• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

New ATF definition of firearm

That's specifically excluded under this rule. Their worst nightmare is having AR uppers AND lower be considered the 'receiver'. They want to codify that the lower is the receiver to get them out of the court cases that have been hammering them lately.

The marking section is mainly aimed at "Personally Assembled Firearms" (80% guns) and how they have to be treated if, and only if, they are sold to an FFL or transferred through one (nice tie-in with Universal BGCs, huh?).

Good. I have not had time or enough to drink to read the thing. Thanks for letting me know.
 
Since its an ATF Rule or Regulation, it does not have to be "voted on". They have "rule making authority".....remember to respect their authority!!
Up to a point, but as they make very clear in this proposal, Congress gave the Atty General the authority to 'interpret' the statues and create regulations to enforce it. This has been supported over and over again in court, and when it comes to a 'technical' decision like this I don't know that the ATF has ever lost a case.

And if you read the document, they put up a good argument that what makes up anything but a completely finished 'firearm' has never really been determined as a general principle.

I'm not saying that this isn't anything but a mess, but as far as their authority goes, they are probably well within their limits as defined in GCA '68 and later legislation.
There is not a single "good argument" in that document. It's pathetic really. A major power grab with mental gymnastics out the ass. Just because a gov agency is given the ability to regulate, they are still to operate within the bounds of the law and most importantly, within the bounds of the constitution. The constitutional argument alone easily proves that this is a garbage document with garbage rule changes with no "good arguments" to be had. It is full of infringement.

This is a major power grab, plain and simple. It attacks a protected American right and tradition, the ability to make your own gun. Requiring a 4473 is defacto registration. Even if the constitution didn't exist, the gun control act that you seem so fond of directly forbids such a registry. Now licensees have to keep records forever instead of dumping them after 20 years. This alone is significant and should raise the alarm.

Not to be defeatist, but conventions on this is about as effective as voting nowadays. The government knows what it wants, and is only posting the rule change up because they are required to. There will be a "select all" option that some atf guy will click to acknowledge that everything was read, and then the 30 day comment period will be done. You and I have no say in the matter, this period is just a technicality.

Mark my words... This is happening no matter how much opposition there is. Shortly after, they will "circle back" around to the pistol brace ban. "Assault rifles" will be after that one. They may be kind enough to offer a registration though, and many will cower and kiss the ring. But guess what comes after you've registered it....
 
As I said above, the document as a whole is a mess, as would be expected out of something trying to make a hunk of metal or plastic a 'firearm'.

And where do you get the impression that I'm 'fond' of gun control. That's just f'n stupid. Just because I can read the thing and comment about it without breaking out in tears doesn't mean I agree with a single part of it.

On the flip side, if you actually read the text, it specifically exempts people who make their own guns unless they are then sold to another person. What it has problems with is rationally defining when a hunk of metal or plastic magically becomes a 'firearm' subject to GCA 68.

There is nothing in this rule that would stop you from going all JMB and making a 1911 frame out of raw steel on your lathe. It's obvious they are going after the 80% market but like I say, that's a tough thing to try and define.

As I also said, they are trying to do a whole bunch of different things in this rule.

As you point out, they do change the record-keeping requirement from 20 years max to 'as long as you are in business'. I bet when they passed the BGC in the 90s they would never have expected to have those records actually be legally destroyed before they could get a registry in to claim them.

As I also mentioned they are trying to shore up their legal definition of the lower being the 'receiver' in an AR due to recent court cases.

That one is in their jurisdiction. I don't know if the 20 year hold on paperwork is law or rule though.

If it's in the law that part is sure to get knocked out of the final rule since it could take the whole rule down with it in court. If it's a rule then they have all the authority they need to change it.
 
On the flip side, if you actually read the thing, it specifically exempts people who make their own guns unless they are then sold to another person. What it has problems with is rationally defining when a hunk of metal or plastic magically becomes a 'firearm' subject to GCA 68.

.


One of the demonstrations in Williamsburg 30 years ago was the gunsmith shop, where they took a block of wood and a bar of iron, and made a gun out of it.

Probably easier to do that today if you had the buck to buy the machinery and software.
 
I honestly don't see any way this won't sail through.

The ATF says they have the authority to determine when in the manufacturing (home or business) a chunk of metal or polymer becomes a firearm 'frame or receiver' and they are probably correct. There's certainly nothing in GCA '68 that covers that aspect of it.

The big worry here is that they don't come up with any firm standard on when you have to serialize a gun being made. They say it's going to be done on a case by case basis going forward. It leaves a heck of a lot of leeway and trust in an agency that deserves neither.
 
I honestly don't see any way this won't sail through.

The ATF says they have the authority to determine when in the manufacturing (home or business) a chunk of metal or polymer becomes a firearm 'frame or receiver' and they are probably correct. There's certainly nothing in GCA '68 that covers that aspect of it.

The big worry here is that they don't come up with any firm standard on when you have to serialize a gun being made. They say it's going to be done on a case by case basis going forward. It leaves a heck of a lot of leeway and trust in an agency that deserves neither.
Agreed that it will sail through. People fall for the literally scary word "ghost" guns and the whole mail ordering lie. People are not very smart. Congress is mostly that dumb and the ones that are not know better. It's a party line vote as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom