New ATF rules dropped today.

[Alleycat72]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

Can they even change laws? Wasn't that the debate last time? 

No, they "reinterpret" them.

Yes.

Until they get their pee-pee smacked in court, they'll continue to do this.

[Grayfox54]

Why is anybody surprised? ATF is nothing more than the legal arm of gun control. 

The real problem isn't the average field agent, its upper management. Many of which are brown nosers or political appointees. They have a clear agenda. To destroy the 2nd amendment. and disarm the American people. They "interpret" laws according to the political winds and personal gain. They aren't law enforcement, they're politicians of the worst sort. Lies, deception and propaganda are the tools of their trade. Nothing is going to change until we get a real pro-gun President with the balls to go in and clean house. I ain't holding my breath waiting for that to happen. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Grayfox54

[GooseGrim]

So if you actually go back and read the comments from the ATF, they double down several times that nothing prohibits private individuals from making firearms "for self defense and all legal purposes". The restrictions only extend to manufacturers. Print your stuff as much as you want, mill your 80s all day long. As long as you aren't doing it for pecuniary gain, and you are already legally able to possess a firearm, you can keep making them. It's also important to note that with the exception of NFA item (SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, Noise Reduction Devices, etc...) there is no inherent necessity to mark what you make either. I would still recommend doing so because it makes it easier to recover anything you lose in a theft, but at the end of the day if law abiding James T Gunowner of Backwater, TN wanted to make an AR from an 80% kit then he could certainly do so legally. Actually, if he got tired of that AR after a while and wanted to sell it to his cousin Bobby Jo Gunowner because he needed to make room for something new he could do that too. The problem pops up when James T Gunowner decides he wants to start selling his end product in order to make ends meet, without obtaining an FFL. Basically the new restrictions only target manufacturers. It's certainly still infringement in my mind because it attacks the industry that supports the 2nd Amendment, which is indirectly an attack on the 2nd Amendment. Anyway, just my two cents on the matter. I'm not an attorney nor a judge so my interpretation likely means jack diddly. But that's a whole different problem in itself because if the law (or "ruling" in this case) is written in a manner that the average citizen can't easily understand it, then it's a garbage law ("ruling") and there should be a legal defense against poorly written laws.

[gregintenn]

11 minutes ago, GooseGrim said:

So if you actually go back and read the comments from the ATF, they double down several times that nothing prohibits private individuals from making firearms "for self defense and all legal purposes". The restrictions only extend to manufacturers. Print your stuff as much as you want, mill your 80s all day long. As long as you aren't doing it for pecuniary gain, and you are already legally able to possess a firearm, you can keep making them. It's also important to note that with the exception of NFA item (SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, Noise Reduction Devices, etc...) there is no inherent necessity to mark what you make either. I would still recommend doing so because it makes it easier to recover anything you lose in a theft, but at the end of the day if law abiding James T Gunowner of Backwater, TN wanted to make an AR from an 80% kit then he could certainly do so legally. Actually, if he got tired of that AR after a while and wanted to sell it to his cousin Bobby Jo Gunowner because he needed to make room for something new he could do that too. The problem pops up when James T Gunowner decides he wants to start selling his end product in order to make ends meet, without obtaining an FFL. Basically the new restrictions only target manufacturers. It's certainly still infringement in my mind because it attacks the industry that supports the 2nd Amendment, which is indirectly an attack on the 2nd Amendment. Anyway, just my two cents on the matter. I'm not an attorney nor a judge so my interpretation likely means jack diddly. But that's a whole different problem in itself because if the law (or "ruling" in this case) is written in a manner that the average citizen can't easily understand it, then it's a garbage law ("ruling") and there should be a legal defense against poorly written laws.

The big problem as I see it is that no one wants to define what volume of sales constitutes a "business". It is stated clearly he can sell one. Can he sell 2? 5? 10?

[GooseGrim]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

The big problem as I see it is that no one wants to define what volume of sales constitutes a "business". It is stated clearly he can sell one. Can he sell 2? 5? 10?

I completely agree, vagueness is most certainly the largest problem. Without a clear definition of what counts as an occasional sale, we're left to guess. What about if I only sell one but I spend a lot of time, money, and resources making it the absolute pinnacle of performance and it ends up being worth way more than I paid for it as a result? Does that count as pecuniary gain or investment purposes? In order for an investment to be realized, a sale has to be made and it would be a poor investment if the investor didn't profit from it. So that's another potential contradiction I suppose.

[E4 No More]

On 4/13/2022 at 8:03 AM, Erik88 said:

So what happens next? I feel like this is the 4th or 5th time I've heard how the ATF is trying to pull some shenanigans and then nothing comes of it after they catch a bunch of grief about it. 

Can they even change laws? Wasn't that the debate last time? 

Unfortunately, organizations such as BATF and EPA can change regulations on a whim; not laws.

[Ronald_55]

So Gunbroker posted this

 

https://support.gunbroker.com/hc/en-us/articles/5512025769627

 

In the links it clearly says a 80% kit with a jig is to be treated as a firearm. 

 

 

It does go on to say

[A.J. Holst]

This is unverified so probably needs fact checked. 

I was speaking with an attorney friend of mine, he is not a firearms attorney. His research indicated that a ghost gun is any gun recovered without a serial number under visual inspection.

Since criminals will try to obliterate serial numbers on firearms, this may explain the 45,000 ghost guns that are haunting the president

[FUJIMO]

1 hour ago, A.J. Holst said:

This is unverified so probably needs fact checked. 

I was speaking with an attorney friend of mine, he is not a firearms attorney. His research indicated that a ghost gun is any gun recovered without a serial number under visual inspection.

Since criminals will try to obliterate serial numbers on firearms, this may explain the 45,000 ghost guns that are haunting the president

Grossly exaggerated numbers to support their authoritarian agenda ? Don't sound like the JOEiKNOW

[AmmoMan]

While I am not a supporter of gun control, after doing a Poly80 Glock, I understand the concern with them.  It took me around 10 minutes to make a functioning handgun.  No machine skills needed, no special tools, nothing.  Just drill a couple holes and cut off some plastic tabs with a knife .   It took more time to put in the trigger than to "manufacture" the frame! 

I've also milled out billet AR lowers, and they are a completely different beast!  With those, you are truly "manufacturing" your own firearm.

[Ronald_55]

1 hour ago, A.J. Holst said:

This is unverified so probably needs fact checked. 

I was speaking with an attorney friend of mine, he is not a firearms attorney. His research indicated that a ghost gun is any gun recovered without a serial number under visual inspection.

Since criminals will try to obliterate serial numbers on firearms, this may explain the 45,000 ghost guns that are haunting the president

Here are the links the Gunbroker referenced. The first is where I pulled the screenshots from. I attached the "Training Aid" pdf

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/training-aid-final-rule-2021r-05f-definition-frame-or-receiver-and/download

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/definition-frame-or-receiver

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/overview-final-rule-2021r-05f-definition-“frame-or-receiver”-and-identification/download

 

training_aid_for_final_rule_-_2021r-05f_definition_of_frame_or_receiver_identification_of_firearms.pdf

[Omega]

21 minutes ago, AmmoMan said:

While I am not a supporter of gun control, after doing a Poly80 Glock, I understand the concern with them.  It took me around 10 minutes to make a functioning handgun.  No machine skills needed, no special tools, nothing.  Just drill a couple holes and cut off some plastic tabs with a knife .   It took more time to put in the trigger than to "manufacture" the frame! 

I've also milled out billet AR lowers, and they are a completely different beast!  With those, you are truly "manufacturing" your own firearm.

And?  What is wrong with being able to manufacture your own weapon?  The concern is getting weapons out of the hands of gang bangers and others unauthorized to have them, and keeping criminals behind bars once they are caught breaking laws.  Those of us that follow the law and don't commit felonies should be allowed to not only own and make their own weapons, but carry them as well.

[AmmoMan]

10 minutes ago, Omega said:

And?  What is wrong with being able to manufacture your own weapon?  The concern is getting weapons out of the hands of gang bangers and others unauthorized to have them, and keeping criminals behind bars once they are caught breaking laws.  Those of us that follow the law and don't commit felonies should be allowed to not only own and make their own weapons, but carry them as well.

I totally get it!  If only law abiding citizens had firearms, "gun control" would never be a topic of discussion.  My only point was that I understand concerns about companies selling complete kits to anyone (including gang bangers) that can be assembled into a firearm in minutes by anyone.  For all intents and purposes, those kits are not much different than purchasing an actual firearm.

Don't get me wrong - I would love nothing more to be able to purchase/build/manufacture whatever I want whenever I want!  (especially when it comes to suppressors)

[AmmoMan]

58 minutes ago, Ronald_55 said:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/overview-final-rule-2021r-05f-definition-“frame-or-receiver”-and-identification/download

Wow, the wording of this change is insanity at best!  A blank AR receiver would be considered a firearm if it is "sold, distributed OR POSSESSED with instructions..."  So a piece of metal isn't considered a firearm, but adding a piece of paper to it makes it a firearm?  I am speechless... 

[Ronald_55]

6 hours ago, AmmoMan said:

Wow, the wording of this change is insanity at best!  A blank AR receiver would be considered a firearm if it is "sold, distributed OR POSSESSED with instructions..."  So a piece of metal isn't considered a firearm, but adding a piece of paper to it makes it a firearm?  I am speechless... 

Even worse than that I read some of it to mean if you have access to instructions (internet, Youtube) it is the same way. They would not even have to prove you accessed them, just that you COULD.

[Snaveba]

so if i have a rectangular chunk of billet aluminum, i have a gun, because i can find the instructions on how to machine it into a lower receiver on the internet.  

They need to stop smoking crack. 

[JayC]

On 4/12/2022 at 8:28 AM, deerslayer said:

I was also a bit skeptical of their numbers. 

They're counting homemade AND guns recovered where the serial number was removed.  The VAST majority are guns recovered where the serial number has been removed.