• 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 Formally releases new proposed definition of "Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms

Grotesque, fascist over-reach. But will firearms owners act like the masked sheeple and obey without question? Time will tell.

I was thinking while listening to the story on the radio that there has never been an example of a firearm serial number preventing a violent crime from being committed. So other than fascist gun confiscation strategies, what purpose is there to putting serial numbers on firearms?
 
new guy said:
They realized they couldn’t use a % to define a receiver so they redefined it to mean anything that holds fire control components. I guess externally visible is meant to exclude trigger packs and drop in stuff.
Click to expand...
They never used %. 80% is purely a marketing term and not something the ATF uses. The ATF simply makes a determination of "is this a firearm or not". Those items you buy as 80% lowers or frames are items that the manufacturer has gotten a determination from the ATF that they are "not a firearm".
 
basically upper receivers and pistols slides would become firearms and require a NICS check to purchase, making it virtually impossible to build 80% pistols and ar's
 
I skimmed through it for key points.

For general definition of recievers, go down toward the end and look for the pictures a. b. c. Etc. Basically they are just spelling out what was already known, each firearm has one reciever that "matters".

But what I swear must be in here and I can't quite find in the 100+ pages is where it says a regular 80% glocklike "object", ie PF80, just sold alone, or something real similar to it, gets serialized and requires the 4473 form/process.
 
Happy feet said:
So when does this go in effect??
Click to expand...

Looks like 90 days, however that depends on various things - last time they proposed a rule like this it was rescinded. Really the ATF doesn't make laws, they interpret/define around what's there already - it is possible if they go too far they get slapped or intimidated into modifications too.
 
Happy feet said:
So when does this go in effect??
Click to expand...
IF the rule gets through the period and is implemented, expect the likely parties to judge shop a federal lawsuit and get a nationwide injunction against the rule. I do not see how this is remotely consistent with the enabling legislation and constitutes major over reach by the executive branch. There is a high probability of expecting any lawsuit to win on merits so an injunction should be "easy" to get from someone. Clearly people will be harmed by letting the ruling stand pending the outcome of any lawsuit. We had 4 years of examples of how to curtail executive branch action by finding a federal judge, ANY federal judge, willing to provide a nationwide injunction.
 
OnTheRoad said:
"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."

Upper receivers. Slides. BCG's (you can see them when the dust cover is open). How about a replacement hammer for an old revolver? The firing pin is on the front and it's visible from the outside. Guess you can only get one through an FFL and it needs to be serialized?
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing on the first (and second) reading. It took another careful reading to realize that, no, they just interleaved the definition of a fire control component in the definition of a frame or receiver.

The key is in the next ‘graph (my bolding):

Any firearm part falling within the new definition that is identified with a serial number must be presumed, absent an official determination by ATF or other reliable evidence to the contrary, to be a frame or receiver.
Click to expand...

The definition in bold is “frame or receiver” not any old part with a number on it held inside the receiver
 
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.

Guess they never heard of 1911s ?
 
teamRR said:
I skimmed through it for key points.

For general definition of recievers, go down toward the end and look for the pictures a. b. c. Etc. Basically they are just spelling out what was already known, each firearm has one reciever that "matters".

But what I swear must be in here and I can't quite find in the 100+ pages is where it says a regular 80% glocklike "object", ie PF80, just sold alone, or something real similar to it, gets serialized and requires the 4473 form/process.
Click to expand...
I believe it’s on page 88 that I quoted above and will quote again:

  • (c) Partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable frame or receiver. The term “frame or receiver” shall include, in the case of a frame or receiver that is partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable, a frame or receiver that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, converted, or restored to a functional state. In determining whether a partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable frame or receiver may readily be assembled, completed, converted, or restored to a functional state, the Director may consider any available instructions, guides, templates, jigs, equipment, tools, or marketing materials. For purposes of this definition, the term “partially complete,” as it modifies “frame or receiver,” means a forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon.
They go on to define “readily” as:

Readily. A process that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, but not necessarily the most efficient, speedy, or easy process.

Factors relevant in making this determination, with no single one controlling, include the following
  • (a) Time, i.e., how long it takes to finish the process;
  • (b) Ease, i.e., how difficult it is to do so;
  • (c) Expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required;
  • (d) Equipment, i.e., what tools are required;
  • (e) Availability, i.e., whether additional parts are required, and how easily they can be obtained;
  • (f) Expense, i.e., how much it costs;
  • (g) Scope, i.e., the extent to which the subject of the process must be changed to finish it; and
  • (h) Feasibility, i.e., whether the process would damage or destroy the subject of the process, or cause it to malfunction.
So basically anything that the Director wants to define as readily, since none of these “relevant” factors are given any actual objective criteria to use in making a determination.

Since I (with absolutely no machinist skills what so ever) can complete an 80% lower in about 45 minutes with my 5D jig and Dewalt router, I would say they would interpret that as “readily".
 
Last edited:
cathouse01 said:
I believe it’s on page 88 that I quoted above and will quote again:

  • (c) Partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable frame or receiver. The term “frame or receiver” shall include, in the case of a frame or receiver that is partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable, a frame or receiver that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, converted, or restored to a functional state. In determining whether a partially complete, disassembled, or inoperable frame or receiver may readily be assembled, completed, converted, or restored to a functional state, the Director may consider any available instructions, guides, templates, jigs, equipment, tools, or marketing materials. For purposes of this definition, the term “partially complete,” as it modifies “frame or receiver,” means a forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon.
They go on to define “readily” as:

Readily. A process that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, but not necessarily the most efficient, speedy, or easy process.

Factors relevant in making this determination, with no single one controlling, include the following
  • (a) Time, i.e., how long it takes to finish the process;
  • (b) Ease, i.e., how difficult it is to do so;
  • (c) Expertise, i.e., what knowledge and skills are required;
  • (d) Equipment, i.e., what tools are required;
  • (e) Availability, i.e., whether additional parts are required, and how easily they can be obtained;
  • (f) Expense, i.e., how much it costs;
  • (g) Scope, i.e., the extent to which the subject of the process must be changed to finish it; and
  • (h) Feasibility, i.e., whether the process would damage or destroy the subject of the process, or cause it to malfunction.
So basically anything that the Director wants to define as readily, since none of these “relevant” factors are giving any actual objective criteria to use in making a determination.

Since I (with absolutely no machinist skills what so ever) can complete an 80% lower in about 45 minutes with my 5D jig and Dewalt router, I would say they would interpret that as “readily".
Click to expand...

It took me a week to build mine. From start to finish. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
Here is my personal read of the new proposal in terms of what it means to me.

They are clarifying the definition of frame in a way we all can agree on. Particularly, the frame of an AR is the lower. The upper will continue to be an unserialized part that is not considered a firearm frame or receiver. So I can still get uppers on the internet.

Privately Made Firearms (and they very specifically called out made rather than manufactured) continue to not require any marking as long as they are retained for personal use or are sold face to face where both parties are resident of the same state. If the firearm goes through an FFL, that FFL needs to get it marked within seven days of receiving it. An FFL can no longer transfer an unmarked PMF. So I don’t need to mark my private builds.

80% frames and lowers will need to be treated as firearm frames and receivers since the new Director (the anti-gun Giffords consultant David Chipman) will find them “readily” completed. Since 80% lowers will need a serial number and a 4473, I would expect them to go the way of the Dodo. Might as well use a stripped lower if you have to get an 80% with a serial number through an FFL and fill out a 4473.

Everything else seems to be directed at FFLs, manufacturers and importers.
 
Salyeica said:
That’s how I read it. Once it goes from 80% to 100% it must be marked
Click to expand...
Nope, only if you take it to an FFL, and then the FFL (not you) needs to get it marked within 7 days of putting it in their bound book. PMFs that you retain possession of do not need to be marked.
 
f*** the ATF. This ruling is full retard. Any idea how fast you could route a piece of wood or plastic into a receiver?

Hell by this definition every piece of tubing is a gun because it can become a receiver extension tube.
 

'Ghost gun' crackdown proposal issued by Department of Justice​

Guns rights advocate calls rule "a slap in the face' to 'law-abiding Americans who have built their own firearms at home'​


For the first time since 1968, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is seeking to update the legal definition of firearm in an effort to crack down on "ghost guns."

The proposed rule seeks to redefine "frame or receiver" as well as classify more firearm kits as "complete" firearms, making them subject to more regulation and oversight. It also seeks to legally define terms such as "complete muffler or silencer device" as well as "privately made firearms."

The proposed rule targets 3D gun printing.

"Technological advances have also made it easier for unlicensed persons to make firearms at home from standalone parts or weapon parts kits, or by using 3D printers or personally owned or leased equipment, without any records or a background check. Commonly referred to as 'ghost guns,' these privately made firearms ('PMFs'), when made for personal use, are not required by the [Gun Control Act of 1968] to have a serial number placed on the frame or receiver, making it difficult for law enforcement to determine where, by whom, or when they were manufactured, and to whom they were sold or otherwise disposed," the proposed rule states.

National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown said the proposed rule "is a slap in the face to the millions of law-abiding Americans who have built their own firearms at home."

"It’s a nonsense 'feel good’ rule that only burdens good people but does nothing to stop violent criminals and gangsters from obtaining guns," Dudley said. "This is just one more pathetic gun control ploy from Joe Biden as he bows down to the Gun Control Lobby and their unlawful schemes to destroy the Second Amendment."

The proposed rule says that from 2016 and 2020, the number of privately made firearms recovered from the scenes of violent crime increased eight-fold, from 1,750 in 2016 to 8,712 in 2020.

"PMFs are increasingly being made or 3D printed at home without any identifying marks, recordkeeping, or background checks. In turn, these firearms are progressively finding their way to licensees who may wish to acquire them so they can advertise and market them broadly, or who may repair, customize, or accept them as security in pawn for a loan," the proposed rule said.

Attorney General Merrick Garland says the rule would make Americans safer by making sure that criminals are not able to "exploit a loophole to evade background checks and to escape detection by law enforcement."

Continues...

www.foxnews.com

'Ghost gun' crackdown proposal issued by Department of Justice

The Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is seeking to update the legal definition of firearm in an effort to crack down on 'ghost guns.'
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
The ambiguous way it's written is deliberate .
Since you can never be sure if you're violating the law it scares most away from doing anything like a build.
The best you will get for clarification is "Go ahead ,we'll decide if we want to arrest you later. "
 
Dadstoys said:
The ambiguous way it's written is deliberate .
Since you can never be sure if you're violating the law it scares most away from doing anything like a build.
The best you will get for clarification is "Go ahead ,we'll decide if we want to arrest you later. "
Click to expand...
It also enables selective enforcement. A very nice tool to use against their political enemies.
 
71montess said:
Bad guys will NOT COMPLY, and I dont think most Americans will either. So what's the use of this interpretation ?
Click to expand...
The use is to license ($) purchase of an every serialized component. Similar to Europe- look at domestic firearm- you see one serial on the frame only. Look at the CZ - serial is on the frame, slide and on the barrel.
 
cathouse01 said:
They are clarifying the definition of frame in a way we all can agree on.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I don't agree with having a definition at all. The ATF can go f*** themselves. "Shall not be infringed". Get rid of all that regulation shit. This is Constitutionally protected. I don't see how much clearer this can get. You guys are acting like you're happy the ATF is allowing you to keep your 80%ers.
 

Similar threads

ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
475
pastera
pastera
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
362
clampett
clampett
ATF raids home of Clinton Airport's manager
5 6 7
Replies
183
Views
5K
namedpipes
namedpipes
Federal Judge Rules Millions Of NRA Members Exempt From ATF Pistol Brace Rule
Replies
12
Views
537
1919FAN
1919FAN
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
Back
Top Bottom