ATF proposed rule to change Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

[Xringshooter]

This ^^^ has always been the regulation.

(About putting a s/n on a homemade firearm)

I need to completely retract this statement by me. I did a lot of research over the weekend and I could NOT find anything to affirm this (putting a s/n on a homemeade firearm before selling). I fell into the trap that many do, I listened to many long time gun people in the business and accepted it as fact without doing my due diligence. I am sorry if I led anyone down the wrong path.

I read many reports from people who have discussed this with the BATFE that it was recommended by the BATFE that a person who makes a firearm for personal use that they put a mfg and/or s/n on it if they decide to sell it to help an investigation if it is found at a crime scene, but those statements were just that, statements from BATFE officials aned were not backed up with citations.

There is NO law or regulation that says a person who builds a firearm for personal use and later decides to sell it that they have to put any markings on it. It is just SUGGESTED by the BATFE to do it.

So I do, with hung head, humbly eat my incorrect words and unless/until the BATFE actually changes the law/regulation I will so advise those who ask, tell them they do not have to do anything if/when they want to sell their unmarked, personally made firearms.

Also, there is nothing that says that a person cannot sell a personally made firearm. There is a regulation that says if a person INTENDS to manufacture and sell/give away/transfer a firearm, they must have a manufacturing class FFL.

[knight0334]

(About putting a s/n on a homemade firearm)

I need to completely retract this statement by me. I did a lot of research over the weekend and I could NOT find anything to affirm this (putting a s/n on a homemeade firearm before selling). I fell into the trap that many do, I listened to many long time gun people in the business and accepted it as fact without doing my due diligence. I am sorry if I led anyone down the wrong path.

I read many reports from people who have discussed this with the BATFE that it was recommended by the BATFE that a person who makes a firearm for personal use that they put a mfg and/or s/n on it if they decide to sell it to help an investigation if it is found at a crime scene, but those statements were just that, statements from BATFE officials aned were not backed up with citations.

There is NO law or regulation that says a person who builds a firearm for personal use and later decides to sell it that they have to put any markings on it. It is just SUGGESTED by the BATFE to do it.

So I do, with hung head, humbly eat my incorrect words and unless/until the BATFE actually changes the law/regulation I will so advise those who ask, tell them they do not have to do anything if/when they want to sell their unmarked, personally made firearms.

Also, there is nothing that says that a person cannot sell a personally made firearm. There is a regulation that says if a person INTENDS to manufacture and sell/give away/transfer a firearm, they must have a manufacturing class FFL.

This post is 100% correct.

Argument in concurrence: If putting a SN on a personally manufactured gun was ever required in order to transfer, then any gun made before 1968 that didn't have a SN would be required as well - which it isn't.

The SN thing was for licensed manufacturers(and any manufacturer of an NFA device). The GCA typically requires mens rea(guilty mind or intent). If you manufacture a gun with INTENT to sell, then you need a license - which in turn then requires placing a SN on the gun. If you manufacture a gun with intent for PERSONAL USE, then decide to sell later - no SN needed. .......FOR NOW.

[jthrelf]

(About putting a s/n on a homemade firearm)

I need to completely retract this statement by me. I did a lot of research over the weekend and I could NOT find anything to affirm this (putting a s/n on a homemeade firearm before selling). I fell into the trap that many do, I listened to many long time gun people in the business and accepted it as fact without doing my due diligence. I am sorry if I led anyone down the wrong path.

I read many reports from people who have discussed this with the BATFE that it was recommended by the BATFE that a person who makes a firearm for personal use that they put a mfg and/or s/n on it if they decide to sell it to help an investigation if it is found at a crime scene, but those statements were just that, statements from BATFE officials aned were not backed up with citations.

There is NO law or regulation that says a person who builds a firearm for personal use and later decides to sell it that they have to put any markings on it. It is just SUGGESTED by the BATFE to do it.

So I do, with hung head, humbly eat my incorrect words and unless/until the BATFE actually changes the law/regulation I will so advise those who ask, tell them they do not have to do anything if/when they want to sell their unmarked, personally made firearms.

Also, there is nothing that says that a person cannot sell a personally made firearm. There is a regulation that says if a person INTENDS to manufacture and sell/give away/transfer a firearm, they must have a manufacturing class FFL.

Good to know and thank you for humbly getting us this info.

[franklin_m]

I like to think so, but when we have some willing to burn up the filibuster to pass this stuff, I try not be overly optimistic. I see some folks that made comments about pre-68 shotguns etc. would now require SN's to transfer, something to add to the comments. How many millions of those are there? I also think another way to fight this is to flood ATF with determination questions. Think of them receiving thousands of requests to evaluate a device that uses explosives to expel an object (i.e. potato gun), and being required to write formal response to each. I'm sure smart folks here can come up with other things to submit for a formal ruling, more paper to flood a government agency - and we know government agencies are notoriously bad at paperwork. Every failed response, untimely response, lack of response, engage your Congressman / Senator to engage. Anyway, I'm thinking out loud.

I still think the best way is tens of millions of cogent, specific comments, w/ solid and pragmatic workable changes. That's what drives them to have to address as many as possible .. creating an even bigger stack of paper.

[ExFlyinguy]

Damn, I just can not get through the ATF legalise without my eyes glassing over- Does anyone really understand what they are doing here?

I NEED HELP (lol) seriously, can anyone write this in "ATF Rules proposal for Dummies"?

What are we objecting to?

*Personally I don't give 2 shits if the ATF wants FFL's to add serial numbers to homemade firearms that come into their possession.

-Define/re-define the definition of a receiver? What I don't want to see is the AR Upper assembly defined to be the serialized part. Does anyone else? It does me no good to be able to mail order a completed lower, only to have to do a 4473 for every friggin upper that I might want to add to a single lower.

Are they trippin mostly about 80% glock kits that come complete with the 80% lower and a slide, barrel, trigger kit and recoil spring? Because I really don't care if they have to ship separately.

[buckengr]

Damn, I just can not get through the ATF legalise without my eyes glassing over- Does anyone really understand what they are doing here?

I NEED HELP (lol) seriously, can anyone write this in "ATF Rules proposal for Dummies"?

What are we objecting to?

*Personally I don't give 2 shits if the ATF wants FFL's to add serial numbers to homemade firearms that come into their possession.

The part related to adding serial numbers only applies to FFLs. Regular people who make their own firearms for personal use (now so-called "PMFs") still won't have to add a serial number.

-Define/re-define the definition of a receiver? What I don't want to see is the AR Upper assembly defined to be the serialized part. Does anyone else? It does me no good to be able to mail order a completed lower, only to have to do a 4473 for every friggin upper that I might want to add to a single lower.

It doesn't concisely state that an AR upper assembly is now a serialized part, but the implication is in there if you read the whole document.

They admit that up to 90% of firearms don't have a firearm receiver or frame according to the current definition of a firearm frame or receiver in the text of the current (unconstitutional) law that Congress actually passed, and thus... cAn'T bE ReGuLaTeD! Oh Noes!!!! The horror! /sarc

So in order to be able to tread on everyone's rights with a new air of "legitimacy", the ATF (an unconstitutional element of the Executive Branch) is attempting to, in essence, create new law to redefine a firearm frame or receiver in a way that explicitly contradicts the (also unconstitutional) statute passed by Congress, by their own admission.

"Next, the new definition more broadly describes a *frame or receiver* as one that
provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate any fire control component.
Unlike the prior definitions of *frame or receiver* that were rigidly tied to three specific
fire control components (i.e., those necessary for the firearm to initiate or complete the
firing sequence), the new regulatory definition is intended to be general enough to
encompass changes in technology and parts terminology. With respect to
the fire control components housed by the frame or receiver, the definition would include, at a minimum,
any housing or holding structure for a hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder,
trigger mechanism, firing pin, striker, or slide rails. However, the definition is not
limited to those particular fire control components."

This definition almost certainly includes uppers, lowers, bolt carrier group, (possibly buffer tubes?), trigger packs, handgun slides, (and more). All will be treated the same as complete firearms requiring FFL transfers, background checks, serialization, etc.

Are they trippin mostly about 80% glock kits that come complete with the 80% lower and a slide, barrel, trigger kit and recoil spring? Because I really don't care if they have to ship separately.

This is not just about how parts are packaged together for sale or shipment. They are redefining (by adding new ambiguity and subjectivity) what makes a kit "readily convert[ible] to expel a projectile". Some prior discussion has suggested this may mean anything requiring less than 8 hours of work by an expert gun manufacturer in a fully-equipped machine shop.

Homemade firearms won't be illegal, but you'll damn near have to mine the ore and coal and smelt the steel yourself since N-percent firearms will be a thing of the past. Even if they did come up with a new value for "N", now you'll have to make N-percent of every part that's considered a "receiver" (uppers, lowers, bolt carrier group, (possibly buffer tubes?), trigger packs, and handgun slides, etc.)

"Finally, the definition would make clear to persons who may acquire or possess a
part now defined as a *frame or receiver* that is identified with a serial number that they
must presume, absent an official determination by ATF or other reliable evidence to the
contrary, that the part is a firearm *frame or receiver* without further guidance."

This would destroy a huge segment of the gun industry by killing off much of the home-assembly market and will slow some of the new gun-owner adoption. Many of the recent new gun owners I know started by building their first AR since they could do it one piece at a time as a project. This just increases the cost and complexity needed for someone to start exercising a fundamental human right.


Also note, the new record-keeping requirements for FFLs will mean that they will be required to keep all Form 4473s FOREVER, (until they go out of business), rather than the 20 years that they must keep them today, after which they can (and should) be destroyed. This is not good.

J. Record Retention
"This rule also proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.129 to remove language stating that
FFL dealers and collectors need only keep A&D Records and ATF Forms 4473 for up to
20 years following the date of sale or disposition of the firearm. The proposed changes
would require Federal firearms licensees to retain all records until business or licensed
activity is discontinued, either on paper or in an electronic format approved by the
Director,75 at the business or collection premises readily accessible for inspection. There
would also be an amendment to 27 CFR 478.50(a) to allow all licensees, including
manufacturers and importers, to store paper records and forms with no open disposition
entries and with no dispositions recorded within 20 years at a separate warehouse, which
would be considered part of the business premises for this purpose and subject to
inspection.

In view of advancements in electronic scanning and storage technology, and
ATF*s acceptance of electronic recordkeeping, these amendments would reverse a 1985
rulemaking allowing non-manufacturer/importer Federal firearms licensees to destroy
their records after 20 years. The durability and longevity of firearms means that they
are often in circulation for more than 20 years, while the cost of storing firearm
transaction records has decreased dramatically through electronic recordkeeping. The
proposed amendments would enhance public safety by ensuring that records of active
licensees will be available for tracing purposes."

Hey dumbasses, you aren't supposed to have a permanent record of who owns what constitutionally-protected private property!

Keep in mind when writing comments, please be careful not to "solve their problems" for them by pointing out how the proposed rules could be made more consistent. Voice your firm opposition in a professional way and explain how it will negatively impact you, your family, your business, etc. and violate your human rights.


ALL gun control is an infringment.

[buckengr]

Great interview with Matt Larosiere of Firearms Policy Coalition on the subject.

He believes the GCA is clear in regulating a singular part that is the frame or receiver and the regulation of so-called "multi-part receivers" amounts to (unconstitutionally) creating new law.

He brings up 1st Amendment violations since the muddy definition of "partially finished firearm frames or receivers" (and the requirement to treat virtually anything as a firearm frame or receiver unless ATF determines otherwise) unconstitutionally restrains free speech since some people use things that could potentially be used to create a firearm (i.e. "readily convertible") to create art or other things that are not firearms. Since the definition is unclear, this puts artists and other people who wish to exercise their rights in legal jeopardy.

So be sure to write the ATF about how this interferes with your 1st Amendment right to free speech by imposing prior restraint on your freedom to create firearms/conflict/anti-gun-inspired art (and, of course, hurts your business where you sell that art to feed your family). Or maybe tell them how it violates your right to freely practice your religion by decorating your Christmas tree with Polymer80 ornaments, etc.

[JenniferG]

Great interview with Matt Larosiere of Firearms Policy Coalition on the subject.

He believes the GCA is clear in regulating a singular part that is the frame or receiver and the regulation of so-called "multi-part receivers" amounts to (unconstitutionally) creating new law.

He brings up 1st Amendment violations since the muddy definition of "partially finished firearm frames or receivers" (and the requirement to treat virtually anything as a firearm frame or receiver unless ATF determines otherwise) unconstitutionally restrains free speech since some people use things that could potentially be used to create a firearm (i.e. "readily convertible") to create art or other things that are not firearms. Since the definition is unclear, this puts artists and other people who wish to exercise their rights in legal jeopardy.

So be sure to write the ATF about how this interferes with your 1st Amendment right to free speech by imposing prior restraint on your freedom to create firearms/conflict/anti-gun-inspired art (and, of course, hurts your business where you sell that art to feed your family). Or maybe tell them how it violates your right to freely practice your religion by decorating your Christmas tree with Polymer80 ornaments, etc.

Since when does the Federal Government need to follow the guidelines of a dated slave owner written document.

[ImminentDanger]

Numbers undercut Biden administration claims on ghost guns
By Jeff Mordock - The Washington Times - Tuesday, May 11, 2021
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-claims-ghost/

Cracking down on so-called ghost guns is part of the Biden administration*s prescription for solving gun violence, but crime stats from major cities and the Justice Department suggest the do-it-yourself weapons aren*t really the problem.

Ghost guns, which are made at home from a kit and don*t include serial numbers, are the target of a new Justice Department rule that would require the kits to include a traceable serial number.

Democrats, pointing to cities that have reported spikes in the use of ghost guns, have praised the idea, though DIY firearms remain a small percentage of all guns seized by police.

In Chicago, for example, only 139 out of the 11,258 firearms seized last year * roughly 1.2% * were ghost guns. That number, however, represents a 93% increase from the 72 ghost guns seized in 2019.

Philadelphia police in 2019 seized 95 ghost guns, accounting for 2.2% of the 4,264 guns they confiscated. In 2018, Philadelphia police confiscated 13 ghost guns.

Nationwide statistics on the use of ghost guns are hard to come by because the weapons are intentionally difficult to track.

A 2019 Justice Department study found that 43% of criminals purchased their weapons on the black market, but none made their weapons at home.

That hasn*t kept Democrats from pushing for more ghost gun control.

At a Capitol Hill hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, called ghost guns "the fastest-growing gun violence menace in the nation."

He focused on the overall increases in the use of ghost guns in major cities, rather than the percentage they account for in overall gun seizures.

"The number of ghost guns is surging," he said. "The number seized, the number used in crimes, the number manufactured are all skyrocketing and at this rate, they will make a mockery of background checks and other common-sense regulations."

Proponents of increased regulation on homemade guns argue that taking action now is worthwhile, even if doing so reduces only a sliver of gun crime.

The Justice Department reported that more than 23,000 weapons without serial numbers were seized by law enforcement between 2016 and 2020 and were linked to 325 homicides or attempted homicides.

It*s not clear how many of those weapons didn*t have serial numbers because they were ghost guns. The serial number also can be scraped off of most firearms with a metal file, though it is illegal to do so.

Republicans contend Democrats are overstating the ghost-gun problem for political gain.

"This is a made-up problem and yet here we are having a congressional hearing pretending that so-called ghost guns are a major issue. They aren*t and I look forward to the next hearing of this subcommittee on Civil War replica cannons," Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, said at the hearing.

Democrats say citing the percentages of ghost guns used in crimes is not an accurate gauge of the scope of the problem because of the difficulty tracking the weapons. Instead, they argue that Republicans should focus on the increasing number of seized ghost guns.

Mr. Cruz said if Democrats wanted to focus on gun crimes, they should focus on the surging violence in U.S. cities this year.

Shooting incidents in Chicago, for example, increased in 2020 by over 50% and homicides jumped by 55% compared to 2019 rates. In New York, homicide rates jumped 34% in 2020 compared to 2019.

"If Democrats want to stop gun violence, let*s have a hearing on how the move to defund the police is causing more homicides," he said. "Let*s have a hearing on how gun-control proposals are making people vulnerable to violent crime and how they failed the big cities."

This is another attempt to create criminals out of those who want to be law-abiding! No criminals were found to be making their guns at home --- So it is important to make some new criminals out of those who are making their personal guns at home!

...

[scoutjoe]

Anybody else becoming frustrated with inputting different combinations into regulations.gov ?

https://www.regulations.gov/search?a...0frames%202021 just brings back info on bumpstocks.

2021R-05 doesn't bring back much either. OR maybe I'm just computer dumb.