The new rules have been announced

My concern is that it may cause the supply of 80% frames and receivers to dry up. As it stands today, I can buy a completely finished AR-15 lower receiver or 1911 frame for significantly less than what it would cost me to buy an 80% lower or frame. The companies who make those can charge a premium because some buyers are willing to pay a premium in order to build a completely legal firearm that doesn't have to go through an FFL.

Once everything has to go through an FFL, many of those buyers will likely just opt for a 100% lower or frame, and the 80% suppliers won't have enough business to stay in business.
 
Once everything has to go through an FFL, many of those buyers will likely just opt for a 100% lower or frame, and the 80% suppliers won't have enough business to stay in business.
Click to expand...

A point I'm sure did not escape the thinking of those who wrote the new rules.

Seems to me a lot of gun control isn't aimed at reducing crime so much as reducing public interest and use of firearms. The more complicated and expensive they can make it, the fewer people will pursue it.

And, while numerous folks push loudly and publicly for bans and background checks etc., I think the long term serious threat is the slowly tightening noose of regulation and cost, discouraging people from developing any interest (or skill) in privately owned firearms.
 
44 AMP said:
And, while numerous folks push loudly and publicly for bans and background checks etc., I think the long term serious threat is the slowly tightening noose of regulation and cost, discouraging people from developing any interest (or skill) in privately owned firearms.
Click to expand...

Besides making it onerous and expensive to discourage new gun ownership, I suspect stuff like universal background checks, gun registries, etc to take aim at the existing guns already in circulation.
 
ATN082268 said:
Besides making it onerous and expensive to discourage new gun ownership, I suspect stuff like universal background checks, gun registries, etc to take aim at the existing guns already in circulation.
Click to expand...
If that's in the new rules, please cite and quote the section.

If it's not in the rules, it's not pertinent to THIS discussion. The new rules have 364 pages full of legalese. That's enough fodder for discussion without wandering off into speculation of what else "they" might have in mind.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
If that's in the new rules, please cite and quote the section.

If it's not in the rules, it's not pertinent to THIS discussion. The new rules have 364 pages full of legalese. That's enough fodder for discussion without wandering off into speculation of what else "they" might have in mind.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Any idea what effect it's going to have on those of us that already have a couple (or more) per-serial numbered uppers? There must be millions of them out there...

Tony
 
one of the problems when it comes to items that were unregulated and now are, comes down to enforcement and "burden of proof".

And, who is doing the asking....

There are two basic ways they can go about it. The more sensible one (to me) is to simply accept that having the item, without the NOW required markings, simply indicates it was bought before the regulation(s) went into effect.

The other approach is much more burdensome to the citizen (so for sure someone, somewhere will use it) and that is to require the owner to provide "proof" they owned the item before the law went into effect and is therefore, grandfathered.

THAT is a virtual impossibility for many if not most of us with things that never before were required to have records kept.

Its a sad day for all of us when the stroke of a pen can turn us into criminals for not having "proper papers" for property that never required "papers" to own before.
 
Geezerbiker said:
Any idea what effect it's going to have on those of us that already have a couple (or more) per-serial numbered uppers? There must be millions of them out there..
Click to expand...

Did you read post #11?

From the executive summery of the new rule:

The final rule also exempts from the new definitions and marking requirements existing split frame or receiver designs in which a part was previously classified by ATF as the firearm “frame or receiver” and provides examples and pictures of select exempted frames or receivers, such as AR-15/M-16 variant firearms. The only exception to “grandfathering” will be for partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers, including weapon or frame or receiver parts kits, that ATF did not classify as firearm “frames or receivers” as defined prior to this rule.
Click to expand...
 
If this information is spread widely enough, we'll have another shortage...

Unserialized uppers....possibly more... :rolleyes:

Fortunately for me, I'm no longer in the market for such things...

If I were, I'd be looking to stock up...

Just sayin'....
 
I thought I had read the entire thread but I must have missed post #11. I have enough uppers for my ARs and I have no plans to buy more. I wouldn't be surprised if the price of uppers goes nuts before the new rules take effect...

Tony
 
Onward Allusion said:
Any reference to slides - i.e. Glock compatible "uppers".
Click to expand...

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...me-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms

Part III
B. Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

The Department proposed to revise the definition of “frame or receiver” with a multi-part definition. First proposed was a general definition of “frame or receiver” with nonexclusive examples that illustrated the definition. This was followed by four proposed supplements, described below, that further explained the meaning of the term “frame or receiver” for certain firearm designs and configurations. Although the proposed definition was intended to more broadly define the term “frame or receiver” than the current definition, it was not intended to alter any prior determinations by ATF regarding which specific part of a given weapon it considered the frame or receiver. The NPRM also proposed to codify in the regulations the factors ATF considers when classifying the frame or receiver of a firearm.

1. General Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

As a threshold matter, the NPRM proposed that the new definition, with a partial exception for an internal frame or chassis, make clear that each frame or receiver be visible to the exterior when the complete weapon is assembled so that licensees and law enforcement can quickly and easily identify the markings. Next, the NPRM proposed defining the term “frame or receiver” more broadly as a part that provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component, which would have included, at a minimum, any housing or holding structure for a hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails. However, the proposed definition would not have been limited to those particular fire control components [45]

and was proposed to be general enough to encompass changes in technology and parts terminology. For further clarity, four nonexclusive examples with illustrations of common single-framed firearms were provided.

See

86 FR at 27727, 27742. Finally, the proposed definition stated that persons who may acquire or possess a part now defined as a frame or receiver that is identified with a serial number must presume, absent an official determination by ATF or other reliable evidence to the contrary, that the part is a firearm frame or receiver without further guidance.
Click to expand...
 
^^^
Hmmm, that's going to be interesting as it relates to slides. It reads like the manufacturers will need to stamp their slides and ship 'em to a FFL. I hope lawsuits get going.
 
I hope lawsuits get going.
Click to expand...

Absent an act of Congress (and we know how likely that is at this time,,,:rolleyes:), lawsuits seem to be the only available course of action... BUT....

What do we sue them for??

And, I mean that as a serious question. It appears that the ATF followed the proper process for changing their regulations. Just because we object to what they changed them to does not automatically make them guilty of violating anything.

Did they overstep their lawful authority?
Did they create an unworkable definition?
Did they actually infringe on our rights?
These, and other questions must be answered in order to determine what legal ground any lawsuit will operate on.

My point here is that no matter how stupid, unnecessary, convoluted or irritating a regulaton or law is, that alone does not make grounds for legal action. There has to be something else, something that can be shown to violate existing law and imposes an undue hardship on our rights.

The fact is, that no matter what it is that a govt does that we may feel is overreach, we have to find something in existing law that prohibits that, or we don't have a good leg to stand on in court.

So, against this new definition of what is and isn't a firearm receiver, what do we have??

All I can see right now is tradition, and against law, tradition usually doesn't prevail...

Thoughts??
 
I wonder how the EO will impact 3D printed guns or homegrown firearms - ones built entirely with 1st party mfr'd parts - for example, single shot shotgun.
 
Onward Allusion said:
I wonder how the EO will impact 3D printed guns or homegrown firearms - ones built entirely with 1st party mfr'd parts - for example, single shot shotgun.
Click to expand...
"EO"? As in Executive Order?

This is not an executive order. This is administrative rule making by a federal agency, pursuant to their authority under federal law, and carried out in accordance with mandated procedures.
 
I wonder how much money the ATF will need to handle the expanded workload I see this creating?

I think this is a fine example of "never let a crisis go to waste, and if you don't have one, MAKE one!"

Expanding Govt's "reach" by re-writing regulations and not bothering Congress to re-write the law is an old tactic of bureaucracy seems to be effective enough they keep doing it.....:rolleyes:

When the proper govt mandated process is followed to allow them to do it, I don't really see what we can do about that.
 
44 AMP said:
When the proper govt mandated process is followed to allow them to do it, I don't really see what we can do about that.
Click to expand...
The same thing "we" did about Washington DC's law on firearm storage in the home, and Chicago's firearms laws: sue on the basis of the rule overly infringing our rights. Or on the basis that the rule exceeds the parameters of the definitions established by law.

I don't know what chance such a lawsuit might have of succeeding. I'm not a lawyer. But we have been going along for decades using rules with definitions that were supposedly based on the parent laws, and now the BATFE comes along and expands on those definitions. Their argument, I'm certain, is that they are merely "clarifying." The counter-argument would be that they're not clarifying, they're making it up.

Our other recourse (if we ever get a Republican Congress again) is to get the underlying law(s) changed to negate the new definitions, or to simply say that an unfinished block of metal (or plastic) is NOT a firearm unless and until it has been completed sufficiently to be functional as a firearm.

Neither looks good but, if I had to choose, I think I would lean toward option number one as having a better chance of succeeding. But the process would take years, even IF successful.
 
The new rule is going to stop people from making items that can be finished into firearms. I don’t think it stops homemade firearms. The people that can make a firearm from 0% is going to be less than those that start from 80%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top