Mesatchornug
NES Member
Thanks for the heads-up
-
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
- Thread starter cathouse01
- Start date
xtry51
NES Member
Quite_Exasperated
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2020
- Messages
- 2,796
- Likes
- 5,321
I’m assuming feedback such as “bl*w me” would not be considered constructive....maybe I’m not the only one thinking that, which is why their fax machine is tied up...
KBCraig
NES Member
FPC will print your comments and mail it to them.
Good! Make ATF work harder sorting through printed pages!
www.firearmspolicy.org
Good! Make ATF work harder sorting through printed pages!
StopATF.org: Oppose ATF's Proposed “Receiver” Rule!
Take action now to stop the ATF!
www.firearmspolicy.org
What if they treat them like the Post Office treated military mail in ballots?FPC will print your comments and mail it to them.
Good! Make ATF work harder sorting through printed pages!
StopATF.org: Oppose ATF's Proposed “Receiver” Rule!
Take action now to stop the ATF!
rickflst
NES Member
I sent my comment through FPC .org. Everyone please comment. We need to stop this one.
www.firearmspolicy.org
StopATF.org: Oppose ATF's Proposed “Receiver” Rule!
Take action now to stop the ATF!
www.firearmspolicy.org
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
submitted mine. Dam "rule changes" and laws. All the .gov knows how to do is threaten people. Do this or else....Do that or else.
cathouse01
NES Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,441
- Likes
- 4,668
Gun Owners of America has set up a page to help folks generate a response:
I couldnt agree more, its language used to create a response. A "weapon" is much more dangerous sounding than a "firearm". The fact that a potato could also be a weapon is irrelevant.
The overwhelming majority of firearms in the country have never been used as a weapon against another human. Hands down a fact. "Weapon" fits the agenda.
Taking tools or inanimate objects from people is stupid. Talking "weapons" makes the country safe. The choice of wording is no oversight.
Last edited:
allen-1
NES Member
Gun Owners of America has set up a page to help folks generate a response:
Thanks. Done.
Took less than 10 minutes.Gun Owners of America has set up a page to help folks generate a response:
"This arbitrary and capricious shifting of the goalposts is a politicaly-motivated outrage that will turn thousands of good, honest citizens into felons overnight. The vague definitions proposed are a modern-day version of "we'll know it when we see it" and in no way can sustain any Constitutional scrutiny. Please stop wasting time, money and resources on a boogeyman that is smoke and mirrors and perhaps instead direct these efforts into the identification and prosecution of actual criminals who lie on their 4473's, furnish guns to criminals and gangs and commit violent offenses. Sadly, we do not hear of such prosecutions and I would suspect that is because they are not pursued or pled down to lesser offenses for the sake of a "win"."
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Bump...
Have you filed your comment on the prosed rule change yet???
It is super easy to do, and while the cynical might say they are probably going to do what they want anyway, it still won't hurt to take 5 minutes and add you voice to the opposition.
The comments period ends this coming Thursday 8/19/2021.
www.atf.gov
Have you filed your comment on the prosed rule change yet???
It is super easy to do, and while the cynical might say they are probably going to do what they want anyway, it still won't hurt to take 5 minutes and add you voice to the opposition.
The comments period ends this coming Thursday 8/19/2021.
Comments on Proposed Rule 2021R-05 | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Between May 21 and August 19, 2021, ATF received over 290,000 comments on the proposed rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms. ATF specifically requested comments on the feasibility of implementing the new definition of firearm “frame or receiver” in 27 CFR 478.11...
Randy Lahey
NES Member
Here’s something for you to “interpret”: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
daggrant99
NES Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2014
- Messages
- 562
- Likes
- 374
DoneBump...
Have you filed your comment on the prosed rule change yet???
It is super easy to do, and while the cynical might say they are probably going to do what they want anyway, it still won't hurt to take 5 minutes and add you voice to the opposition.
The comments period ends this coming Thursday 8/19/2021.
Comments on Proposed Rule 2021R-05 | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Between May 21 and August 19, 2021, ATF received over 290,000 comments on the proposed rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms. ATF specifically requested comments on the feasibility of implementing the new definition of firearm “frame or receiver” in 27 CFR 478.11...
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
My wife is online now composing her opposition comment. She says she has written it a couple times, not liked what she typed and started over. ![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
She said the core of her statement is that once again law abiding people would be punished for the actions of criminals who do not care about these rules anyway.
For anyone that hasn't investigated, you can read other peoples comments.
The ones like ours opposing the rules changes are unique and in some cases a funny read. Honestly check it out.
The comments supporting the rules changes are almost universally the same, literally as they are copied and pasted from Moms Demand Ass Action emails.
Have you posted you comment yet? Tomorrow is the last day.
Post your comment and then bump this thread.
Edit: There is a spot to attach a file, agreed with my wife that she probably shouldn't upload a photo of herself giving the ATF the finger.
She said the core of her statement is that once again law abiding people would be punished for the actions of criminals who do not care about these rules anyway.
For anyone that hasn't investigated, you can read other peoples comments.
The ones like ours opposing the rules changes are unique and in some cases a funny read. Honestly check it out.
The comments supporting the rules changes are almost universally the same, literally as they are copied and pasted from Moms Demand Ass Action emails.
Have you posted you comment yet? Tomorrow is the last day.
Post your comment and then bump this thread.
Edit: There is a spot to attach a file, agreed with my wife that she probably shouldn't upload a photo of herself giving the ATF the finger.
Last edited:
NHFC just release an email and a way to postal mail this letter.
Email any response to [email protected] and they will print out the email and send it in via postal mail. Deadline is 4pm Thursday 8/19
Deadline to stop ATF from redefining firearm is 8/19/2021
Thursday this week, 8/19, the ATF will close the window for feedback on a new set of rules that they are proposing. These new changes will force gun manufacturers, dealers and owners to track numerous additional parts as they plan on redefining what is a firearm to include common parts.
For over 50 years, the lower receiver [frame] in a slide/frame pistol was considered the 'firearm' for the purpose of manufacturing or transfer. Now, in an attempt to run around Congress, the ATF wants to include many other parts in the definition of 'firearm' These new parts would include things like the upper receiver or slide, barrel, various springs and potentially several other parts.
Gun Owners of America recently wrote in an alert after one of their staff members, took apart a common Glock handgun:
"In the end, a Glock 40 could have up to 16 different regulated parts! That's because ATF proposes to now define "frame or receiver" to be:
A part of a firearm that, when the complete weapon is assembled, is visible from the exterior AND provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate one or more fire control components, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect those components to the housing or structure.
Since the 1960's the Definition of a firearm was: 18USC921(a)(3)
(3) The term "firearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
The ATF has published in the past that "Even though neither the upper nor the lower portion of a split/multi-piece receiver firearm alone falls within the precise wording of the regulatory definition,.." they want to, without congressional action, completely change the law and do so when they have a President that is willing to give them cover for making the change. This change would create massive confusion about what is the firearm and make record keeping a disaster.
This about the dealer needing to write down 16 different serial numbers on the ATF 4473 form when buying a simple Glock handgun... What a record-keeping nightmare!
Although ATF's regulatory definitions of "frame or receiver" do not expressly capture these types of firearms (i.e., split/multi-piece receivers) that now constitute the majority of firearms in the United States, they do not have the authority to make changes to the definitions that Congress created when they wrote the laws. If ATF wants to make this change, then they should ask a member of Congress to proposal a bill.
The ATF even realizes that "Even though neither the upper nor the lower portion of a split/multi-piece receiver firearm alone falls within the precise wording of the regulatory definition", and instead of going to Congress, they want impose on the Gun Owners their draconian view by changing the definition in a underhanded way.
From another ATF document: "Congress recognized that regulation of all firearm parts was impractical. Senator Dodd explained that ''[t]he present definition of this term includes 'any part or parts' of a firearm. It has been impractical to treat each small part of a firearm as if it were a weapon."
Gun Owners of America wrote this:
Dear Gun Owner,
As you may know, Joe Biden has ordered the ATF to prepare a gun registry and regulate gun parts with background checks to destroy online sales using Proposed Rule ATF 2021R-05.
The public comment period ends on August 19, 2021.
After that, gun owners won't have any more chances to provide ATF input. That's why it's imperative that we deluge the ATF with comments.
Lest you think this is a fool's errand, remember that the ATF has, at least twice in the past, withdrawn their proposed regulations after being bombarded with opposition. One of those times was during
Obama's administration, when the ATF withdrew the ban on green tip ammo.
Please add your name and postal address to this pre-written letter to the ATF. Feel free to add any additional points that you want to make. *Credit for letter goes to GOA.
Below is a link that you can clikc with a copy of letter that is in the alert: This will auto forward to NHFC. We will print and mail postal mail all responses received before 4pm on August 19th to the ATF:
Dear ATF:
August 19th, 2021
RE: ATF 2021R-05
The gun control act's central premise has been based on Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. A private party, making a firearm for their own use, has never been subject to regulation. Since the founding of our republic, men and women have made firearm components for themselves.
This proposed rule is a radical and unneeded departure from this historical precedent. To underscore this point, page 36 of the proposed rule even says: "Clarifying this issue is needed to deter the increased sale or distribution of unlicensed and unregulated partially complete or unassembled frames or receivers often sold within parts kits that can readily be completed or assembled to a functional state."
The definitions being proposed in this rule are unlawful because Congress has not taken any action to regulate home built firearms, firearms braces or the records that must be kept by licensed dealers. This proposal reeks of agency overreach.
Even though the proposed rule lists several firearms by name that had not been invented when most of the current laws and rules were enacted, there is nothing to prevent an inventor from inventing and selling a new type of firearm, frame or even a slide after the proposed rule takes effect which would make at least part of these new rules obsolete.
It is the job of Congress to write the laws and federal agencies to enforce them. This proposed rule appears as illegitimate law-making because it states that it is in some way in response to the manner in which courts have ruled on the AR15 type firearm receiver. If a change is needed in the law, then it is properly the job of Congress to change the law. It's not the job of a regulatory agency.
Above and beyond the issues listed above, having multiple serial numbers as the 'firearm' would lead to a tracking and record-keeping nightmare for dealers, owners and manufacturers. Even automobiles have only one VIN [vehicle identification number] although they are made of many parts. Firearms should have one SN and the balance of the parts are just parts.
For these reasons, I am respectfully requesting that you do NOT enact these rules.
Sincerely,
FirstName LastName
Street Address
Town, State, zip
Over 240,000 gun owners have already responded to this, yet we need to make sure that these absurd and unlawful rule changes are defeated. We need you to join them. Click here to create this email. Make sure to include you name and postal address.
More details on this rule change are located here.
Email any response to [email protected] and they will print out the email and send it in via postal mail. Deadline is 4pm Thursday 8/19
Deadline to stop ATF from redefining firearm is 8/19/2021
You need to act today before 4pm
Thursday this week, 8/19, the ATF will close the window for feedback on a new set of rules that they are proposing. These new changes will force gun manufacturers, dealers and owners to track numerous additional parts as they plan on redefining what is a firearm to include common parts.For over 50 years, the lower receiver [frame] in a slide/frame pistol was considered the 'firearm' for the purpose of manufacturing or transfer. Now, in an attempt to run around Congress, the ATF wants to include many other parts in the definition of 'firearm' These new parts would include things like the upper receiver or slide, barrel, various springs and potentially several other parts.
Gun Owners of America recently wrote in an alert after one of their staff members, took apart a common Glock handgun:
"In the end, a Glock 40 could have up to 16 different regulated parts! That's because ATF proposes to now define "frame or receiver" to be:
A part of a firearm that, when the complete weapon is assembled, is visible from the exterior AND provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate one or more fire control components, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect those components to the housing or structure.
Since the 1960's the Definition of a firearm was: 18USC921(a)(3)
(3) The term "firearm" means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
The ATF has published in the past that "Even though neither the upper nor the lower portion of a split/multi-piece receiver firearm alone falls within the precise wording of the regulatory definition,.." they want to, without congressional action, completely change the law and do so when they have a President that is willing to give them cover for making the change. This change would create massive confusion about what is the firearm and make record keeping a disaster.
This about the dealer needing to write down 16 different serial numbers on the ATF 4473 form when buying a simple Glock handgun... What a record-keeping nightmare!
Although ATF's regulatory definitions of "frame or receiver" do not expressly capture these types of firearms (i.e., split/multi-piece receivers) that now constitute the majority of firearms in the United States, they do not have the authority to make changes to the definitions that Congress created when they wrote the laws. If ATF wants to make this change, then they should ask a member of Congress to proposal a bill.
The ATF even realizes that "Even though neither the upper nor the lower portion of a split/multi-piece receiver firearm alone falls within the precise wording of the regulatory definition", and instead of going to Congress, they want impose on the Gun Owners their draconian view by changing the definition in a underhanded way.
From another ATF document: "Congress recognized that regulation of all firearm parts was impractical. Senator Dodd explained that ''[t]he present definition of this term includes 'any part or parts' of a firearm. It has been impractical to treat each small part of a firearm as if it were a weapon."
Gun Owners of America wrote this:
The ATF is Rewriting the Definition of a Firearm
Take Action: Under the ATF's proposed homemade firearm ban, the definition of what constitutes a "firearm" is rewritten so that practically every component of every gun is now legally a firearm! Tell the ATF how absurd this is!Dear Gun Owner,
As you may know, Joe Biden has ordered the ATF to prepare a gun registry and regulate gun parts with background checks to destroy online sales using Proposed Rule ATF 2021R-05.
The public comment period ends on August 19, 2021.
After that, gun owners won't have any more chances to provide ATF input. That's why it's imperative that we deluge the ATF with comments.
Lest you think this is a fool's errand, remember that the ATF has, at least twice in the past, withdrawn their proposed regulations after being bombarded with opposition. One of those times was during
The ATF is Rewriting the Definition of a Firearm
All comments must reference this document's docket number ATF 2021R-05, be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity. ATF will retain all comments as part of this rulemakings administrative record. ATF will treat all comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.Obama's administration, when the ATF withdrew the ban on green tip ammo.
Please add your name and postal address to this pre-written letter to the ATF. Feel free to add any additional points that you want to make. *Credit for letter goes to GOA.
Below is a link that you can clikc with a copy of letter that is in the alert: This will auto forward to NHFC. We will print and mail postal mail all responses received before 4pm on August 19th to the ATF:
Dear ATF:
August 19th, 2021
RE: ATF 2021R-05
The gun control act's central premise has been based on Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. A private party, making a firearm for their own use, has never been subject to regulation. Since the founding of our republic, men and women have made firearm components for themselves.
This proposed rule is a radical and unneeded departure from this historical precedent. To underscore this point, page 36 of the proposed rule even says: "Clarifying this issue is needed to deter the increased sale or distribution of unlicensed and unregulated partially complete or unassembled frames or receivers often sold within parts kits that can readily be completed or assembled to a functional state."
The definitions being proposed in this rule are unlawful because Congress has not taken any action to regulate home built firearms, firearms braces or the records that must be kept by licensed dealers. This proposal reeks of agency overreach.
Even though the proposed rule lists several firearms by name that had not been invented when most of the current laws and rules were enacted, there is nothing to prevent an inventor from inventing and selling a new type of firearm, frame or even a slide after the proposed rule takes effect which would make at least part of these new rules obsolete.
It is the job of Congress to write the laws and federal agencies to enforce them. This proposed rule appears as illegitimate law-making because it states that it is in some way in response to the manner in which courts have ruled on the AR15 type firearm receiver. If a change is needed in the law, then it is properly the job of Congress to change the law. It's not the job of a regulatory agency.
Above and beyond the issues listed above, having multiple serial numbers as the 'firearm' would lead to a tracking and record-keeping nightmare for dealers, owners and manufacturers. Even automobiles have only one VIN [vehicle identification number] although they are made of many parts. Firearms should have one SN and the balance of the parts are just parts.
For these reasons, I am respectfully requesting that you do NOT enact these rules.
Sincerely,
FirstName LastName
Street Address
Town, State, zip
Over 240,000 gun owners have already responded to this, yet we need to make sure that these absurd and unlawful rule changes are defeated. We need you to join them. Click here to create this email. Make sure to include you name and postal address.
More details on this rule change are located here.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,262
- Likes
- 33,182
I can't believe the comment time is still here. LOL. Seems like I submitted my comment 100 years ago.
I'm hoping they are awash with responses. But I'm not sure it'll deter them anyhow.
I'm hoping they are awash with responses. But I'm not sure it'll deter them anyhow.
Caveman
NES Member
I seriously hope it helps. but for some reason I keep picturing a kid with their fingers in their ears humming so they don’t have to listen.
AHM
NES Member
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
I gave them my legit info, everything except my phone number.
Went for a haircut earlier today and got my barber to submit a comment before I left. He is a gun owner who, like many others, had no idea this was taking place. I texted him the link and he did it on his phone in under 2 minutes.
Yep last day...
Comments on Proposed Rule 2021R-05 | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Between May 21 and August 19, 2021, ATF received over 290,000 comments on the proposed rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms. ATF specifically requested comments on the feasibility of implementing the new definition of firearm “frame or receiver” in 27 CFR 478.11...
