You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The new rules have been announced
- Thread starter Aguila Blanca
- Start date
So, the reported problem is home "manufactured" firearms being ILLEGALLY sold on the street....
which already breaks several different Federal laws,
and the administration's response to cries of "do something" is to issue a huge "rule change" that expands the definition of a firearm "receiver" and requiring certain parts, which were always before just parts, now be serial #'d and become, in and of themselves, legal firearms for all record keeping, background check and ownership requirements.
I haven't heard a word about any changes or proposed changes to the regulations and laws governing home manufactured firearms, only a massive increase in what parts will now be covered by those laws.
I can't see where this can have any effect on the already illegal manufacture and sale of "ghost guns".
Aside from a massive expansion of authority, what I see from this is the typical, cynical, political response to "do something". Its something that does nothing about the "problem" being complained about, and I wonder if there will be any prosecutions of actual criminals, or if it will be another of the things that they "won't have time for..."
No doubt some poor honest folk will screw something up, get caught and nailed to the wall for doing so, hopefully along with at least a handful of people running a criminal enterprise, but based on past administration's performance, I rather doubt the real criminals will suffer much...
which already breaks several different Federal laws,
and the administration's response to cries of "do something" is to issue a huge "rule change" that expands the definition of a firearm "receiver" and requiring certain parts, which were always before just parts, now be serial #'d and become, in and of themselves, legal firearms for all record keeping, background check and ownership requirements.
I haven't heard a word about any changes or proposed changes to the regulations and laws governing home manufactured firearms, only a massive increase in what parts will now be covered by those laws.
I can't see where this can have any effect on the already illegal manufacture and sale of "ghost guns".
Aside from a massive expansion of authority, what I see from this is the typical, cynical, political response to "do something". Its something that does nothing about the "problem" being complained about, and I wonder if there will be any prosecutions of actual criminals, or if it will be another of the things that they "won't have time for..."
No doubt some poor honest folk will screw something up, get caught and nailed to the wall for doing so, hopefully along with at least a handful of people running a criminal enterprise, but based on past administration's performance, I rather doubt the real criminals will suffer much...
Doc Intrepid
New member
Aguila Blanca said:"This is not an executive order. This is administrative rule making by a federal agency, pursuant to their authority under federal law, and carried out in accordance with mandated procedures."
But is it truly? Is it not the purview of Congress to pass laws? Does BATF have the authority to so radically revise firearms laws absent any accountability to or on the part of Congress?
It would seem that some of the provisions discussed so far will burden manufacturers with additional costs and expenses, at least. (This may in fact be part of the intent.)
With respect to the "split receiver language", it does appear that for AR-type weapons with an upper and lower receiver, both upper and lower will require separate serial numbers and associated record-keeping systems. It would logically follow that there would be separate forms for any purchaser to purchase either or both.
If matters continue down the path being discussed, where the sheer challenges with procuring firearms or parts for maintenance and repair become additionally burdensome to the point they deter firearms acquisition, is this not a set of regulatory requirements specifically designed to deter firearms ownership? Which, as noted above, only pertain to those of us inclined to obey laws - rather than the criminals who will not concern themselves with such laws with regard to the firearms they'll use to commit crimes.
It seems as if a jealous Congress would want to get involved at some point with regulatory changes of this magnitude and impact on American society. At least I'd hope so.
But is it truly? Is it not the purview of Congress to pass laws? Does BATF have the authority to so radically revise firearms laws absent any accountability to or on the part of Congress?
It is the purview of Congress to pass laws.
The ATF is not changing any LAW.
The ATF is changing their regulations, NOT any law. It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but there is a significant difference in the words and what they mean, legally.
Regulations are created by each govt enforcement agency, specific to their area of responsibility under the authority granted the Executive branch.
This is our system, for better and for worse....Congress writes laws that may be quite specific in some areas and more general in others, but none of the laws contain the massive amount of detail needed to operate an enforcement system day to day, day in and day out.
that is intentionally left to each department of the Executive branch to carry out. Congress has the opportunity to review and approve or deny, but it seems that only in rare cases do they do anything but rubberstamp approval.
Some believe that is the purview of the courts, but of course the courts can only act on things that are already in place, not proposed.
And the courts seem to usually take the position that while ruling on the cases before them, and the law as it applies in those cases, it is not the function of the court to correct or even educate Congress or anyone else, if that does not apply to the case before them.
While the rule change about what is, and isn't going to be legally a firearm is a big deal to us, for most of the rest of the US its a matter they don't really understand, don't care about, and has no effect on their lives.
Numerically, the firearms enthusiasts who are most affected are a tiny minority of the voting population, and therefore, what we want is quite low on the priority list of neutral government actors and there are a great many who are far from neutral on the matter of private firearms ownership.
As far as I can see at the moment it seems to be just one more example of govt screwing with a minority group falsely claiming that it will reduce crime.
I can't say if we really get the government we deserve, but we absolutely do get the government we elect.
Expanding the authority of government agencies, no matter which route is taken always comes "from the top, down".
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yes, it is truly. The Congress DID pass a law. It passed a law authorizing the BATFE to adopt regulations.Doc Intrepid said:But is it truly? Is it not the purview of Congress to pass laws? Does BATF have the authority to so radically revise firearms laws absent any accountability to or on the part of Congress?Aguila Blanca said:"This is not an executive order. This is administrative rule making by a federal agency, pursuant to their authority under federal law, and carried out in accordance with mandated procedures."
Whether the BATFE has exceeded the authority granted to them by the Congress will be a question for courts to decide. That's the way our system works.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Congress routinely delegates rule-making authority to various agencies. BATFE is one such agency. This is nothing new or unexpected. Whether BATFE has overstepped its bounds will be a question for the courts to decide.But is it truly? Is it not the purview of Congress to pass laws? Does BATF have the authority to so radically revise firearms laws absent any accountability to or on the part of Congress?....
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Read the regulations. The new rules don't say "80 percent receivers shall henceforth be considered as firearms." I'm not going to open up the rule now and search for the exact language, but it basically says anything that can be easily made into a firearm IS a firearm. It has been argued that raw castings and raw forgings for receivers may have to be serialized under the new regs.LogicMan said:So if 80% lowers are declared firearms, why not just manufacture 75% lowers? Also could a Republican president after Biden undo these regulations by issuing a rule to their ATF to not consider uppers and 80% lowers as firearms?
One of the problems with those kind of regulations, and, worse, when laws actually do it is when they use language like "easily" or "readily converted..." and it has to be applied to a specific point.
What might be "easy" for someone with a machine tool and the experience to run it can be far from easy for dumbspit me, who has hardware store files.
Never had anything to do with them, but have heard the term a LOT but not with a good explanation of detail. Just what is an 80% receiver? One with 80% of the metal removed? 80% of the holes drilled? 80% of the total amount of work needed already done???
Who decides what THAT is???
And as has been asked, if 80% now legally = fully complete and ready to go, then 79% doesn't, what stops are there for future changes of mind???
Ultimately, the same logic could be carried to the extreme of having to serialize raw ore in the ground.
Background check needed before you can buy a pick and shovel????
Literally, where does the madness of redefining the physical world to suit one's ends stop???
What might be "easy" for someone with a machine tool and the experience to run it can be far from easy for dumbspit me, who has hardware store files.
Never had anything to do with them, but have heard the term a LOT but not with a good explanation of detail. Just what is an 80% receiver? One with 80% of the metal removed? 80% of the holes drilled? 80% of the total amount of work needed already done???
Who decides what THAT is???
And as has been asked, if 80% now legally = fully complete and ready to go, then 79% doesn't, what stops are there for future changes of mind???
Ultimately, the same logic could be carried to the extreme of having to serialize raw ore in the ground.
Background check needed before you can buy a pick and shovel????
Literally, where does the madness of redefining the physical world to suit one's ends stop???
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The link provided in the opening post of this discussion answers all these questions. It's a very long document, but by skipping over parts that pertain to gunsmiths, FFLs, marking requirements, etc. and only reading the parts that address frames, receivers, and partially completed firearms, you can start to get a handle on what the new rules cover.44 AMP said:Never had anything to do with them, but have heard the term a LOT but not with a good explanation of detail. Just what is an 80% receiver? One with 80% of the metal removed? 80% of the holes drilled? 80% of the total amount of work needed already done???
Who decides what THAT is???
And as has been asked, if 80% now legally = fully complete and ready to go, then 79% doesn't, what stops are there for future changes of mind???
Basically, who decides when a chunk of metal (or a blob of polymer) becomes a firearm is the BATFE -- which is not a change. It has always been the BATFE. I once met a guy who sold 80% AR-15 lower receivers. He told me that the BATFE initially approved one model as being 80%-compliant, then they reversed their approval and he had to change his castings and jigs so that the end user had to perform different steps to complete the receiver. The revised design was then approved as an 80% receiver.
As far as I know, there was never a written rule or law that specifically mention "80 percent." That was just the line that the BATFE arbitrarily drew for determining when a chunk of metal became a frame or a receiver. It was clearly a subjective determination. But they will now include such factors as the availability of jigs and tools as part of their determination of how "easily" and "readily" a partially-completed frame or receiver can be completed.
It's really pointless to try to discuss this if you haven't read through the document. It answers most, if not all, the questions we have, but because it's not a single regulation but a bunch of amendments to various sections of federal regulations, there's no single section or paragraph I can quote that will answer the questions.
.Congress routinely delegates rule-making authority to various agencies. BATFE is one such agency. This is nothing new or unexpected. Whether BATFE has overstepped its bounds will be a question for the courts to decide.
Does the U.S. Constitution allow Congress to delegate its authority?
Does the U.S. Constitution allow Congress to delegate its authority?
I believe the answer is yes, though you won't find it in the Constitution in exactly those words.
Congress has the authority to create laws. Those laws can do, literally, anything. Once passed by Congress and signed by the President, they become the law of the land until such time as another law replaces them, or the Supreme court rules the law violates the Constitution, and is therefore, invalid.
What we are talking about in this thread is a regulation, NOT a law. A regulation from a department of the Executive branch, created by them, in order to enforce the laws passed by Congress.
Congress does not enforce the laws they create. That is a function of the Executive branch. Congress does, however, control the funding. SO they DO have a say in what the Executive branch does, but they don't have direct line item control, nor, should they.
Our govt was not created and set up by the Constitution with the idea that Congress would have the authority or the responsibility to micro manage every single thing the govt does. Even if some Congress members think they do, or ought to. There are good valid and sound reasons why we have different branches of govt, to do different things.
Considering some of the people who have been elected to Congress over the years, I think its generally a good thing that Congress is not micro-managing everything. There are people who disagree with that, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
emissary1911
New member
Ok if by definition, they make the upper and lower each have to have a serial #, then I would say when it comes into affect, Dont take your glocks apart to clean them, if you do you will create another gun, and you will be breaking the law!
Dont take your glocks apart to clean them, if you do you will create another gun, and you will be breaking the law!
No, you wouldn't be creating another firearm or breaking the law.
As I understand it, there is no retroactive change. Parts you already own, parts are in guns now remain just parts. Some parts that will need to be serial # due to the changes of the rules will be, from the effective date of the rule change, forward.
In other words, there will be an effect on the legal status of what you can buy in the future, but not on the parts in guns now, so taking the slide off your Glock does NOT create an additional firearm in the eyes of the law.
Buying another slide after the effective date of the change going into effect MIGHT be treated as purchase of a firearm, IF that is the ruling of the ATF, and, it this point its not clear just yet what, and which firearms and parts will be affected. Pretty sure the AR type guns will be. Semi auto pistols? I don't know, I haven't slogged through the 300+ page change yet.
For those who have, if I'm in error, please correct me.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The answer is in the document:kkb said:What I'm curious about is if I sell my 5 yo AR-15, in a state that requires FFL xfers to do so, will I have to get the various parts engraved to the new standard, or does grandfathering follow the rifle.
The final rule also exempts from the new definitions and marking requirements existing split frame or receiver designs in which a part was previously classified by ATF as the firearm “frame or receiver” and provides examples and pictures of select exempted frames or receivers, such as AR-15/M-16 variant firearms. The only exception to “grandfathering” will be for partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers, including weapon or frame or receiver parts kits, that ATF did not classify as firearm “frames or receivers”as defined prior to this rule.
The only exception to “grandfathering” will be for partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers, including weapon or frame or receiver parts kits, that ATF did not classify as firearm “frames or receivers”as defined prior to this rule.
So…if i have a few different uppers for my AR lower…..How does that play out?
I have about 6 lowers and 12-15 uppers (different lengths, optics, calibers).
Aguila Blanca
Staff
See post number 56.Sharkbite said:So…if i have a few different uppers for my AR lower…..How does that play out?
I have about 6 lowers and 12-15 uppers (different lengths, optics, calibers).