret their marching orders from higher officials.

Also, when it comes to laws, and defining what is, and isn't covered under the law, the function of Congress when the law is written and passed as written? I realize a certain amount of interpretation is necessary as the laws are not written to cover in detail every possible situation, but isn't that more properly the province of the courts when judging cases before them?

guess we'll see...

[5whiskey]

This is a boondoggle. Yes it is perfectly legal to manufacture a firearm, the ATF can rules change until they’re blue in the face. No, you can’t start labeling pieces of wood that are potential “gun stocks” that would house a portion of the fire control group as a receiver.

If they want to make ghost guns more difficult for the home chop shop to churn out by the dozens and sell on the street, they could go to a 50% complete standard. The 80% is an ATF rule and judgement only, and one very easy to change. While 50% complete would suck, a committed enough handy man and law abiding citizen could still make a firearm. It would take a long time and be a labor of love, but it could be done. And that would curtail 1% motorcycle gangs churning them out wholesale.

[FrankenMauser]

If they want to make ghost guns more difficult for the home chop shop to churn out by the dozens and sell on the street (...)
(...)
And that would curtail 1% motorcycle gangs churning them out wholesale.

All them motorcycle gangs and homebuilders churning them out by the dozens really are a problem, aren't they. It seems like, every day, the AFT is reporting yet another garage-based manufacturing operation that is spitting out 3D printed and 80%-derived WMDs by the thousands.
Yea......

While 50% complete would suck, a committed enough handy man and law abiding citizen could still make a firearm. It would take a long time and be a labor of love, but it could be done.

It is not difficult to make a firearm. Especially if the most simplistic form is considered.
Two pieces of pipe, a cap, and a nail. That is all you need. Assembly takes less than 5 minutes, with no special machining operations, and you have a shotgun

While this thread is addressing the officially released proposal for a change in the definitions for 'receiver', 'firearm', etc., you need to also keep in mind that the ATF is working on changes to their interpretations of 'constructive intent' and 'constructive possession', as well.
A more legalese wording of the following is what they are currently looking at releasing in a public letter for 'firearm precursor' in regards to 'constructive intent': 'something that can be turned into a firearm [receiver or 'silencer' part] in 8 hours, in a fully equipped machine shop'.

I don't know about you, but I think a 'fully equipped' machine shop offers a lot more capability than taking 8 hours to cut a receiver.

I have a friend that manufacturers AR lower receivers for custom builders and some well-known 'high end' AR builders, under an FFL variance.
He does *not* have a fully equipped machine shop. It is rather paltry, in fact. He has one lathe, a 3 axis CNC mill, a drill press, and a band saw. That is it.
Yet, he told me his machine time is only about 28 minutes per receiver, and much of that is the finish passes with a ball end mill. Normally, he runs them in batches of 300 or 600. But that doesn't *have* to be the case.

Of course, that time would increase to at least well over one hour for fixturing, tool changes, and machine setup, if only one receiver were being made. But that is still nowhere near a full work day, nor in a 'fully equipped' machine shop.


The combination of serialization changes and the Eh Eff Tee arbitrarily re-interpreting 'constructive intent', 'constructive possession', and 'firearm precursor' create a snowball of ridiculousness. It is absolutely intended to stop anyone other than manufacturers from making firearms, by incrementally introducing more annoyance, more hassle, and more red tape.

[44 AMP]

None of this will stop people who are already breaking the law. At most, it might make them have to work a little harder, but none of it will have any significant effect on their criminal customer base.

They are creating a paper tiger, so that when the can claim to slay the beast with this or that new regulation...

That gets them points with the anti's and the underinformed for "doing something" and the only people who suffer are those who already are obeying the laws.

Its all BS, we know it, THEY know it, and so does the press, they just won't SAY its BS, because that's against their agenda.

[rickyrick]

My dad had a typewriter repair shop back when those were a thing. Many of the jobs he completed required that he make the failed component, he had some amazing fabrication skills.
He would often make working guns out of items found at any hardware store. Most of them were single shot muzzle loader types, others were loaded from the breach. He made the propellant and the projectiles too. However, I am unaware of the ingredients he used to make the propellant.
I don’t think he was making anything illegal, just pointing out that I remember he did it without much effort or without any fancy supplies.

Seems like these laws do not prevent much of any crime, but it seems that they invent crimes that didn’t exist before, and turn the unsuspecting into criminals.

[Aguila Blanca]

The NSSF has mentioned the proposed rule making in a recent e-mail blast to members:

Department of Justice Proposes Frame or Receiver Rule Change

[image of 80% Lower]

The Department of Justice (DOJ) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to update the definition of a frame or receiver and related parts for the first time since 1968. The change of definition is one of President Joe Biden’s gun control initiatives to regulate under the Gun Control Act unfinished frames and receivers as “firearms” subject to regulation. For decades, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has considered frames or receivers as “finished” – and subject to regulation – only when they had reached a certain point in the manufacturing process. Unfinished items that had not reached that point were not “frames or receivers” of firearms, according to numerous ATF findings. President Biden vowed to target unfinished frames and receivers, which he and gun control advocates cleverly refer to as “ghost guns,” to regulate their sale with a background check like a completed firearm. Building firearms in the home for personal use has always been legal and it is already a crime for a prohibited individual to possess a firearm, regardless of how it is made or obtained. NSSF will closely examine the proposed rule and seek input from our members on how this proposed rule adversely impacts their businesses, and whether the rule exceeds ATF’s legal authority under the Gun Control Act. NSSF fully expects to file robust public comments with ATF during the 90-day comment period.

[HiBC]

I don't know if its the BATF or the manufacturer that determines which part is the serial numbered part that is legally the firearm as we know it.
There are a lot of guns that are built like a clock. A main frame with stampings,springs,pins screws,etc. The kind most folks should hand off to the gunsmith for cleaning.

At least some designs evolved toward modularity. The Garand and M-1 Carbine are examples. A real selling point of the Ruger 10-22 is it breaks down just like an M-1 Carbine.
I believe its the upper that is serial numbered for all three of the rifles mentioned.Yet by the above mentioned definition,most of the fire control is in the lower. The upper gets the sn. Same with the FN-FAL,IIRC.

They switched with the AR-15.

The identity,or specialization of an AR-15 is in the upper. OK,you can pin several different uppers on one lower. That might get control freaks all excited.

And,the anti-AR gun enthusiasts might agree.

But what about your H+R Topper? 30-30,219 Zipper,and 20 gauge! Nice setup! But now its 3 guns? What about your Contender? Each barrel is a different gun?

Its easy for this to bog in the weeds.

While Biden may not agree, IMO,the status quo works pretty good.

Technology evolves.Rapid prototyping/3D printing has made it all pretty much moot.

Before that,there were folks like John Moses Browning in his little shop in Utah.

Then there are folks with machines who know how to use them.

I don't know if the folks in the White House and Congress understand what happens when you tell the right person he or she "can't do" something.Especially if they have a mill and a lathe.

Or watch an Afghan or a Philipino make an AK-47 or a 1911 out of a 58 Edsel

It didn't work out so good with Whiskey. School kids and penitentiary inmates can get about any kind of dope.

Ban chocolate chip cookies and just see what Granny does.

Remember the requirement for the consent of the governed,

[stagpanther]

Everything I read in the proposal applies to requirements for FFL licensees (07, 08 and 01). The only substantively new change I see in there is the requirement to "mark" a component that they make or import that can be made into a functional firearm. This is clearly aimed at closing off the 80% unregistered receiver loophole IMO. I don't see anything that threatens personally manufactured for personal use firearms--yet.

[stagpanther]

It is not difficult to make a firearm. Especially if the most simplistic form is considered.
Two pieces of pipe, a cap, and a nail. That is all you need. Assembly takes less than 5 minutes, with no special machining operations, and you have a shotgun

Easily acquired in 5 minutes at most hardware stores to make a slam fire 12 guage.

[44 AMP]

There is a fundamental change being proposed, and that concerns what is the "receiver" of a firearm.

Obviously, and since the beginning, of the term's use, the receiver is the primary part that the other needed parts attach to. It "receives" the other parts to make a firearm, hence it is the reciever.

The issue here, is that traditionally, there has only been ONE part designated the receiver and all the other parts were just parts that attached, and they want to change that. In part, it is because of our use of the terms, upper and lower "recievers". Had we (the industry) from the beginning, called the upper a group or housing, or anything but a receiver, I doubt their current proposal would have reached the point of serious proposal.

Look at what they want, they want any/all housings that contain fire control parts or part or all of the locking or firing mechanism to be considered ANOTHER receiver as well.

Under the current language of their proposed rule change, barrel assemblies such as on the Contender and others would not be considered receivers, but the grigger housing of an M1 or M14 or a Ruger 10/22 could well be, because they contain (receive) the fire control parts
So, if they get their way, welcome to having to go to an FFL and pass a bacground check to buy certain parts were not legally firearms but apparently will be if this is approved.

Welcome to the world of possibly becoming a Federal Felon because you posessed a piece of plastic or steel without the required number on it. Just as one is still at risk on state levels for having a spring loaded metal or plastic box in excess of approved limite...

I realize I'm in a distinct minority with the opinion that we should not have ever wasted our time and resources with laws concerning mere possession of inanimate objects.

Laws against or defining what may or may not be done with objects (including the harming of others) are an entirely different matter, or should be, in my opinion.

How can it be "right" to say ok, you can own a set of golf clubs, but not a 7 iron, because at sometime, somebody, somewhere, beat somebody to death with a 7 iron...???

The whole concept of blaming objects for the actions of people and using that as the justification for legally prohibiting or restricting ownership is, to me something that should have been left in the Middle Ages when "things" were "evil" due to demonic possession and therefore had to be surrendered to the Crown, or the Church (or their local agents). It's a SCAM, one that has been officially sanctioned and promoted by the people in power for centuries despite logic and reason showing otherwise.

This proposed rule change is nothing but another case of adding restrictions and requirements on those people already obeying the law and doing nothing to affect those who are not.

Just my personal opinion, and i believe worth every penny you paid for it..

[Aguila Blanca]

At first blush it appears that this proposed change is just aimed at combating (I was going to write "eliminating," but we all know that laws can't prevent or eliminate anything) so-called "ghost guns." Reading it, though, tells us that it goes far beyond that. It's also aimed at eliminating the hobbyist gunsmith.

Read it. It not just about AR-15s and upper receivers. They want to go after every semi-automatic firearm ever made. In debates about "upper" and "lower" receivers, who ever imagined that we would one day apply that terminology to firearms like the 1911? But ... does the slide contain fire control parts? Well, yes, it does -- the slide holds the firing pin, the firing pin return spring, and the extractor. So does this make the 1911 slide (and the slide of just about every other semi-automatic pistol ever made) into an "upper receiver"? It will if this change in language is allowed to go through.

And it will create a nightmare of paperwork. Anyone who wants to buy a different slide for their 1911 or their Glock would have to go through an FFL for transfer.

And, as 44 AMP has stated, it won't make any difference to the bad guys, because they'll just stop making "ghost guns" (maybe) and go back to the way they've always gotten their guns -- stealing them.

[stagpanther]

It's a fairly pointless debate for me--I don't see the ATF having the will or resources to all of a sudden start executing raids to take away all our firearms--which is more or less how everything they do is eventually interpreted into a corner. For all the rhetorical reflections on "bad boys are just going to be bad" what would you feel if your child was killed in a school by a "sick" kid who decided that shooting up his class was the best way to settle his grievances? Freedom is a great thing--right up to the point one person's freedom takes away your's.

[44 AMP]

It's a fairly pointless debate for me--I don't see the ATF having the will or resources to all of a sudden start executing raids to take away all our firearms--which is more or less how everything they do is eventually interpreted into a corner.

Everything does get backed into that corner, as it is the extreme, worst thing that they might possibly do, that we can think of.

And, no most of us don't see the ATF has having the will and resources to "all of a sudden" start doing national house to house raids and confiscations. TODAY. And most probably not tomorrow or in the easily foreseeable future, BUT, if they have a solid, unchallenged legal basis, a future administration could have the will, and allocate the resources with a stroke of an Executive pen, not a Congressional pen.

Adding to the potential is the fact that the longer a law, or ruling stays on the books, unchallenged, the greater the belief it is correct and proper. The assumption being that there's nothing wrong with the law that's been on the books for years, because if there was it would have been challenged before.

The flaw in thing is that, in most cases, the law has to be applied, and there has to be someone "injured" by it, who has standing in the eyes of the courts in order to bring suit.

One of the reasons, and perhaps the main reason that the DC handgun ban lasted as many years as it did was that it took a decade+ to find someone in DC (so they had standing) and both affected by the law and willing to go through the process of fighting it in court. The end result was the Heller decision, but it took a long time to get into the process, and more time to go through the process and reach the SCOTUS.

what would you feel if your child was killed in a school by a "sick" kid who decided that shooting up his class was the best way to settle his grievances? Freedom is a great thing--right up to the point one person's freedom takes away your's.

I'd like to think I'd feel the same way I did when my son was almost killed by a drunk driver. That it was the PERSON who was driving (or pulling the trigger) that was responsible and that they should be permanently and if possible, painfully removed from the earth.
But that's just the way I feel....

Even the Founders recognized that rights are not absolutes, and there must be limitations simply for society to function. The old saying was "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" for example.

Note that what the Founders focused on when it came to individual natural rights was NOT defining or limiting what people could do, but what the GOVERNMENT could do and was prohibited from doing in regard to those rights.

Look at the Bill of Rights, it grants no rights (and it was never meant to, government does not grant rights, gov can only grant privileges) the entire thing is a list of restrictions on what the Fed Gov can do.