SCOTUS has ruled that ATF does have the authority to ban ghost guns and restrict the sale of parts. Any opinions as to whether this will affect 320 and 365 grip frame modules?

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
SCOTUS has ruled that ATF does have the authority to ban ghost guns and restrict the sale of parts. Any opinions as to whether this will affect 320 and 365 grip frame modules?

My opinion is that has nothing to do with grip frames for the 320 or 365. They aren’t firearms or serialized parts.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
SCOTUS has ruled that ATF does have the authority to ban ghost guns and restrict the sale of parts. Any opinions as to whether this will affect 320 and 365 grip frame modules?

Why would it? Both of those firearms utilize a serialized chassis/fire control group. The grip module isn't a firearm by any definition.

Like the other posters mention, the grip modules aren't the regulated parts, so it probably won't be affected. However, there are 80% P320 frames that can be purchased, so those will definitely be impacted.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
SCOTUS has ruled that ATF does have the authority to ban ghost guns and restrict the sale of parts. Any opinions as to whether this will affect 320 and 365 grip frame modules?

Why worry about just the grip modules themselves suddenly being regulated as "firearms"? Why not also worry about the upper assemblies being regulated? You can see how ridiculous that is.

quote:

Originally posted by paperchasin:
Like the other posters mention, the grip modules aren't the regulated parts, so it probably won't be affected. However, there are 80% P320 frames that can be purchased, so those will definitely be impacted.

What's an 80% 320 frame and how would it be impacted? The grip module contains no fire control parts and is not serialized. The only moving part in it is the magazine button. Are you sure you don't mean one of the metal-frame P-series? (i.e., 226, 229 and so on.) That makes more sense.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: egregore,

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Originally posted by paperchasin:
Like the other posters mention, the grip modules aren't the regulated parts, so it probably won't be affected. However, there are 80% P320 frames that can be purchased, so those will definitely be impacted.

What's an 80% 320 frame and how would it be impacted? The grip module contains no fire control parts and is not serialized. The only moving part in it is the magazine button. Are you sure you don't mean one of the metal-frame P-series? (i.e., 226, 229 and so on.) That makes more sense.

There are unfinished "80%" FCU kits out there for the P320. They have to be folded and drilled for the pins using a jig. Kind of the same concept as an 80% AR lower...you start with a piece of metal and end up with a gun. I believe that's what he's referring to.

I'm wondering how extensive the rules will be. Originally, ATF intended to regulate a number of parts that could be used to build "ghost guns." I'm not saying it's practical, but depending on how it is worded, a lot could be affected.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Why worry about just the grip modules themselves suddenly being regulated as "firearms"? Why not also worry about the upper assemblies being regulated? You can see how ridiculous that is.

Meh.

The problem is, like it or not, ATF is in the business of regulating firearms. Part through Congressional fiat, part through what I believe is regulations that I don’t believe they had the authority to make in the first place. (Conversation for another day)

80 percent manufacturers were selling a frame and jig to complete it, and every other part to make it a firearm in a single kit and calling it “not a firearm”.

And should an FFL be allowed to complete a 80
Percent gun and then sell it in the case next to serialized guns advertised as “no background checks required”? Or have a third party complete them then “trade” them in to the business?

Most people only view this from the sound bite view point that they subscribe to. But, this is actually a pretty deep issue. 18 USC codifies what the serialized item actually is. It’s the fact that 80 percenters were sold as DIY project, and it has become less about DIY and more about skirting the background checks required system and 11 percent FET

What stops regulation of any part to make a functional firearm? (Barrel, slide/upper, lower assembly etc.)

I see this as the next battle ground. “We are not saying you can’t replace your barrel or sights etc. we just need to run a NICS check on you.” Etc.

See above.

18 USC already codifies what the serialized item is. Congress would have to change that before your hypothetical could become true.

Nothing about this ruling has anything to do with that knee jerk reaction. 80 percent manufacturers skirted 18 USC by being 80 percent. Then they intentionally made it to be “Pssst, it’s a firearm but not a firearm”. Part of the problem with “ATF HAS NO AuTORITY TO REGULATE” is the fact we (citizens) ask them for guidance all the time. When we like the answer, we post the letter on social media saying “see this is legal”. When we don’t like it they are tyrannical.

Thank you for the clarification.

You know I do truly believe we are however at the dawn of “you can’t stop the signal” for all the good and bad that brings. 3D printing is only getting better, cheaper and faster. The ability to make what you want is getting easier and easier and while I see that as a good thing I also can see all the bad that comes with it. It really is a new dawn.

Says the guy who if he had a 3D printer would likely just be printing “accurate” “Green Army Men” toys