ATF To Rewrite The Definition Of A Lower Receiver: Lower Receivers Are Not Firearms

I’ve got a better idea. Just classify a Ruger MK-whatever lower as the firearm and the upper as the interchangeable part and we are home free.

80% uppers are gonna suck. Yikes!
 
Reptile said:
If lowers are not firearms anymore - will Mass FFL's sell them to anybody without an LTC?
Click to expand...
They are already not a firearm under MA law, so I doubt anything would change as far as the MA LTC is concerned.
 
42! said:
They are already not a firearm under MA law, so I doubt anything would change as far as the MA LTC is concerned.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that a FFL has the right to sell to anybody even if they do not have a LTC?
 
Dennis in MA said:
This is a huge problem. The definition of a firearm doesn’t correspond to modern firearms.

BUT! It is not up to the ATF. It’s up to Congress. Laws are laws.
Click to expand...

The problem with the ATF other than it existing it has way too much regulatory authority. And there's a bunch of stuff that is not well defined in GCA68.

There are a shitload of rifles where the upper ends up being the receiver/controlled part and a bunch of other rifles where the LOWER is the controlled part. Their is no consistency to their
definitions at all.
 
PappyM3 said:
Either switch it to just the upper. Or, make both an upper and lower set be the firearm.

I don’t see that going over very well.
Click to expand...

Gun control fgts would love to have barrels regulated- it's the most difficult part of any gun to manufacture.
 
AHM said:
BTW guys, I'm late to the party.

Q: Did ATF originally fixate on the lower
because that was where the giggle switch lives?
Click to expand...

I think you are on to something, they "chose wrongly" on lowers on ARs because they were too busy getting frothed up about trying to prevent someone from
making a gun full auto or some bullshit like that. On the other guns like certain SIG rifles (eg, sig 550, 556, etc) or HK roller lock guns, or maybe the FAL even, the uppers are the
controlled part. And on those guns there is usually some f***ery going on in the upper half which restricts or limits potential for FA operation without some kind of a mod.
 
Zappa said:
If you're referring to stripped uppers, I'm not seeing many out there for sale, but there are TONS of complete barreled uppers available with or without BCG. Every day I get email flyers from PSA and CDNN with a whole slew of differently configured uppers for sale. Yeah, the price has gone up, but there doesn't seem to be any shortage.
Click to expand...
No if anything its turning out to be like 2013 all over again..any tom dick or harry with a cnc is llcing up and cranking them out
 
jpk said:
I'll use BCM for illustrative purposes because they're pretty much on the money as far as quality/value

AR-15 Complete Upper Receivers - Bravo Company USA

Shop BCM complete AR uppers! Each complete upper receiver group is manufactured with the end user in mind & goes through stringent quality control testing
bravocompanyusa.com bravocompanyusa.com

Virtually all complete uppers are out of stock

16 Inch AR-15 Barrels - Bravo Company USA

bravocompanyusa.com bravocompanyusa.com

14.5 Inch AR-15 Barrels - Bravo Company USA

bravocompanyusa.com bravocompanyusa.com

No rifle length barrels to be found

AR-15 Upper Receiver Parts - Bravo Company USA

bravocompanyusa.com bravocompanyusa.com

No stripped upper recievers either

Scoot on over to Joe Bobs

Pretty much the same landscape

5.56/223 AR-15 Barrels for Sale at Joe Bob Outfitters!

5.56/223 AR-15 Barrels for Sale at Joe Bob Outfitters!
www.joeboboutfitters.com

PSA does in fact have their own in house brand/manufacture of uppers in stock.....but the majority of whats in stock are pistol/sbr length options


Most barrel orders that vendors have placed are pushing 6 months back log and no sign of delivery in sight.....with some of these dem states pushing for shut downs again its only going to cause more problems for supply chain
Click to expand...


Expand your horizons Palawan


Gun.deals
 
42! said:
They are already not a firearm under MA law, so I doubt anything would change as far as the MA LTC is concerned.
Click to expand...

Reptile said:
Does that mean that a FFL has the right to sell to anybody even if they do not have a LTC?
Click to expand...
Well he would still have to do the Fed 4473, i6t's still a firearm to the Fed. But there may be some validity to that idea.

But what do I know, I've only ever bought a lower in NH and we don't need a state permission slip.
 
If AR15 lowers lower receivers are not legally considered firearms they no longer have any protection under the 2nd And owners would have no legal basis to fight a blanket ban As they are not “ARMS”
 
99si/mass said:
If AR15 lowers lower receivers are not legally considered firearms they no longer have any protection under the 2nd And owners would have no legal basis to fight a blanket ban As they are not “ARMS”
Click to expand...

Ilc6ddLl.png



🐯
 
drgrant said:
Gun control fgts would love to have barrels regulated- it's the most difficult part of any gun to manufacture.
Click to expand...
This is where my thought process went. What is the hardest part to manufacture with today’s consumer technology? A good rifled barrel. No impact on shotguns since a piece of pipe from Lowe’s will get the job done, but bad news for rifles and handguns.
 
Everything that makes an AR lower "not a firearm" also applies to every modern pistol of which I'm aware.

Have you looked at a stripped bolt action .22 rifle receiver? Most are just a tube with some slots and holes milled in.
 
This is ridiculous, if the ATF wanted to redefine what is a firearm, it's not going to cause some massive number of non-firearms or make everyone who already own what suddenly meet the definition a felon. They only need to say lowers manufactured before date X are still firearms, but from now on the barrel is the firearm.

I'm not supporting this idea, just pointing out that a change is possible.
 
kerryman71 said:
Well, I watched the entire video from GunGuyTV on Youtube. I would suggest watching that video in its entirety, as it has some pretty good info.

My guess is that the ATF will indeed work on the lower receiver issue, but not to make it so it isn't classified as a firearm, but to make things even more difficult. My guess is that the 2 to 5 year timeframe they gave gives them time to work with anti gun politicians and groups to get the language where they need it to be.

The reason I say that is because there are at least four cases over the past six years that the guy in the video, retired ATF agent Dan O'Keefe, provided testimony for the defendant in which a federal judge used it to rule that the lower does not meet the definition of a firearm.

Edit: Not sure he was involved in all four cases.
Click to expand...
^^^ Troos!

So originally there was a case in Cali where defense successfully argued that lower does not meet definition of firearm by law. There were few more cases since. Tyrants don't want this get out of control so ATF saying that lower is totally IS a firearm, but they need like 2+ years to tell you how. ATF a giant ass holes, but even they don't need 2+ years to pull another travesty out of their ass. They need that time to push more infringements.

Euros already figured this shit out, their demill standard are load bearing components like barrels and trunions and lugs on the bolts. That's why when you import Euro demills of rare shit, they are basically totally useless, the most critical parts are non-funct. There IS precedent to this in US already, on Saiga 12 (12GA AK), the actual serialized part is ... trunion, to this day. Truth.

If you think about it, most people can rout aluminum, but they would never touch lugs and/or extension trunion. That's far more a**h*** puckering proposition. That's the plan. I'm not 100% on cars, but I do believe that there are several places where vin has to be on, for car to be legit. They may be thinking same shit.

The5thDentist said:
One thing is for sure. If we want real change, we need to run for office and actually fix the laws, become judges that will rule on these cases, and stop living in fear.
Click to expand...

No, f*** that shit. We don't need those offices or those judges. Those cocksuckers are more useless than foreskin to a jew. We need to defund tyrany, not play their game (which you know you can't win anyway)
 
Here is the ATF document on redefining "frame," "receiver," "gunsmith"; defining "complete" weapon/suppressor; etc.

This is at least partially a reaction to United States v. Rowold, in which the government dropped the case to prevent case law pointing out that AR-pattern lowers do not meet the definition of firearms.
Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (“Department”) proposes amending Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) regulations to provide new
regulatory definitions of “firearm frame or receiver” and “frame or receiver” because the
prior regulations failed to capture the full meaning of those terms. The Department also
proposes amending ATF’s definitions of “firearm” and “gunsmith” to clarify the meaning
of those terms, and to provide definitions of terms such as “complete weapon,” “complete
muffler or silencer device,” “privately made firearm,” and “readily” for purposes of
clarity given advancements in firearms technology. Further, the Department proposes
amendments to ATF’s regulations on marking and recordkeeping that are necessary to
implement these new or amended definitions.
Click to expand...
In recent years, individuals have been purchasing firearm parts kits with
incomplete frames or receivers, commonly called “80% receivers,”37 either directly from
manufacturers of the kits or retailers without background checks or recordkeeping. Some
of these parts kits contain all the components necessary to complete a functional weapon
within a short period of time. Some of them include jigs, templates, instructions, drill
bits, and tools that allow the purchaser to complete the weapon to a functional state with
minimal effort, expertise, or equipment. Weapon parts kits such as these are “firearms”
under the GCA because they are designed to or may readily be converted to expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive. Manufacturers of such parts kits must be
licensed, abide by the marking and recordkeeping requirements, and pay Federal
Firearms Excise Tax on their sales price,39 and any Federal firearms licensee that sells
such kits to unlicensed individuals would need to complete ATF Forms 4473, conduct
NICS background checks, and abide by the recordkeeping requirements applicable to
fully completed and assembled firearms. Therefore, to reflect existing case law, this
proposed rule would add a sentence at the end of the definition of “firearm” in 27 CFR
478.11 that “[t]he term shall include a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily
be assembled, completed, converted, or restored to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive.”
Click to expand...
The proposed new regulatory definition of “frame or receiver” would be a multipart definition added to 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 (referencing section 478.11). First, there would be a general definition of “frame or receiver” with non-exclusive examples
that illustrate the definition. This would be followed by supplements that further
elucidate the meaning of the term “frame or receiver” for certain firearm designs and
configurations, as follows: (a) firearm muffler or silencer frame or receiver; (b) split or
modular frame or receiver, also followed by examples of the frames or receivers for
common firearm designs that are distinguishable because of differences in firing cycle,
method of operation, or physical design characteristics; (c) partially complete,
disassembled, or inoperable frame or receiver; and (d) destroyed frame or receiver.
Although the new definition would more broadly define the term “frame or receiver” than
the current definition, it is not intended to alter any prior determinations by ATF of what
it considers the frame or receiver of a particular split/modular weapon. ATF would also
continue to consider the same factors when classifying firearms (see Section I.A).
Click to expand...
 
So now they can write laws??? Can we get rid of Congress then????

I can understand how an "80%" gun where they seller sells you EVERY part could be considered a firearm. But redefinition of a frame/receiver???? Mmmmm, that's a congressional thing.
 
this is what happens when the house of lies grows beyond certain size. NFA, various infringements, "reasonable" and "commonsense" measures can no longer stand on their own and need a total different story how all this bullshit "does not" infringe on 2a.
 

Similar threads

ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
491
pastera
pastera
Are lower 80% prohibited in MA...yet?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
EJFudd
EJFudd
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
381
clampett
clampett
Here's a list of states suing the BATFE/FEDS in opposition to the new ruling of who's a dealer and who's not.
Replies
5
Views
300
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Back
Top Bottom