SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge The ATF’s Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a ‘Firearm’ Is In Serious Trouble
Main Page The Lounge The ATF’s Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a ‘Firearm’ Is In Serious TroublePage 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Big Stack |
From the point of view of the ATF, you're entirely correct. But a Federal Judge might (i won't go so far as to say would) interpret the law literally as written. I think it would vastly depend on what district / circuit the case was heard in. Either way, if a court did rule that AR lowers did not fit the definition of a firearm, there would be strong pressure on Congress to "fix" the problem. At that point it becomes a political football.
| |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
I would expect that if a court found that a lower wasn't the "receiver" and that was upheld, Congress would pretty quickly re-write the definition of receiver to eliminate the loophole. Some part of the gun has to be the regulated part or we could buy all the parts without buying a "gun." That, obviously, is not going to fly. That re-write might not be something we want. What is the "gun" might get a lot more broadly defined, and that could be a disaster. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Muzzle flash aficionado  |
I think a more obvious case involving a comma was the one that removed the exception for some shotguns as NFA firearms. jhe888, perhaps just define the part that has the serial number on it as the "gun", and insist that every assembled firearm must have a serial number somewhere. flashguy Texan by choice, not accident of birth | |||
|
Fighting the good fight |
There would necessarily need to be more to the law than that. The requirement would need to include that the "gun" portion with the serial must be an integral part needed for the functioning of the weapon, with the weapon not being operable without it. Otherwise, for example, you could scribe the serial number on an AR's trigger guard or handguard. That would then make the trigger guard/handguard the "gun" for purposes of transfers, serials, etc. And a fully assembled AR would have that, and therefore have a serial. But you could still assemble and fire a fully functional rifle without a trigger guard or handguard. | |||
|
Member |
My fear is what this can do to the 80% lower market. That is totally below the radar of the anti-gun people. If this issue becomes a landmark court case, I think we can expect any legislative "remedy" to include 80% lowers. Not that they can do anything about the millions already out there or the growing market for 3-D printers. But there's no way they'll get this right. | |||
|
| Big Stack |
The problem with that comes down to who assembles the gun. This works for licensed manufacturers who are building complete guns. But if the serialization only counts for complete guns, it leaves the situation where someone who wants to illegally build guns can buy all the parts untraceably, then build a working gun with out of untraceable parts (much as is happening with the 80% receiver situation currently, but without even the need for doing the final machining.) This somewhat goes to the 80% issues that Rick brought up. 80% isn't really below the radar. LE has been dealing with this. If the AR lower issue went political, it vast depends who's running Congress (and both houses) as to what would happen.
| |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
Either of which would also be a lot easier to make at home for personal use, FWIW. I wonder what an "80%" trigger guard would look like. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine |
Or to highlight the problem even more, what if some maker serialized a screw? Then, everything but a common screw would be a not-gun. The serialized part needs to be integral to gun-ness, and something not interchangeable with other guns or machinery. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Member |
I just read through a few documents filed in the case. Based on my (admittedly quick) review it looks like the judge was prepared to rule that under 27 CFR 479.11 a "frame or receiver" is "[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for: (i) the hammer, and (ii) the bolt or breechblock and (iii) the firing mechanism, and (iv) which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel." Since the lower receiver did not provide housing for the bolt or breecblock (a mandatory element) and was not threaded to receive the barrel (a non-mandatory but common element), the lower did not meet the definition of a receiver. This isn't an Oxford comma problem as the element "bolt or breechblock" looks like it was intended to read that way to encompass both bolt actuated and breech loading firearms. This is one of those areas where Congress could easily clear up the law but they leave it to the courts and administrative agencies to cobble policy together with the regulatory equivalent of duct tape and Popsicle sticks, then get mad when things don't work very well. | |||
|
Member |
1/2 of congress has been busy with other matters since 2016. | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Although there has been some focus on the issue I raised about the missing(?) comma, to clarify my comments here, I wasn’t attempting to analyze the judge’s ruling in the referenced case. What I was doing was analyzing the law as it was written and as if I had been a judge ruling on the law’s applicability to things like AR lower receivers. ► 6.4/93.6 “It is peace for our time.” — Neville the Appeaser | |||
|
| Member |
notwithstanding, the totality of the above comments, the reason we have such a robust AR aftermarket is that the lower is the gun at a Federal level. A change to using the upper as is common on other platforms would be the end of that market. “So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.” | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
Can the upper be the receiver? It doesn't house a hammer or a fire control system. The beauty of this quandary is that the elements of the receiver are split between the upper and the lower. | |||
|
| Member |
It's interesting to contrast the law as this judge is applying it to the AR-15, to the FAL. An FAL also has a hinged upper/lower receiver, with the upper being threaded for a barrel and containing the breechblock, similar to an AR, while the lower contains the hammer and firing mechanism. Yet federal law regulates the upper as the "firearm" part of an FAL. | |||
|
| Member |
It could be as simple as changing it from: 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. To: That part of a firearm which provides housing for two or more of the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel. But politics means unduly complicating simple things, if it means anything, so that will never happen. | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
^^ And the fact that so few politicians who are interested in regulating guns actually know anything about guns doesn't help.
Well, when SIG first brought out the 556, I seem to remember reading in TFB that SIG 'negotiated' with the ATF to determine whether the upper or lower was the receiver, and the decision to put the serial number on the upper was what came out of those discussions. Maybe something like that happened with other rifles as well. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge The ATF’s Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a ‘Firearm’ Is In Serious Trouble
Main Page The Lounge The ATF’s Definition of an AR-15 Lower as a ‘Firearm’ Is In Serious Trouble© SIGforum 2025