ATF Proposed Rule Change for Frames and Receivers

rep308

NES Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
10,181
Likes
11,666
Location
inside the 495 Belt
Feedback: 68 / 0 / 0
Please watch the 3 minute video from Mark Serbu.



Give your comments against the rule change at the link below:

From Mark:
This is IMPORTANT STUFF! Please enter a comment in the Federal Register by 8/19/21!

 
Last edited:
Please watch the 3 minute video from Mark Serbu.

Give your comments against the rule change at the link below:

From Mark:
This is IMPORTANT STUFF! Please enter a comment in the Federal Register by 8/19/21! Here's the link: https://www.federalregister.gov/docum...
‘Page not found’

got another link?
 
Hold it HOLD IT! Why was teh sad Cebu sad? Was the canoe wood. . . . or aluminum??? I'm going to have to speak to Bob about this. (That last line is a CONSTANT one in my household. Something goes wrong. "I'm going to have to speak to Bob about this.")

I love Veggietales. Larry is a riot. He's the Curly of the bunch and Bob is Moe.
 
This appears to be the only ATF 2021R-05 thread.

Proposed 'ghost gun' rule could reshape battle against homemade guns: Experts
In the coming months, a measure that will modify the federal definition of "firearm" to include unfinished gun parts like frames and receivers is expected to receive approval. The Justice Department introduced the proposal last May in an effort to curb the rise of so-called ghost guns — unregulated, easy-to-make firearms that can be ordered online. Ghost guns often come in kits and many can be assembled within an hour.
"There's no question about it, that the regulation will shut down the marketplace going forward," John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, told ABC News.

National Shooting Sports Foundation general counsel Lawrence Keane said in an interview that the regulation is "the single most significant change for manufacturers under the law, since the Gun Control Act was enacted in 1968."
Note "battle against homemade guns."
 
The ruling could happen any day now. I expect a clusterf***. Stack ‘em deep guys.
 
Barring major expansion in what was proposed, the expectation is that you will not be impacted

So this looks like AR uppers will now be frames. It’s not clear to me how an 80% AR lower will be affected since as sold they can’t “house” any fire control component.
 
Reading the stuff, I can’t find anything it impacts other than 80% items becoming serialized guns that pass thru an FFL for transfer after a background check (effectively game over for 80% as we know it yes). Also impacts any such completed weapons passing through a gunsmith or FFL (they get serialized)..

Finished or unfinished guns in private hands, no impact.

There is a special part for making suppressors, didn't look at that in depth.

uppers/slides - no, other parts - no
 
Reading the stuff, I can’t find anything it impacts other than 80% items becoming serialized guns that pass thru an FFL for transfer after a background check (effectively game over for 80% as we know it yes)
Yet again they're declaring things that are not firearms to be firearms. This is as significant as it is horrifically bad.
 
I dont think so wrt AR upper.

The proposed rule had a section that included something like this:



Lowers on the other hand.....we'll...I might expect that any NEW "lowers" that could be "readily" made into a lower would need to be sold serialized ....and probably treated as lower recievers are currently wrt ATF
I couldn’t find a version of the final rule, only a summary on the ATF site
 
Lol so whats the new standard 79%? [rofl]

There's still a line, somewhere.
D0AvdDXWoAArimF

Illustration-Georgius-Agricola-De-re-metallica.jpg
 
Last edited:
I believe the intent is to criminalize a block of most any material large enough to carve out a lower........they would probably try to claim constructive intent if you had a frozen bowl of chocolate pudding with dimensions that exceeded that of a lower......just sayin;.........folks should expect a shit ton of lawfare and attempts to see what they can get the courts to accept

Or more likely a loud farting noise, one of these goes to court, loses, then suddenly they have to back off and define it again lol. If they are moving from a very specific definition or collection of definitions to a more ambiguous one even some libtard judges are not going to like that.
 
I believe the intent is to criminalize a block of most any material large enough to carve out a lower........they would probably try to claim constructive intent if you had a frozen bowl of chocolate pudding with dimensions that exceeded that of a lower......just sayin;.........folks should expect a shit ton of lawfare and attempts to see what they can get the courts to accept
With 3D printers today, good luck with banning zero% lowers.
 
Back
Top Bottom