SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    New Definition of Receiver/Frame coming up

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
New Definition of Receiver/Frame coming up Login/Join 
Member
Picture of Austin228
posted
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...ntification/download

its on the ATF website, basically old models of weapons keep their receiver/frame definition but for parts kits they need serial numbers from the manufacturer I couldn't parse much more from it.

This hasn't been posted yet in the Federal Register so you'll have 120 days from whenever that happens before this comes into effect.
 
Posts: 1322 | Location: Austin, TX | Registered: March 19, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I Deal In Lead
Picture of Flash-LB
posted Hide Post
Lawsuit will be filed in 10, 9, 8...
 
Posts: 8810 | Location: Gilbert Arizona | Registered: March 21, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
ACTION: Final rule. Roll Eyes

"In the past few years, some courts have treated the regulatory definition of “firearm frame or receiver” as inflexible when applied to the lower portion of the AR-15 type rifle, one of the most popular firearms in the United States. If broadly followed, that result could mean that as many as 90 percent of all firearms (i.e., with split frames or receivers, or striker-fired) in the United States would not have any frame or receiver subject to regulation."

Complete Horse Shit...I swear, they just make shit up! Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 5847 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I read through some of the rule.

The old definition of a receiver from NFA 34 and GCA 68 is:

“[t]hat 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.”

Taken literally, this could be interpreted to mean the upper of an AR is the firearm and not the lower. So a literalist judge could rule that illegal possession of an AR lower is not a crime because it is not a "receiver" even though it is the serialized part. I have no idea if this has ever actually happened.

Later on there are pics of various common firearms stating which part is the receiver - HK uppers, Ruger Mark Uppers, etc.

They are introducing the idea of split receivers, which an AR really is - upper and lower split in the middle. New firearm designs may get this designation, with upper and lower serialized (assumed the same number for both?). Existing designs will continue as they currently are, so AR lowers will still be the firearm, not the uppers.
 
Posts: 4203 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 28, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by nhracecraft:


Complete Horse Shit...I swear, they just make shit up! Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Actually true. There’s case law on it. Stemmed from a felon that was charged with possessing stripped lowers. His attorney successfully argued that it didn’t meet the criteria by statue. He was acquitted and set the precedent above.




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 35918 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
^^^So, are you saying that 90% of ALL Firearms (w/ split frames or receivers, or striker-fired) in the US do NOT have a serialized component subject to regulation, without which, you wouldn't have a functioning Firearm?

I didn't read all 360+ pages, but it seems to me that the ATF is indicating we need a background check for each half of an AR, and further, they're opening the door to the regulation of any and all parts of modern Firearms. An Upper Receiver (for an AR) by itself, is NOT a Firearm. Curiously, the same can't be said for the SIG556 Upper Receiver, which IS the serialized/regulated part. At the end of the day though, 1/2 of a Firearm, is ONLY 1/2 of a Firearm!

Again, I say this is the ATF making shit up! They ought to be enforcing LAWS, and only Laws. If there's a problem with the Law, then change the Law, NOT propose new regulations, and seemingly ever changing interpretations of 'definitions' of that which they regulate! Roll Eyes


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 5847 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
That's not my read.

My take is the ATF argued "we need a definition for receivers" because there isn't one in the US Code that provides clear notice that a split receiver lower is in fact a receiver, and it's because of the case jljones mentioned.

See https://storage.courtlistener....ohnd.245031.73.0.pdf for application of 921 as per jljones' mention.

Reading https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 and comparing that to the proposed rule seems to be mostly housekeeping and I was really surprised; the rule isn't as broad and overreaching as I presumed it would be.
 
Posts: 1786 | Location: New Mexico | Registered: April 24, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    New Definition of Receiver/Frame coming up

© SIGforum 2022