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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
We the people need to make a stand
Jury nullification - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Spread the word!
Fuk the ATF!
You have a right to attend any trial!!
Show up in numbers!!!
No conviction on a a opinion!!!
We have law, not opinions
Tell that to Healy.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.
ATF will make a “common sence” suggestion to congress and they will jump all over it ! It will be a feel good story and we will all be so much safer yukThis 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.
I bet they go full retard and call them destructive devicesAnd what will they reclassify to? That’s the bigger question, right?
Now you put it out there broken down by part, it occurs to me - AR lowers are really "50% receivers," as are the uppers, making the 80% kits really "40% receivers." I'm definitely going into a store next week and asking if they have any complete 50% upper receivers and complete 50% lower receivers for sale.[...]Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, 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.”
Its part of the reason they deemed that bolt action uppers that could be attached to an AR Lower suddenly had to be serialized.....because they actually DO meet the definition of a "firearm"
[...]
If the AR upper met the above definition then the ATF would have already issued a response .....but it doesnt because the firing mechanism is contained within the lower......while the bolt/breechblock and part that recieves the barrell is the upper
On the one hand, I didn't moan about the OP's video bloggerDon't judge a book by its cover.Very good point. I didn’t even watch the video, because of the guy. All commentary should be taken as discussion of possible actions. I highly doubt he has any inside connection to ATF leadership decisions.No offense to OP, but this video is total f*cktardery. Some crazy old dude with coke bottle glasses puts up a video and we suddenly take it as gospel? “Experts” convince courts all the time of bullsh!t. It doesn’t mean the ATF is going to do anything.
The guy has hundreds of gun videos on his "Lead Therapy" channel going back as far as 2012, I haven't yet seen any comments calling him a crackpot. I think there's a chance that he may know a thing or two that we don't.
You've made me realize that all the pessimists are overlooking the possibility that
Not as I read it. You quoted a regulation (afa. Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]), not a law, earlier. Here's the law that defines a firearm to include a frame or receiver, but it does not appear to define "frame" or "receiver":No, its defined in US law previously posted and its why they havent done so and solved this problem already
...(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.
That’s not a hard thing to do.
ATF cant fix this issue.....only a rewrite of law can fix this issue.
Anything ATF says or does is just posturing to try to get congress to address the definition of what a firearm is
"Four components".After watching the video Reptile posted, and reading Dan O'Kelly's article, a receiver has to have four components to make it a receiver.
I always suspected such.At the ATF, were NOT happy unless you’re NOT happy
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 testingbravocompanyusa.com
Virtually all complete uppers are out of stock
16 Inch AR-15 Barrels - Bravo Company USA
bravocompanyusa.com
14.5 Inch AR-15 Barrels - Bravo Company USA
bravocompanyusa.com
No rifle length barrels to be found
AR-15 Upper Receiver Parts - Bravo Company USA
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
Stripped uppers are hard to come by too. You can get them if you sign up to be notified of in-stock status, but the vast majority are sold out everywhere.So the problem looks to be caused more by a shortage of barrels than of upper receivers.
Stripped uppers are hard to come by too. You can get them if you sign up to be notified of in-stock status, but the vast majority are sold out everywhere.
Hope you’re correct.Atf isn't reclassifying anything no matter what the iternets says.
same for the scarI said that in post #55, it seems that whoever has them are building them out and not selling them in stripped form.
As far as what's considered a receiver and what isn't, the ATF seems to be confused because their definition doesn't fit all the possible configurations. It's generally accepted that the serialized part is the "receiver". On an AR, it's stamped on the lower, but on an Uzi it's on the upper.
Not unless John Roberts pulls an Obamacare/bubba clinton.....
The ATF's Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a 'Firearm' Is In Serious Trouble - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ First, credit where it’s due. CNN’s Scott Glover has managed to turn out an excellent article about a fairly arcane aspect of guns and firearms law while getting the details right. That’s a notable feat for legacy media these days. Read the whole thing here. With...www.thetruthaboutguns.com
Nothing about the lower meets the federal definition which is why ATF is freaking out and has had to drop cases against people making lowers without a manufacturers license.....
They screwed the pooch decades ago by declaring that the lower is the part that needed to be serialized
Its part of the reason they deemed that bolt action uppers that could be attached to an AR Lower suddenly had to be serialized.....because they actually DO meet the definition of a "firearm"
Its also part of the reason why there are no AR upper recievers to be found on the market.....cuz folks are gobbling them up out of fear of looming change......
If the AR upper met the above definition then the ATF would have already issued a response .....but it doesnt because the firing mechanism is contained within the lower......while the bolt/breechblock and part that recieves the barrell is the upper
Only a change to federal law can fix this