ATF already working with Biden...

bibitor · Nov 12, 2020

Before they tackle 80% lowers they need to shore-up the problem they have with 100% lowers.

whistlersmother · Nov 12, 2020

bibitor said:
Before they tackle 80% lowers they need to shore-up the problem they have with 100% lowers.

Yep - I think a lot of modern firearms don't meet the definition, including glock and glock style frames, AR lowers, and similarly split receivers.

bibitor · Nov 12, 2020

May we be blessed with political gridlock, petty bickering, and partisan infighting for years to come.

Amen

rbird7282 · Nov 12, 2020

If they are going to start going after this stuff, realize that this will end up in court immediately and will be there for years. Most likely nothing will be banned for several years. Not saying I like it, just offering an opinion. The ATF will have a long uphill battle to get this done and have it stick

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rab1515 · Nov 12, 2020

Unfortunately, wouldn't changing the code federal regulations be a simple administrative matter not needing congressional approval?

jc1240 · Nov 12, 2020

Allen65 said:
What does "Going after 80%s" really mean, though? There needs to be some regulatory definition of what is a firearm, and what isn't or any metal object becomes a potential firearm.

If going after 80%s means prosecuting those convicted of violent crimes from manufacturing firearms, I'm okay with that. But there's just no statutory basis for ATF to stop private manufacture of firearms for personal use by non-prohibited persons.

Maybe "going after 80%s" means lowering the threshold for what constitutes a firearm vs non-firearm. That might add an minutes to hours to completion time, but it still doesn't change the law to make personal manufacturing illegal.

Or it could mean changing the regulatory definition for MSRs such that the upper, which is harder to manufacture at home, is the serialized "firearm". In the UK, rifled barrels are the regulated part because they're hard to manufacture without specialized equipment and knowledge. But barrels are a wear item, something that's expected to be replaced during the functional life of a gun.

Lots of ambiguous rumors flying around, few actionable facts.

You are talking about politicians. Their goal is to stop the ownership of modern sport rifles (and maybe have a desire to stop ownership of all semi-auto rifles), but they get so excited about the end, they screw up their word soup in the law and leave open all kinds of confusion.

Kicken Wing · Nov 13, 2020

Allen65 said:
What does "Going after 80%s" really mean, though? There needs to be some regulatory definition of what is a firearm, and what isn't or any metal object becomes a potential firearm.

If going after 80%s means prosecuting those convicted of violent crimes from manufacturing firearms, I'm okay with that. But there's just no statutory basis for ATF to stop private manufacture of firearms for personal use by non-prohibited persons.

Maybe "going after 80%s" means lowering the threshold for what constitutes a firearm vs non-firearm. That might add minutes to hours to completion time, but it still doesn't change the law to make personal manufacturing illegal.

Or it could mean changing the regulatory definition for MSRs such that the upper, which is harder to manufacture at home, is the serialized "firearm". In the UK, rifled barrels are the regulated part because they're hard to manufacture without specialized equipment and knowledge. But barrels are a wear item, something that's expected to be replaced during the functional life of a gun.

Lots of ambiguous rumors flying around, few actionable facts.

I am not going to speculate. We dont know any facts yet. I am going to wait to see words on paper. I know what we went through this past MGA session when we testified against the 80 percent bill. The senate was clueless of what their own words meant on paper. It was up to us to decipher it for them and how it violated our rights and made criminals out of law abiding citizens. Fortunately it died. I will not be surprised to see it reappear. I have very little faith that D politicians can decipher their own bills on a federal level either. I will speculate that short barrels are going to be another boogeyman for D's somewhere along the line.

135sohc · Nov 13, 2020

bibitor said:
May we be blessed with political gridlock, petty bickering, and partisan infighting for years to come.

Amen

Here here

teratos · Nov 14, 2020

Allen65 said:
What does "Going after 80%s" really mean, though? There needs to be some regulatory definition of what is a firearm, and what isn't or any metal object becomes a potential firearm.

If going after 80%s means prosecuting those convicted of violent crimes from manufacturing firearms, I'm okay with that. But there's just no statutory basis for ATF to stop private manufacture of firearms for personal use by non-prohibited persons.

Maybe "going after 80%s" means lowering the threshold for what constitutes a firearm vs non-firearm. That might add minutes to hours to completion time, but it still doesn't change the law to make personal manufacturing illegal.

Or it could mean changing the regulatory definition for MSRs such that the upper, which is harder to manufacture at home, is the serialized "firearm". In the UK, rifled barrels are the regulated part because they're hard to manufacture without specialized equipment and knowledge. But barrels are a wear item, something that's expected to be replaced during the functional life of a gun.

Lots of ambiguous rumors flying around, few actionable facts.

I wouldn’t put it past them to outlaw personal manufacturing.

Doctor_M · Nov 14, 2020

bibitor said:
May we be blessed with political gridlock, petty bickering, and partisan infighting for years to come.

Amen

Hallelujah, Brother! Testify!

Doctor_M · Nov 14, 2020

teratos said:
I wouldn’t put it past them to outlaw personal manufacturing.

This is likely how it will manifest.

Allen65 · Nov 14, 2020

teratos said:
I wouldn’t put it past them to outlaw personal manufacturing.

The Dems might want to, but it would require a change to Federal law. It's not a regulatory issue that can be changed by bureaucratic fiat. If the Reps hold onto the Senate, I don't see that change happening. Any statutory changes would be at the state level, in states like MD where the Dems have legislative dominance.

pcfixer · Nov 17, 2020

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
No surprise here. Looks like someone is trying to make sure he has a job in the next administration.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2020/11/11/atf-head-working-with-biden/

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Date approved: July 25, 2011
Kenneth E. Melson
Acting Director

ATF already working with Biden...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

bibitor

Kulak

whistlersmother

Peace through strength

bibitor

Kulak

rbird7282

Ultimate Member

Rab1515

Ultimate Member

jc1240

Ultimate Member

Kicken Wing

Snakes and Sparklers

135sohc

Ultimate Member

teratos

My hair is amazing

Doctor_M

Certified Mad Scientist

Doctor_M

Certified Mad Scientist

Allen65

Ultimate Member

pcfixer

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page