ATF and pistol braces ?

[9x19]

No new rules have been published. So far it's just been a lot of 'net denizens carrying water for the ATF...

Reminds me a lot of the Safe Act speculation that slowed the silencer market without ever getting out of committee.

 

[HiBC]

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that when I buy an AR lower,if it was ever or if it was intended to be a rifle the cartridge would be engraved on the receiver (ie 5.56 mm)
If the new bare receiver says "Multi" for cartridge,it has no history of being rifle and is correct to be a pistol.

How,or why,would the ffl designate a marked/invoiced (from the manufacturer) "multi" receiver a "rifle" (Assuming its not a built lower with rifle configuration)

I get it that an M-4 configured complete lower is built as a rifle whether it has an upper or not.

 

[9x19]

Um, not entirely accurate... at least regarding federal law.

If the receiver was shipped by the manufacturer and sold without an upper assembly, it does not matter how it is marked, nor what furniture it wears, it is simply a receiver, since it is incapable of chambering or firing a cartridge, it cannot be classified as a firearm of any type.

If the receiver was shipped and sold with a rifle length upper attached, then it is transferred as and will always be a rifle. It cannot be made into a pistol.

If the receiver was shipped and sold with a pistol length upper attached, then it is transferred as a pistol, but it can be made into a rifle and returned to a pistol configuration at any time.

 

[44 AMP]

it is simply a receiver, since it is incapable of chambering or firing a cartridge, it cannot be classified as a firearm of any type.

Any SPECIFIC type. It is classified as a firearm.

And, while I'm not certain, I think you've got it turned around a bit. (those with direct knowledge, please do correct me if I'm wrong)

I THINK, that the receiver is classified by the maker (and registered as such with the govt) before it goes out the door. Rifle, pistol or "other".

I believe you are correct, you can turn a pistol into a rifle and back, you cannot turn a rifle into a pistol unless you go the NFA route (because in the govt view, once a rifle, always a rifle and shortening it doesn't turn it into a pistol it turns it into a short barrel rifle (SBR) which, like "sawed off" shotguns is an NFA Item. And, I believe a receiver classed as "other" allows you to go either way and back, but I'm not certain about that. Not my area of expertise, sorry.

 

[zeke]

Common sense might seem to indicate they are rethinking it. However the gooberment seems to be working more like an extension of political party. Someone may push it through, even if knowing full well a court will reject it. Then they can claim being tough on guns, while blaming certain judges for overturning it. It's a win-win for them either way.

 

[ballardw]

Common sense might seem to indicate they are rethinking it. However the gooberment seems to be working more like an extension of political party. Someone may push it through, even if knowing full well a court will reject it. Then they can claim being tough on guns, while blaming certain judges for overturning it. It's a win-win for them either way.

"Common sense" and BATF seldom belong in the same topic.

 

[stinkeypete]

I'm a liberal, so what do I know. However:
* The Supreme Court overturned President Trump's Administrative Action to make bump stocks an NFA item, ruling that the law must be passed by Congress, not by Presidential Action.

* The origin of the word "loophole" is first found in the written English language in the 17th century to mean an ambiguity in a set of rules to circumvent them, based on slits in a castle from which archers could shoot, but also escape from the castle.

* 9x19 is only partially correct. One can order a bare AR receiver as either a rifle receiver or a pistol receiver, the receiver need not be built into a lower at all. In order to be classified as "other", the receiver would need to be built into a product built by a manufacturer as a specialty product.

I'm a liberal, but I've built a couple sub-moa target ARs and those of us that owned T/C Contenders are well aware of the hazards of putting parts together that can land one a felony charge.

I read that the FBI recently arrested a fellow on a warrant and found a "muffler" (Nudge-Nudge, wink-wing, 'it's-not-a-supressor-it's-a-muffler") in his shooting gear and added the charge of having an unregistered suppressor. One lesson might be to not be a felon, but I also take away from it "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, assume it's a duck."

 

[9x19]

Some places, such as PSA, will categorize a complete lower receiver according to the furniture they include, but when those receivers get to the FFL, they should all be transferred as "Other - Receiver" on the 4473.

I'm not aware of any seller who makes such a distinction for a stripped lower receiver. Can you cite a source for that? I'd be curious to have a look.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

* 9x19 is only partially correct. One can order a bare AR receiver as either a rifle receiver or a pistol receiver, the receiver need not be built into a lower at all. In order to be classified as "other", the receiver would need to be built into a product built by a manufacturer as a specialty product.

I don't think this is at all correct with respect to the applicable laws and regulations.

 

[stinkeypete]

When I ordered two stripped AR receivers from a high end supplier, I was asked if I wanted them registered as rifle or handgun receivers. Although I was building varmint rifles, I ordered them as pistol receivers because it cost no extra but offered an option.

Exactly the same when you ordered a T/C Carbine. If you got the carbine, it was registered as a rifle and technically you could not make a pistol out of it, but the pistol you could make a carbine out of. OR, you could order a receiver in either configuration but no one bought the rifle receiver in the US, but in other countries it was easier to register the other way.

I mean, this is stuff I have bought.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What you were asked is a function of what your FFL knows. According to my FFL, a lower (or any) receiver that has never been assembled as a pistol or as a rifle is neither, and is transferred as an "other."

Link to the new 4473: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4...n-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

In the instruction and definitions part, it states the following [emphasis added]:

Question 24. Category of Firearm(s): “Other” refers to frames, receivers, and other firearms that are neither handguns nor long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms, including silencers. If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver, not a handgun or long gun. All frames and receivers are “firearms” by definition, and subject to the same GCA limitations. See 18 U.S.C § 921(a)(3)(B). 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell any firearm other than a shotgun or rifle to any person under the age of 21. Since a frame or receiver for a firearm, to include one that can only be made into a long gun, is a “firearm other than a shotgun or rifle,” it cannot be transferred to anyone under the age of 21, nor can these firearms be transferred to anyone who is not a resident of the State where the transfer is to take place. Also, note that multiple sales forms are not required for frames or receivers of any firearms, or pistol grip shotguns, since they are not “pistols or revolvers” under 18 U.S.C.§ 923(g)(3)(A).

 

[stinkeypete]

Thank you for the clarification, AB! Somewhere along the way, I got old!

When I was talking to the manufacturer, the guy I was ordering from told me that the company needed to keep track of the number of completed long guns and pistols they produced for tax purposes. I had asked about why the price of a completed upper and completed lower was less than the price of 'assembled' rifle (one pin). He explained that there was a tax on completed rifles and that technically, if I made a rifle and sold it, there could be tax due unless I resold my stuff as 'parts'. This is about 20 years ago.

Things have changed and the new form 4473 makes things clear on how it's done now! Thank you for posting, it's irrefutable.

Now, I've had my coffee and the dog and I are going out to enjoy the last day of pheasant season, not strolling the fields with an 'other'!

 

[RickB]

ATF/Biden admin are being slapped around in the courts, right now.
Mag limits, assault weapon bans, concealed carry, bump stocks are all going Constitutional.
The arguments of overreach that applied to bump stocks, also apply to braces; ATF does not have the authority to declare a piece of plastic a machine gun.
ATF also wants to declare barreled uppers firearms (as is almost universally the way it's done in Europe), but, of course, it's hard to declare something a firearm, which needs to have a firearm attached to it to fire a shot.
The law defines firearms, and ATF can't, on a whim, change those definitions.

 

[Armybrat]

Yeah, the 5th Circuit has essentially said the changes have to be made by congressional legislation, not government agencies. “Separation of powers”.
And that should also apply to the brace question too, unless Roberts off the rails again.

The SCOTUS will most likely uphold the Fifth, IMO.

 

[dogtown tom]

HiBC My understanding (which could be wrong) is that when I buy an AR lower,if it was ever or if it was intended to be a rifle the cartridge would be engraved on the receiver (ie 5.56 mm)
If the new bare receiver says "Multi" for cartridge,it has no history of being rifle and is correct to be a pistol.

Markings on a firearm do not define the firearm. You can engrave "machine gun" on the receiver doesn't make it a machine gun.

Whoever told you that engraving the cartridge designation on the receiver makes the receiver a rifle should never be consulted again regarding firearms.

How,or why,would the ffl designate a marked/invoiced (from the manufacturer) "multi" receiver a "rifle" (Assuming its not a built lower with rifle configuration)

Manufacturers send ATF a list of what they manufacture. If they manufactured ten pistols, twenty rifles and a hundred receivers they could have identical receiver markings.

I get it that an M-4 configured complete lower is built as a rifle whether it has an upper or not.

What you get is incorrect.
A complete AR lower receiver with a shoulder stock is not a rifle, not a handgun, its just a firearm. It cannot be a rifle until it meets the definition of "rifle" in federal law.

 

[TunnelRat]

Machine guns are defined, making it relatively easy to argue that a bump stock does not meet the definition of a machine gun and that the ATF can’t change an existing definition. Are stocks clearly defined in such a way that shows a brace does not meet the definition of a stock and that the inclusion of them does not create a SBR? If the only legal standing for a brace is that it was approved in the past by an ATF decision, not Congressional legislation, then it seems to me like the ATF reversing that definition has more legal standing than the ATF trying to argue bump stocks are machine guns. I do know that common usage factors into this.

 

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP
I THINK, that the receiver is classified by the maker (and registered as such with the govt) before it goes out the door. Rifle, pistol or "other".

Manufacturers report what they have made to ATF, that doesn't mean what they report is accurate.

Colt makes an AR they call the "OEM" https://www.colt.com/detail-page/colt-le6920-oem1-556-161-lpgb-blk

Colt calls this a carbine (rifle) ....it clearly does not meet the definition of "rifle" in federal law because it has no shoulder stock. Any dealer receiveing this model would accurately record it in his bound book as an "Other" and when transferring to a buyer record it as a receiver on the Form 4473.

I believe you are correct, you can turn a pistol into a rifle and back, you cannot turn a rifle into a pistol unless you go the NFA route (because in the govt view, once a rifle, always a rifle and shortening it doesn't turn it into a pistol it turns it into a short barrel rifle (SBR) which, like "sawed off" shotguns is an NFA Item.

You cannot turn a rifle into a pistol ever, not even via the NFA.
If you have:
An AR pistol, you can go pistol>rifle>pistol.
An AR rifle will always be a rifle unless made into a Short Barreled Rifle via a Form 1.

Both of those can be configured as:

If this firearm started as a rifle, it may look like an AR pistol.....but its not, its an SBR because its a firearm made from a rifle.

And, I believe a receiver classed as "other" allows you to go either way and back, but I'm not certain about that.

Well, ALL receivers and frames are "other firearms" because they do not meet the definition of rifle or handgun.
While you can certainly go either way in assembling either a handgun or a long gun from a receiver, only firearms first assembled as a handgun can be subsequently reassembled as a rifle, then back to pistol.

If the receiver is first assembled as a rifle it can never be reassembled as a pistol.

First a rifle, always a rifle.

 

[dogtown tom]

stinkeypete I'm a liberal, so what do I know. However:
* The Supreme Court overturned President Trump's Administrative Action to make bump stocks an NFA item, ruling that the law must be passed by Congress, not by Presidential Action.

No, they didn't. The USSC has denied cert on challenges to the bump stock ban.

The decision this week on bump stocks was not by the USSC, but the 5th Circuit.

* 9x19 is only partially correct. One can order a bare AR receiver as either a rifle receiver or a pistol receiver, the receiver need not be built into a lower at all. In order to be classified as "other", the receiver would need to be built into a product built by a manufacturer as a specialty product.

Absolutely 100% malarkey.
There is no such thing as a "pistol receiver" or "rifle receiver" even if those words are engraved on that receiver. It's just receiver. Period.

stinkeypete When I ordered two stripped AR receivers from a high end supplier, I was asked if I wanted them registered as rifle or handgun receivers. Although I was building varmint rifles, I ordered them as pistol receivers because it cost no extra but offered an option.

Federal law does not require that, but a particular state may. That does not change how federal law or ATF regs view frames or receivers.

Exactly the same when you ordered a T/C Carbine. If you got the carbine, it was registered as a rifle and technically you could not make a pistol out of it, but the pistol you could make a carbine out of. OR, you could order a receiver in either configuration but no one bought the rifle receiver in the US, but in other countries it was easier to register the other way.

The ability to go pistol>rifle>pistol is due to US v Thompson Center Arms.
See ATF Ruling 2011-4 Pistols Configured from Rifles; Rifles Configured from Pistols

 

[dogtown tom]

9x19 Some places, such as PSA, will categorize a complete lower receiver according to the furniture they include, but when those receivers get to the FFL, they should all be transferred as "Other - Receiver" on the 4473.

I've transferred thousands of PSA lowers and never have they been categorized as anything different than what they are.
Lowers, whether stripped or complete are just lowers.

Now, if a licensee ships a firearm in "knockdown condition" or disassembled into its components......that's the same as shipping the complete assembled firearm and FAET is due. ATF Ruling 93-2

 

[stinkeypete]

Let me apologize again to those who have not been reading the whole thread!
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4...n-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download
was posted by Aguila Blanca, which is an updated form compared to when I personally purchased lower receivers. Because when I build an AR, I get the parts and put then all together. THINGS HAVE CHANGED in the past 20 years.

Citing official documents is the best way to win an argument, and AB did this. The sincerest form of flattery is imitation, so:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf