NPRM - Definition of Frame / Receiver

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Yup. But it's at their discretion, and you can bet there will be political pressure from above to use that discretion to make everything that could be considered a firearm under the GCA, considered a firearm.

    IIRC there are already firearms where ATF considers more than one component to be a firearm in and of itself, i.e. one complete gun is comprised of two or more parts that are legally "firearms" independently.

    I was surprised they did as little with the new reg as it appears. It wasn't for lack of intent, but they discovered there are limits to how much further they can go without statutory changes.

    Unless I missed it, NO.

    The NPRM says they will designate one piece and grandfather in what is traditionally been the firearm on older guns.

    So, what already has a serial number will be the firearm. Moving forward ATF will decide what the firearm is for new guns once a manufacturer submits it to them for review.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Remember their current definitions just got tossed out in court a few times over the last few years. Not just over 80% but with finished AR lowers. The case where the judge realized that the AR lower does not contain all ?4? Parts of the mechanism. Atf quietly backed off to avoid precedent. Iirc, they confiscated, but dropped charges. One of the places was from SoCal iirc, the plastic ar lowers. And a couple others

    But I am thinking that even if I currently have a fully finished, BGC purchased, not from an 80% lower, they’re trying to make me get another bgc for the upper to finish it.

    We are all just a bunch of criminals to be punished. In the eyes of our rulers.

    I think the issue is that a firearm is defined under GCA1968. So ATF is going to be running up against the hard with their redefinition here.

    Also the requirements for serializing a home built firearm are also going to run in to GCA1968.

    Hopefully it smashes them full in the face. They are still going to run in to the millions of people who will need to mark a “ghost gun” now. And there aren’t a lot of FFLs setup to serialized them and ATF says you can’t serialize your own firearm it sounds like. Not grandfather in existing ones. So in the next basically 5 months a lot of shops that do engraving now will need to file for an FFL if they want to do it, or gunsmiths will need to get laser engravers and what not (if they want to do it).

    I don’t see it happening. Which means probably most people will be UNABLE to comply.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Or wait, am I reading it right that the serializing requirements on PMFs only apply to a PMF that is possessed/passes through an FFLs hands?

    Not to individuals who own one? And how would
    That impact an FFL-03?
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,172
    Outside the Gates
    Or wait, am I reading it right that the serializing requirements on PMFs only apply to a PMF that is possessed/passes through an FFLs hands?

    Not to individuals who own one? And how would
    That impact an FFL-03?

    I thought that was already required????
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    Unless I missed it, NO.

    The NPRM says they will designate one piece and grandfather in what is traditionally been the firearm on older guns.

    So, what already has a serial number will be the firearm. Moving forward ATF will decide what the firearm is for new guns once a manufacturer submits it to them for review.

    You may have missed this:
    https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/07/30/breaking-news-atf-is-classifying-50-cal-bolt-action-ar-uppers-as-firearm/

    The key sentence is at the end of the eighth paragraph:
    "ATF has determined that when two receivers are assembled together into a firearm, this redesigned firearm contains two firearm receivers." The "two" was underlined by ATF in its finding.

    The precedent has already been set,; ATF has already proven they can do this, now it's just a matter of whether they intend to expand the idea to more firearms as a result of intense political pressure from the White House.
     

    smdub

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 14, 2012
    4,642
    MoCo
    "ATF has determined that when two receivers are assembled together into a firearm, this redesigned firearm contains two firearm receivers." The "two" was underlined by ATF in its finding.

    This is what stopped people from putting an AR15 registered receiver into things like MG42 housings.
    https://www.brpguns.com/xmg-belt-fed-ar-15-m16-upper-receiver/
    These were deemed illegal by the ATF before because you can't combine two receivers. If they change their position then all sorts of combinations of sears and registered receivers will power a bunch of odd guns. Could prob get a HK sear or M11 to run a M134 minigun. :D
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,172
    Outside the Gates
    Awesome!

    This is what stopped people from putting an AR15 registered receiver into things like MG42 housings.
    https://www.brpguns.com/xmg-belt-fed-ar-15-m16-upper-receiver/
    These were deemed illegal by the ATF before because you can't combine two receivers. If they change their position then all sorts of combinations of sears and registered receivers will power a bunch of odd guns. Could prob get a HK sear or M11 to run a M134 minigun. :D

    Ursula K Le Guin's "Lathe Of Heaven" wins again!

    (Its a parable about the law of unintended consequences)
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    This is what stopped people from putting an AR15 registered receiver into things like MG42 housings.
    https://www.brpguns.com/xmg-belt-fed-ar-15-m16-upper-receiver/
    These were deemed illegal by the ATF before because you can't combine two receivers. If they change their position then all sorts of combinations of sears and registered receivers will power a bunch of odd guns. Could prob get a HK sear or M11 to run a M134 minigun. :D

    There are far more registered FN FNC sears than FNCs in the US, and if you look at the SCAR and FNC, the fire control group is almost identical. ATF squashed that combination with a quickness.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    You may have missed this:
    https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/07/30/breaking-news-atf-is-classifying-50-cal-bolt-action-ar-uppers-as-firearm/

    The key sentence is at the end of the eighth paragraph:
    "ATF has determined that when two receivers are assembled together into a firearm, this redesigned firearm contains two firearm receivers." The "two" was underlined by ATF in its finding.

    The precedent has already been set,; ATF has already proven they can do this, now it's just a matter of whether they intend to expand the idea to more firearms as a result of intense political pressure from the White House.
    I read it as they're grandfathering existing designs to their current designated receiver component, but anything designed in there future should expect to have two serialized receiver components if it's a split receiver design.

    I'm waiting for them to follow the European model where anything pressure bearing (bolt, barrel, receiver, trunion, slide, e.t.c) must be individually serialized.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    I read it as they're grandfathering existing designs to their current designated receiver component, but anything designed in there future should expect to have two serialized receiver components if it's a split receiver design.

    Quite possible. I wonder what courts might say about the inconsistent application of definitions?

    I'm waiting for them to follow the European model where anything pressure bearing (bolt, barrel, receiver, trunion, slide, e.t.c) must be individually serialized.

    That would require a change to Federal law; it couldn't be done through regulation alone.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Quite possible. I wonder what courts might say about the inconsistent application of definitions?



    That would require a change to Federal law; it couldn't be done through regulation alone.

    If Machin holds his present course, it just takes turning Romney or another weak-in-the-knees R senator.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I read it as they're grandfathering existing designs to their current designated receiver component, but anything designed in there future should expect to have two serialized receiver components if it's a split receiver design.

    I'm waiting for them to follow the European model where anything pressure bearing (bolt, barrel, receiver, trunion, slide, e.t.c) must be individually serialized.

    That wasn’t my reading. Mine was that the ATF will decide which one it is in split receiver designs. Existing guns are grandfathered in. New ones the ATF will decide when the manufacturer submits it to them.

    Keeping in mind about the only guns that aren’t split receiver under the law most semiautomatic pistols are split receiver designs. As are most modern semiautomatic rifles (excepting AKs).
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    If Machin holds his present course, it just takes turning Romney or another weak-in-the-knees R senator.

    I see the fact that the Administration had ATF spend significant time on drafting changes to the regs to mean that they don't think the law will be changing any time soon.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    If Machin holds his present course, it just takes turning Romney or another weak-in-the-knees R senator.

    And 10 other senators after that. It isn’t a budgetary item. So it would require over coming the filibuster, full stop.

    Now if courts rule the ATF can’t define a firearm this way because GCA1968 is fairly clear on what a firearm is...you might well get enough senators on board to prevent half the guns out there from losing ATF coverage if they are broken down in to parts because no part on its own would meet the definition of a firearm under the law.

    TBH the most dangerous part there could be if Manchin would go there to tweak the definition of a firearm to meet ATF’s proposed regulatory scheme...and 10 Republican senators wouldn’t. He might be willing to strike the filibuster then.

    Most gun laws you won’t even find all democrats on the same page. But if suddenly the ATF can’t require a huge minority of guns to have background checks from dealers and similar, you’d probably find several R’s not willing to weaken things that much.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,230
    Montgomery County
    TBH the most dangerous part there could be if Manchin would go there to tweak the definition of a firearm to meet ATF’s proposed regulatory scheme...and 10 Republican senators wouldn’t. He might be willing to strike the filibuster then.

    He's already said he won't weaken, let alone kill the filibuster. He's sure as hell not going to do as a senator from West-Freakin'-Virginia in the name of hobbling gun ownership in: West-Freakin'-Virginia.

    If there's a hill that Manchin is willing to see his Senate career die on, I don't think it's that one.
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    It’s still wrong…

    The biggest problem that many (not me) people agree on is: ATF not being able to enforce gun laws due to the number of parts required to be a firearm
    This simplest path forward is to change the definition of a firearm to include fewer parts.

    If ^^^^^ that “problem” gets solved by legislation, then all of this “put a serial number and do a background check on every part” goes out the window.

    They basically are giving us a preview of a really awful solution, so the less awful solution seems like a good deal.
     

    Lifesaver

    Member
    Feb 29, 2016
    1
    My read of the NPRM indicates that private citizens (not licensees) will still be able to manufacture a firearm for their own use:

    "At the same time, consistent with the intent of the GCA nothing in this rule would restrict persons not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms from making their own firearms at home without markings solely for personal use (not for sale or distribution) in accordance with Federal, State, and local law.
    Persons should consult the laws and officials in their own States and localities to determine the lawfulness of PMFs."

    Page 46.

    Licensees will be required to mark all unmarked receivers in their inventory X-days after the rule becomes final.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    My read of the NPRM indicates that private citizens (not licensees) will still be able to manufacture a firearm for their own use:

    Licensees will be required to mark all unmarked receivers in their inventory X-days after the rule becomes final.

    I think that's an accurate assessment. All it'll accomplish is to make people with homemade firearms much less likely to ever take them to a smith for repair.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,485
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom