Before they tackle 80% lowers they need to shore-up the problem they have with 100% lowers.
Before they tackle 80% lowers they need to shore-up the problem they have with 100% lowers.
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.
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.
May we be blessed with political gridlock, petty bickering, and partisan infighting for years to come.
Amen
I wouldn’t put it past them to outlaw personal manufacturing.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.
May we be blessed with political gridlock, petty bickering, and partisan infighting for years to come.
Amen
I wouldn’t put it past them to outlaw personal manufacturing.
I wouldn’t put it past them to outlaw personal manufacturing.
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/