• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

ATF Rule 2021R-05F

JDUB

Default rank <4000 posts Supporter
Ain’t that a bitch… c’est la vie!
97   0
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
2,883
Location
Coweta Co, Ga
I’d like to start a discussion about this new overreach and make sure I am reading it the way a dummy like myself can understand.

I gather:

They will redefine what a firearm is to their liking

Make parts kits and partial components defined as “firearm”

Amends the definition of what a frame and receiver is and what constitutes a “complete muffler or silencer device”

Sounds to me like the rules of the game are about to change and thousands upon thousands of legal gun owners will end up criminals over night.

Please feel free to chime in and let’s discuss what this is going to mean in 3 months.

 
I follow Post Facto. So get everything you can before these illegitimate authoritarians try to dictate more. Sounds like they are going to classify every part as a firearm.

Want to buy an upper? Or swap a grip or bolt carrier? They'll be restricted to FFL sales only, background checks, transfer fees, ATF paperwork and record of sales.

They're building a database with all this bs.
 

What?

The Final Rule is something like 300 pages long as I'm viewing it in the federal register online. I'm not even going to read all of that unless I have a question that interests me personally or a paying client wants to consult me for legal advice.


I will say that the idea that more than just the lower receiver of an AR type weapon-- or the frame of a handgun-- should be considered a firearm frame or receiver and serial numbered, and subject to the restrictions on sales as a complete firearm would be regulated....

... the idea that ATF needs to change these definitions has been prompted by gun advocacy groups and gun manufacturers and gun parts manufactures pushing the limits, looking for loopholes and doing everything they can to circumvent the intent of Congress in passing the NFA of 1934 and the gun control act of 1968.


Remember, for the last 60 years we all thought we knew that a AR15 lower receiver was a firearm by itself. We accepted that.

But then some pro-gun attorney, probably funded by some gun rights group, successfully won in court arguing that since an AR's lower receiver does not house the barrel, or hold the firing pin, or bolt, that lower cannot be classified as a firearm frame or receiver.
They argued that it cannot be restricted under the current federal regulations. So that would mean that anybody * any criminal any crazy person* could buy an AR-15 lower anonymously without showing any ID and neither the company selling him the lower nor he as the buyer would be committing any crime until he assembled the gun to a functional upper.

Naturally, when a court rules that a certain federal law doesn't contain specific enough terminology to classify either the upper or lower parts of a guns receiver as being a firearm by itself, you have to expect the feds to step in and rewrite those definitions.
In this case ATF is doing it directly rather than having Congress pass a new statutory law. Which makes sense, because Congress never wrote a definition of "firearm frame or receiver" in the first place --they left that for ATF to work out the details on, knowing that agency has his finger on the pulse of the firearms industry in America and what is imported into the USA from the rest of the world.

BOTTOM LINE: If gun lovers or the gun industry itself want to do everything they can to exploit loopholes in the law in a way that will clearly defeat the intent and purposes of the law and make it worthless for the goals that motivated its passage, you have to expect either the federal agency involved, or Congress itself, to move to close that loophole.

When not many people were trying to do an end run around the law this way, and such incidents were few and far between, and not well publicized, ATF did not see it as a problem , and they did not think we needed any change in the rules. Now things are different.
 
Problem is its not a "loophole".... 99% of these are purposefully vague and written like that to come to a legislative compromise....yesterdays compromises are todays loopholes ...and thus continues the forward march of further removal of your rights and common sense gun knowledge
 
Problem is its not a "loophole".... 99% of these are purposefully vague and written like that to come to a legislative compromise....yesterdays compromises are todays loopholes ...and thus continues the forward march of further removal of your rights and common sense gun knowledge
Another way of looking at it is that while people conformed with the spirit and intent of the laws which were reasonably clear nobody got upset with the odd gray area.

Then a whole industry sprung up with the single intent of circumnavigating the spirit of the law by exploiting the "loopholes".
 
Another way of looking at it is that while people conformed with the spirit and intent of the laws which were reasonably clear nobody got upset with the odd gray area.

Then a whole industry sprung up with the single intent of circumnavigating the spirit of the law by exploiting the "loopholes".

That’s because of the laws getting stricter. The laws were changed to target specific people. Then they were changed so Uncle Sam could get his taxes. So the industry adapted; and it has continued to change.

So I wouldn’t say “single intent”. They make products that are within the letter of the law, how’s that circumventing? Then the ATF gets their panties in a wad and starts with the bs.
 
What?

The Final Rule is something like 300 pages long as I'm viewing it in the federal register online. I'm not even going to read all of that unless I have a question that interests me personally or a paying client wants to consult me for legal advice.


I will say that the idea that more than just the lower receiver of an AR type weapon-- or the frame of a handgun-- should be considered a firearm frame or receiver and serial numbered, and subject to the restrictions on sales as a complete firearm would be regulated....

... the idea that ATF needs to change these definitions has been prompted by gun advocacy groups and gun manufacturers and gun parts manufactures pushing the limits, looking for loopholes and doing everything they can to circumvent the intent of Congress in passing the NFA of 1934 and the gun control act of 1968.


Remember, for the last 60 years we all thought we knew that a AR15 lower receiver was a firearm by itself. We accepted that.

But then some pro-gun attorney, probably funded by some gun rights group, successfully won in court arguing that since an AR's lower receiver does not house the barrel, or hold the firing pin, or bolt, that lower cannot be classified as a firearm frame or receiver.
They argued that it cannot be restricted under the current federal regulations. So that would mean that anybody * any criminal any crazy person* could buy an AR-15 lower anonymously without showing any ID and neither the company selling him the lower nor he as the buyer would be committing any crime until he assembled the gun to a functional upper.

Naturally, when a court rules that a certain federal law doesn't contain specific enough terminology to classify either the upper or lower parts of a guns receiver as being a firearm by itself, you have to expect the feds to step in and rewrite those definitions.
In this case ATF is doing it directly rather than having Congress pass a new statutory law. Which makes sense, because Congress never wrote a definition of "firearm frame or receiver" in the first place --they left that for ATF to work out the details on, knowing that agency has his finger on the pulse of the firearms industry in America and what is imported into the USA from the rest of the world.

BOTTOM LINE: If gun lovers or the gun industry itself want to do everything they can to exploit loopholes in the law in a way that will clearly defeat the intent and purposes of the law and make it worthless for the goals that motivated its passage, you have to expect either the federal agency involved, or Congress itself, to move to close that loophole.

When not many people were trying to do an end run around the law this way, and such incidents were few and far between, and not well publicized, ATF did not see it as a problem , and they did not think we needed any change in the rules. Now things are different.

Thought you might already be well-read on this, so I included you. Thanks for the response.
 
Back
Top Bottom